Pressups get revelations by induction so they get information using their senses, by definition not perfect. Even if God insert the data directly to their minds somehow, it doesn't mean they don't have fallable human minds.
To summarize... Tom says I have no choice but to interact with the reality that I experience, regardless of whether that reality is actual reality or some meta reality. If Eli is going to suggest the reality we experience isn't actual reality the BOP would be on him to demonstrate that.
The claim that God ‘might have sufficient reasons’ is not a response to the argument from evil. It is merely a claim that such a response might exist. It is vacuous, as no one has ever claimed that the argument from evil is a deductive proof of God’s non-existence. This is a classic example of Philosophy scrambling someone’s capacity to reason.
No. There were (and still are some) proponents of the logical argument from evil. And now the probabilistic version is more popular - primarily because defending the logical argument from the sufficient reason objection is not easy.
@ The distinction between ‘logical’ and ‘probabilistic’ is simply a device used by apologists to avoid the force of the objection. It appeals to the ignorance of most religious philosophers. The fact that an argument is not deductive in no way makes it less ‘logical’. All arguments other than deductive ones are more or less probabilistic.
@@davethebrahman9870 the theist claims that the logical argument from evil, which aims to show a logical problem with the combination of omniscience and omnipotence. Theists have suggested that there is no logical incompatibility. So (some) proponents of the argument from evil now focus exclusively on a probabilistic version and then the discussion goes on. I don't know why you'd disparagingly call that a "device": it's just an objection that some people have accepted.
@@methodbanana2676 Yes I understand thar. I am saying that the distinction is misleading. We don’t divide questions of fact into ‘logical’ and ‘probabilistic’ determinants. The proper division is ‘deductive’ and ‘inductive’, and the argument from evil is an inductive argument. Nobody ever used the distinction in question until Theist philosophers needed to find a way to avoid reality. Unfortunately that is the chief function of Philosophy.
@@davethebrahman9870 some arguments are deductive, some are inductive. Inductive arguments can be more or less strongly inductive. A natural way of cashing out how strongly or weakly inductive an argument is is probabilistic terms. You're insisting the argument from evil is an inductive argument. Yes, there is an inductive - aka probabilistic - version. You seem to be suggesting there never was a deductive version and that theists pretend there was for some rhetorical purpose. But there were (and still are) atheists who defend the logical/deductive version. Of course there are apologists who try to throw up sand rather than respond to arguments on their merits. But the distinction between the logical/deductive and probabilistic/inductive versions of the argument isn't that.
because the guy was an idiot , he probably was one of the first PRINTS out of the '' people printer '' in the spaceship , we all like a good story , but these religious stories go FAR BEYOND simple imagination , it's a never ending nightmare , mental and physical slavery , nothing more it's a horrible practice for this millennium these people ALL live in a delusion , every single one of them , ... but as long as it make them '' happy '' / drugged out of their own damn minds BY their own minds
It's amazing how ridiculous this Christian sounds. He's just awful. His position is incoherent and/or contradictory. Christian apologetics is intellectually bankrupt, but presuppositionalism is just a bad joke.
So i understood Tom's argument right off of the bat with the i think therefore I am section, what i don't get is if you are trying to argue against it how all of a sudden a smart person doesn't seem to understand the argument and concept being put on Tom's side of the argument (even if you disagree the ideas being argued for aren't that complicated)
And NO!!!!! evidence for a ‘God’ AGAIN!!!!! 🤔 It’s easy to do your own style of comment on here. Unfortunately there is a jerk on here who copies the style of comments nearly word for word. TROLLING!!!!! Not thinking one up himself. When pulled about it says that he’s going to do it more just to annoy me, the thing a child would do. This is how pathetic he is.
This guy interrupts TJump evry time. TJump summarizes the guys argument and is about to make a point but then this guy cuts him off every time before TJump can make his point.
That's part of presuppositionalism; to shut the mouth of the unbeliever. You never let them put you on the defensive. That's why it's a disingenuous approach to discourse.
nobody is "for" abortion, the reason people have abortions is either medical, the mother's life is in danger, or the pregnancy is unplanned, have you ever gone into hospital for surgery for fun? cos the "pro life" folks like to make out that it's a matter of inconvenience when life - as they should know - is a complex set of affairs. and christians are hypocrites, google "how many pastors have paid for abortions" so screw god's "morals" - didn't he kill all the first born of egypt?
@@TheUnibrade he's described how his morality manages this scenario. If the woman does not consent to use her body, it would be immoral to force her to. Even if it means the death of another, no one can force you to use your body to keep someone alive.
God showed some infinite modesty and dictated to bible writers: write powerful.... no... lets make it infinite powerful! Sounds scary? No? Next page - append hell...
The " I " is whatever is having experience and hes simply using language/ words to communicate that , if your world view does NOT acknowledge that then wher do you start ? 🤔
@Steve0272. we start with the absolute knowledge of God Almighty creator of heaven and earth. Whatever is having an experience is not qualified to receive justified knowledge. It's an empty void grasping for power! A black hole! Does a black hole gain knowledge by swallowing things? All absolute truths are from God. Start there.
JTB, in order for Tom's epistemology to provide knowledge it must be based on something true. The idea of him experiencing something is completely ambiguous with no truth in it. He may or may not be experiencing anything or he may be imagining everything. There's no way to know! His belief must be supported by good evidence and reasoning. He has neither. From his reasoning, only materials exists and conscious beings experiencing things is an illusion along with free will. He must believe in his reasoning but he immediately contradicts all reasoning and belief by confessing only matter exists. Nothing in his foundation of epistemology is real by his own naturalism and materialist position.
@racuncai square circles are free! There's nothing to debate! Tom believes the mind is physical and, therefore, exists. Tom is also a determinist and, therefore, the physical is omnipotent! Put those two beliefs together, and you believe in Almighty God!
@@constructivecritique5191 Then you are writing 20 comments to someone that doesn't exist, and it's not worth commenting. Makes sense, i recommend a psychologist.
I think therefore I am? Wrong! I'm walking. Therefore, walking exists! Thinking exists. Yes! But you can't account for anything because you can't account for yourself. All we hear and see is echos and reflection of what was and is no more. Hahaha 😆 🤣 Meaningless gibberish is Tom's foundation.
"it gives them a burden of proof that they don't want" ..... but your view HAS adopted a burden of proof so go ahead and prove god as a starting point before you even start with the grounds for intelligibility philosophical bs
@Steve0272. 1) Jesus removed the idea of death. Even science confirms nothing is truly ever destroyed. It is still all here, just transforming. 2) Yes, God created everything from nothing, just as science has confirmed. Even the great flood. Judgment is coming! Be ready to understand!
@jasonpeek8244 Yes, that's right! Tom's silly strawman of "god" has led him to madness! He believes all existence is "natural physical matterial" and that materialism is the best explanation of everything! Ger it? Those are omni properties he is proclaiming. He also believes the mind, person, and will is all physical! Case closed! Hahaha, lol 😆 🤣 😂 He simply swapped out the word God and applied the word nature. Then he forgets that he believes the mind is physical and one thing!
@bradgentle354 materials don't need to try harder! But you do because you're in conflict with reality. Your mind is physical material! Don't you get it?
@racuncai you've made 12 replies and 0 rebuttals! Not even a hint of a clue that Tom exists! That's awesome! Hahaha lol 😆 🤣 😂 Atheism is a bluescreen error!
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.922 | 10 พ.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zmV5HRIxIBI/mqdefault.jpg)
![[안방1열 직캠4K] 베이비몬스터 치키타 'DRIP' (BABYMONSTER CHIQUITA FanCam) @SBS Inkigayo 241110](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tnlxo79cAqY/mqdefault.jpg)
Presuppers demanding justification for ontological claims is fucking rich. The irony is remarkable
in order to know that it's actually god giving you revelation, you need revelation.
presup falls flat in the first sentence.
Pressups get revelations by induction so they get information using their senses, by definition not perfect.
Even if God insert the data directly to their minds somehow, it doesn't mean they don't have fallable human minds.
In order to know what gravity is, you need to experience gravity. Direct knowledge is preferred over abstract theories.
Boiled down to “ God works in mysterious ways!”
He tried to shuck and jive Tom but Tom annihilated him.
Justifying genocides is showing the extent of the impact of religious indoctrination
Good point
TJump - respect! Intelligent, calm, on point and always in control!
To summarize... Tom says I have no choice but to interact with the reality that I experience, regardless of whether that reality is actual reality or some meta reality. If Eli is going to suggest the reality we experience isn't actual reality the BOP would be on him to demonstrate that.
He is teaching kids… 🤯
TJump already told this dude at the begining that Psychopaths don't feel this way and this dude kept saying he doesn't feel that way
Eli had to go but always had a bit more time to give himself the last word.
religists are needy and insecure by definition.
😂
The claim that God ‘might have sufficient reasons’ is not a response to the argument from evil. It is merely a claim that such a response might exist. It is vacuous, as no one has ever claimed that the argument from evil is a deductive proof of God’s non-existence. This is a classic example of Philosophy scrambling someone’s capacity to reason.
No. There were (and still are some) proponents of the logical argument from evil. And now the probabilistic version is more popular - primarily because defending the logical argument from the sufficient reason objection is not easy.
@ The distinction between ‘logical’ and ‘probabilistic’ is simply a device used by apologists to avoid the force of the objection. It appeals to the ignorance of most religious philosophers. The fact that an argument is not deductive in no way makes it less ‘logical’. All arguments other than deductive ones are more or less probabilistic.
@@davethebrahman9870 the theist claims that the logical argument from evil, which aims to show a logical problem with the combination of omniscience and omnipotence. Theists have suggested that there is no logical incompatibility. So (some) proponents of the argument from evil now focus exclusively on a probabilistic version and then the discussion goes on. I don't know why you'd disparagingly call that a "device": it's just an objection that some people have accepted.
@@methodbanana2676 Yes I understand thar. I am saying that the distinction is misleading. We don’t divide questions of fact into ‘logical’ and ‘probabilistic’ determinants. The proper division is ‘deductive’ and ‘inductive’, and the argument from evil is an inductive argument. Nobody ever used the distinction in question until Theist philosophers needed to find a way to avoid reality. Unfortunately that is the chief function of Philosophy.
@@davethebrahman9870 some arguments are deductive, some are inductive. Inductive arguments can be more or less strongly inductive. A natural way of cashing out how strongly or weakly inductive an argument is is probabilistic terms. You're insisting the argument from evil is an inductive argument. Yes, there is an inductive - aka probabilistic - version. You seem to be suggesting there never was a deductive version and that theists pretend there was for some rhetorical purpose. But there were (and still are) atheists who defend the logical/deductive version. Of course there are apologists who try to throw up sand rather than respond to arguments on their merits. But the distinction between the logical/deductive and probabilistic/inductive versions of the argument isn't that.
How come we’re not all just created like Jesus?
because the guy was an idiot , he probably was one of the first PRINTS out of the '' people printer '' in the spaceship ,
we all like a good story , but these religious stories go FAR BEYOND simple imagination , it's a never ending nightmare , mental and physical slavery , nothing more
it's a horrible practice for this millennium
these people ALL live in a delusion , every single one of them , ... but as long as it make them '' happy '' / drugged out of their own damn minds BY their own minds
It's amazing how ridiculous this Christian sounds. He's just awful. His position is incoherent and/or contradictory. Christian apologetics is intellectually bankrupt, but presuppositionalism is just a bad joke.
And STILL!!!!! No evidence for a ‘God’ 🤔
So i understood Tom's argument right off of the bat with the i think therefore I am section, what i don't get is if you are trying to argue against it how all of a sudden a smart person doesn't seem to understand the argument and concept being put on Tom's side of the argument (even if you disagree the ideas being argued for aren't that complicated)
And STILL!!!!! No evidence for a good and caring ‘God’ 😂
Hello TROLL!!!!! Still copying my style of comment. SADDO!!!!! 😂🤣😂🤣😂
And NO!!!!! evidence for a ‘God’ AGAIN!!!!! 🤔 It’s easy to do your own style of comment on here. Unfortunately there is a jerk on here who copies the style of comments nearly word for word. TROLLING!!!!! Not thinking one up himself. When pulled about it says that he’s going to do it more just to annoy me, the thing a child would do. This is how pathetic he is.
This guy interrupts TJump evry time.
TJump summarizes the guys argument and is about to make a point but then this guy cuts him off every time before TJump can make his point.
That's part of presuppositionalism; to shut the mouth of the unbeliever. You never let them put you on the defensive. That's why it's a disingenuous approach to discourse.
Guess tjump is against abortion. That’s good.
nobody is "for" abortion, the reason people have abortions is either medical, the mother's life is in danger, or the pregnancy is unplanned, have you ever gone into hospital for surgery for fun? cos the "pro life" folks like to make out that it's a matter of inconvenience when life - as they should know - is a complex set of affairs.
and christians are hypocrites, google "how many pastors have paid for abortions" so screw god's "morals" - didn't he kill all the first born of egypt?
Please go to a science book and look up the difference between a baby and a fetus.
@@itomba…a human fetus develops into a human baby so they are one in the same. Your point is?
@ Is an egg a chicken? Can a fetus live outside the womb? Would it be okay if the women had the fetus removed for you to raise?
@@TheUnibrade he's described how his morality manages this scenario. If the woman does not consent to use her body, it would be immoral to force her to. Even if it means the death of another, no one can force you to use your body to keep someone alive.
God showed some infinite modesty and dictated to bible writers: write powerful.... no... lets make it infinite powerful! Sounds scary? No? Next page - append hell...
So, Tom knows stuff by not knowing what the "I"is in,
"I think Therefore, I am?"
✅️ okay Tom 👍
The " I " is whatever is having experience and hes simply using language/ words to communicate that , if your world view does NOT acknowledge that then wher do you start ? 🤔
@Steve0272. we start with the absolute knowledge of God Almighty creator of heaven and earth. Whatever is having an experience is not qualified to receive justified knowledge.
It's an empty void grasping for power! A black hole! Does a black hole gain knowledge by swallowing things?
All absolute truths are from God. Start there.
Knowing what the i in i think therefore I am is difficult stuff. Literal brain science.
@uninspired3583 yes, brain science, especially if it's just a material thingy!
Hahaha lol 😆 🤣 😂
If you think Tom is wrong debate him instead of writing 50 comments for every point he says, Tom has the weirdest fanboys.
Christian private school.
JTB, in order for Tom's epistemology to provide knowledge it must be based on something true. The idea of him experiencing something is completely ambiguous with no truth in it. He may or may not be experiencing anything or he may be imagining everything. There's no way to know! His belief must be supported by good evidence and reasoning. He has neither. From his reasoning, only materials exists and conscious beings experiencing things is an illusion along with free will. He must believe in his reasoning but he immediately contradicts all reasoning and belief by confessing only matter exists. Nothing in his foundation of epistemology is real by his own naturalism and materialist position.
Debate tjump it's just 50 bucks
@racuncai why pay for things that don't exist?
@@constructivecritique5191 Tjumps debates don't exist? i don't understand
@@racuncai Tjump doesn't exist and debating doesn't exist according to his atheism!
Tom's starting point is something other people do. No thinking is involved. His epistemology is based on him talking.
Hey debate Tjump it's just 50 bucks.
@racuncai square circles are free! There's nothing to debate! Tom believes the mind is physical and, therefore, exists. Tom is also a determinist and, therefore, the physical is omnipotent! Put those two beliefs together, and you believe in Almighty God!
@@constructivecritique5191 Instead of writing 20 comments on every tjump video debate him, let me see how wrong he is.
@@racuncai Tjump doesn't exist and if he did it proves he is not worth debating.
@@constructivecritique5191 Then you are writing 20 comments to someone that doesn't exist, and it's not worth commenting.
Makes sense, i recommend a psychologist.
I think therefore I am?
Wrong! I'm walking. Therefore, walking exists!
Thinking exists. Yes! But you can't account for anything because you can't account for yourself. All we hear and see is echos and reflection of what was and is no more.
Hahaha 😆 🤣
Meaningless gibberish is Tom's foundation.
You think therefore you are. Try thinking harder
“All we hear and see is echos and reflections of what was and is no more.” So what?
@uninspired3583 wrong! Thinking exists! That's all. Anything else is speculation.
@@constructivecritique5191 bold of you to describe what you do as "thinking"
@Nelsonstephenson7654 so, you're using echos and reflections of things that don't exist anymore to support your knowledge claims. It's trivial a best!
"it gives them a burden of proof that they don't want" ..... but your view HAS adopted a burden of proof so go ahead and prove god as a starting point before you even start with the grounds for intelligibility philosophical bs
God doesn't kill babies, he delivers them to heaven.
1, is it neccesery for the babies to be dead before going to heaven ?
2 , did god manifest/ create the alleged flood ?
@Steve0272.
1) Jesus removed the idea of death. Even science confirms nothing is truly ever destroyed. It is still all here, just transforming.
2) Yes, God created everything from nothing, just as science has confirmed. Even the great flood. Judgment is coming! Be ready to understand!
Debate tjump it's just 50 bucks
In conclusion, Tom believes in God and worships him. He just has a childish different name for him. Poor thing! He is so dellusional!
wut?
Very dumb statement. Try harder to understand.
TJump knows god is silly and fiction especially the god of the Bible, absolute nonsense god
@jasonpeek8244 Yes, that's right! Tom's silly strawman of "god" has led him to madness!
He believes all existence is "natural physical matterial" and that materialism is the best explanation of everything!
Ger it? Those are omni properties he is proclaiming. He also believes the mind, person, and will is all physical! Case closed!
Hahaha, lol 😆 🤣 😂
He simply swapped out the word God and applied the word nature. Then he forgets that he believes the mind is physical and one thing!
@bradgentle354 materials don't need to try harder! But you do because you're in conflict with reality. Your mind is physical material! Don't you get it?
@racuncai you've made 12 replies and 0 rebuttals! Not even a hint of a clue that Tom exists! That's awesome!
Hahaha lol 😆 🤣 😂
Atheism is a bluescreen error!