@@PraiseIAmThatIAm I don't think you know what solipsism is. The problem of hard solipsism is what YOU use when you assert that we can't know anything or trust any of our knowledge, and then you use the special pleading fallacy to assume God as the basis for reason a priori and argue that somehow he is the one type of knowledge we can trust. This is just incoherent, and what's even worse is that you refuse to acknowledge that the cosmic god creator fart blob outside of the outside of space and time is necessary to accept God as the basis for knowledge, and whatever method you have used to determine God's existence depends entirely on the great blob, without which you cannot trust any of your conclusions about god.
@@PraiseIAmThatIAm solipsism doesn't require anything. Neither does the rule following paradox. Things that are don't require anything. You are imposing nomrativity onto things and then getting upset when people don't agree with you. But the conclusion of these problems is that you can't have conclusions about them. And then you are coming in claiming you have solutions. You are just hiding a God of the gap behind a philosophical problem. And the problem is that everyone intuitively sees right passed that and finds it very uninteresting. Uninteresting in the same way that somone tries to solve philosophical problems with tautologies
@@PraiseIAmThatIAm the solution of those problems require that you can justify the laws of logic in the first place. You don't know if logic works differently in a different reality. The problem of solipsism. You don't know if the laws of logic can work differently in this reality. The rule flowing paradox. You can't justify meaning. To appeal to intelligibility is just to appeal to the conclusion of these problems. And if you can't justify logic you can't use logic to justify logic. It doesn't matter what logical problem you appeal to. Reduction ad absurdim or whatever. For all you know there is an uncountable infinite number of possibilities that you can never grasp here. At most you are just stating a brute fact. In which case you could just state meaning and a shared reality is a brute fact without a God. You can't justify there needs to be a reason without justifying reason first
@@BadgerGirl777 Personally, I tune out, as in stop watching. There used to be a trend of taking repeat pointless/obnoxious callers, on their prior platform, and I actually unsubscibed, it became so irritating. Maybe some people find nails on a chalkboard "entertaining" as well, lol. It also wastes the time that a productive call could be hosted, and that's a shame considering the excellence of the hosts. And, while other positions seem to produce meaningful deconstruction, a presup call really doesn't, which is why they often get banned across multiple similar shows. The "because I say so" argument is very aptly compared to the analogy of the chess playing pigeon, that knocks over the pieces, craps on the board, and declares victory. Maybe it's funny/sad once? But for dedicated listeners, no thanks. I suggested maybe dedicating a series of shows on the various "main arguments" that have been long proven ineffective. Ontological, cosmological, look at the trees/ignorance, presup, etc. Perhaps schedule calls from defenders of such positions, like this caller for a dedicated presup show. I've always thought it would be handy to be able to point people to such a database of sorts, given that no new arguments are ever made anyway.
exactly if they cant control , dominate , mute a conversation it quickly unravels . the next thing they do is insult and when its all said and done that is all they really have are insults
Always remember that the great Greg Bahnsen himself said that presup isn't to convince the atheist it's to "shut their mouths". It is, at its roots, an exercise in applied sophistry. At best it's "Here's a bunch of weirdly phrased epistemological problems. Solve them now while I shout over you and insist that only my God can".
The proper name for that individual is Derp Dawk, because "Darth Dawkins" carries implications of being a threat (Darth) and being intelligent (Dawkins). Since neither is factually correct, Derp Dawk is more appropriate.
Robin: "My argument for God is this: There needs to be a being--" Aaaand he already lost me. Six words in and he's already made a positive claim that he needs to justify.
Step 1:"Define" God as existing and magical. Refuse to demonstrate anything as "I'm just providing a definition! You can't argue with a definition!" [note: caller is defined as a Plonker] Step 2:Point to definition as proof of itself. Step 3:Crash and Burn Step 4:Declare victory.
100% with Vi on this one. Robin is painful to listen to because the conversations don't go anywhere. It's a circular mess of nonsense and there hasn't been a breakthrough in HOURS of discussion with him. Please for the love of all that isn't holy, stop letting him on the show.
I'm glad to see him be a little better about this, but i think he still enjoys the process too much and gives these people way more air than they should have.
While JRobin is pretty much wrong about just about everything, in this video, Vi is the one that derailed the conversation. JRobin called in with a very narrow and specific claim (namely, that one can not be neutral on the existence of god). He is wrong about that, but Vi never even let him properly formulate his argument, and definitely failed to offer a refutation. Vi just constantly brought up unrelated points and directed the conversation to the question of god's existence, then complains that is where the conversation ended up.
@@BlueEyesDYshe did this for a very specific reason and she stated it. He is reading from a script and as his mentor darth Dawkins is he is scared to go off it. That’s why she did it. She wanted him to be honest and speak for himself not from a script.
Robin appears to be trying to define god in such a way that nobody can deny its existence. So, god is gravity? Anyway, hope he gets laid soon so he can focus on something more fun and meaningful, but his amateur philosophy is a big turnoff.
So Robin is defining God as the thing that all things derive from. In other words, for anything to exist, God has to exist. Now, by definition, it is impossible to be neutral about God's existence unless you can be neutral about your own existence. BTW this also strawmanning the agnostic, because their position does not include this definition for God. JRobin's definition for God restricts people to only their beliefs from WITHIN JRobin's Christian worldview (AKA defend "I don't know" in a world where God exists).
You should hear him on the topic of the problem of evil.where he switches between different definition of "good" all the time. 😆 First he says everything god permits is good. Everything that occurs is good. But he refuses to say "the holocaust is good." cause apparently when the atheist asks him that hes dishonest and using a different definition of good. Despite the atheist clearly stating that he means that definition 😆 A hilarious pretzel of bullshit.
If you didn't know JRobin is part of DD's legion of yes men echo chamber. Darth is banned from these shows because of his openly bigoted speech, so Darth gets his minions to call for him. There are other small TH-cam channels that record them planning and talking about calling in on their discord. And will even post their reactions. They don't care about hiding their dishonesty, even saying recording them is an attack on them. Afew think Darth and JRobin and crew are really a Poe faking calling to make Christian's look bad and give videos for these shows.
Word for word, JRobin AKA JDoger for how often he doesn't answer questions, has been using the same pile of gibberish for at least 5 years. He literally hasn't changed his argument in years, because he doesn't even understand his own argument. JDoger is just saying words that he doesn't actually understand.
@@13shadowwolf It's the standard presupper spiel. Make a bald claim about some epistemological problem, asserting that their version of Ultimate Reality and _only_ theirs can adequately underpin, explain and/or justify the foundations of knowledge (and often using the terms "atheist" and "non-Christian" interchangeably), and instead of defending any of their claims (spoiler alert: their worldview isn't superior to anyone else's in this regard, they are working with all the same common assumptions as everyone else, they just add more assumptions about reality on top, which are just as vulnerable to exactly the same charges as those of which they accuse their critics), attempt to tie their interlocutors up in knots by continually asking "how do you know that?" "how do you know that?" until they give up in exhaustion. It's pure sophistry and it is literally an attempt to gaslight their critics. Like in the film "WarGames", the only way to win is not to play. At least, not to play along to their script, but ideally, to send the lot of them to Coventry and not play with them at all. They're not arguing an intellectually honest position in good faith. They have latched onto an argument not because it is sound or convincing or even that their propositions are even remotely defensible if the spotlight were turned harshly upon themselves, but because they think it's clever and because they think they can use it to trick or trap unwary critics. Even other believers shun them for the charlatans they are.
Credit to you both for engaging with the caller again. His passive agressive game of logical-entrapment-gotcha is really an elaboatre ruse to avoid ever answering his claims that God actually exists in a way beyond philosophical masturbation. So far all he has demonstrated is that he thinks very highly of his approach and is dissmisive and contemptuous of those who refuse to join his circle jerk.
Wow, thank you! You just distilled it down and clarified my feeling about these presups .Philosophical Masturbation or a Philosophical Circle Jerk captures it brilliantly.
Once again Robin turns up to play Pigeon Chess. I suggest a ban be a ban. Like all other presups I’ve encountered, he’s a performative troll who scolds & lectures & asserts & declares for the benefit of an audience of presups. An absolute oxygen thief.
Even as a believer the presup argument loses me quickly: Presup: God exists, it is the reason, cause, and continued support for all things that exist Me: Ok, so how do I make certain that is correct beyond your assertion? Presup: You have to accept it is true before we can go any further Me:...
Eric needs to appreciate that not every caller earns an honest discussion. Viewers like us tune out when a caller like this is allowed to listen to themselves talk.
I appreciate Eric, he's a swell guy and granting disagreeable people a conversation only shows how much of a fair and diplomatic player he is. That being said, I think he's a bit too rose-colored to think he's going to have an honest discourse with someone like Robin or any of Darth Dawkin's other puppets...
You're both forgetting that they're talking to JRobin for the benefit of the audience as well, and there may be at least one person listening who's on the fence where this conversation helps them land on the non-presupp side of that fence after hearing this.
@@ThEjOkErIsWiLd00 this! I get a lot out of those conversations. I wouldn't like listening to Robin all the time, but once in a while I feel like i get something out of it.
It is not clear why I should care about the details of how someone defines their god(s). If I define god as the thing that necessarily exists and plays goalie for Manchester United Football/Soccer, then would anyone believe that the goalie is god? No? Even tho I defined it as necessary? Oh, then i will define it as metaphysically necessary. Now do you believe the goalie created everything?
Because there may be someone listening who's on the fence about all this presup nonsense and this conversation may help them land on the non-presup side.
Wow! I miss the dislikes count. He's talking over the hosts with the same bullshit he always spews. Nothing new here, except that he's more assertive and confident in his nonsense.
Exactly. It’s also rather coincidental that the times were he talks over people the most, is when the host is highlighting the obvious flaws in his argument, or when they’re asking a key question he knows he can’t answer.
The cookie cutter response will be "You're making a joke out of this and therefore you're a troll" if its Darth he'll then mute and boot you. Jrobin will fiddle around a bit more before he either leaves or if he has mod powers mute and boot.
Interesting that Christians now minimize gods attributes: that which is ultimate and a mind. The less they have to defend, the easier for them. But it’s so dishonest. That’s not what they believe at all. Jrobin believes all the stories in the 2000 year old book of talking animals. Let’s start with their source material. That is just full of nonsense.
They do this on purpose because Christianity has a lot more baggage. The presup end-run around that is to go Deist and burden-shift so atheists have to defend their disbelief in a transcendental God concept. That way they avoid having to defend Christianity.
The idea that humans are made in the image of god would (by Robin's definition of god) mean that humans are also disembodied minds. Kinda kills his claim right there.
Every presup debate, every single one, when their opponent brings up biblical atrocities (for example), the presup all of a sudden shifts his grounding to something more deistic, usually adding as a crutch, "I'm not hear to defend Christianity, just to show the atheist world view is absurd."
We would need him to provide his definition of a "mind"... However, everything that is defined as the mind is tied to the body in ways that we can manipulate it through physical means. This is more than enough for "the mind cannot exist without the body" to be the null hypothesis. Now, he must provide his proof that a mind can and does exist not only without a physical body but also outside of any and all possible time and space presentations.
My first instinct would have been to reject his initial definition of God: How did he come to the conclusion that his definition is correct? How did he determine that God really do have these characteristics? The Flower in his example we can observe and test. Not with God.
JRobin already conceeded that it is just a definition, just like the definition of Iron-Man. It's just a concept, an idea. *Then he want's us to disprove that idea, and if we can't, the subjects of that idea are automatically part of reality. No demonstration needed. It's like magic, but without the magic. Because magic is what atheists do.
"...I think you're making a joke out of a serious argument " Robin your serious argument is a joke. And vii demonstrated that sufficiently by using your argument. Sad that you can't see it.
Vi was right there. By forcing Eric to revise his position on brainless minds, Robin proved that being neutral towards his definition of god is not only possible, but the only position one can take if one does not accept it. Also, you can’t be neutral towards your own existence, but neither can you deny it. It’s a proposition that you can only accept, therefore, it’s in a different category than his god definition
You are incorrect on being unable to be neutral towards your own existence. I have no way to know or test if I'm just part of a simulation and just the result of code. "I think therefore I am" doesn't apply to AI
@@synnical77 I agree that I could be neutral about the nature of my existence. Am I a human, an AI that thinks it’s a human, or something else, I can’t say for absolute certain. But whatever my nature, I AM thinking. Therefore I am. So long as that’s true, I cannot be neutral about it.
@@synnical77 Not sure I said I was in control of, or generated my thoughts, just that I am aware of them. Therefore the thing that is aware - that I label “I” - exists. Look at it this way: AI’s, that are not self-aware, currently exist. I have one on my phone and another in my car. They are extant things. Would they become non-extant if you add self-awareness to them? Obviously, they wouldn’t.
@@jennosyde6903 I suppose we're not agreeing on what "existence" means. If, in the future, I play a computer game like The Sims where all the inhabitants are self aware AI I would easily say that they don't exist. Much the same way that a ogre in world of warcraft doesn't exist. Even if that ogre was given the AI to make it's own decisions and had freedom to interact in it's world it still would categorically not exist. It's code. Running it's life in the only ways it knows how. From the ogre's perspective it most definitely exists. How could it not. It thinks therefore it is...Until you turn off the power supply. It doesn't actually take up any space and inhabits access space in a computer's RAM. So, AI's are a thing but I can't bring myself to say that they "exist". They're the end product of a bunch of code and computers that give the veneer of being intelligent or an actual thing.
Frankly, I agree with Vi. I can only imagine how painful it is to sit through the full call. I used the skip ahead feature continuously and it still set my teeth on edge. Last time I listen to a clip with this dingus.
I think at one point Vi misspoke and the conversation moved on before they could finish the line of reasoning. Vi said "you are defining things by their properties" when what I think is meant is pretty much the opposite. He is constructing those properties around a definition. When we define a spider as a creature with 8 legs that is because it is a property of spiders to have 8 legs, what Robin is doing is arguing that the spider has 8 legs because we define it that way. His logic is just backwards. You don't get to just attribute properties and definitions to something and then say "therefore necessary", you have to break down each of those properties and prove that the thing you are defining has those properties. So you can't just say it is a property of God to be Primary or ultimate, you have to prove that to be the case otherwise it's all pointless. At best his argument gets you to "If we accept your definition of God, and that God exists, then that God exists". That is a nonsensical, circular pile of bollocks. Prove the properties or get the fuck outta here.
I like the part where he said he didn't have to prove a god to prove that everything is contingent on a god. My brother in christ, thats exactly what you have to do, because things can't be contingent on a thing that doesn't exist. So first, start by proving a god exists, and then we can move to whether anything is contingent on it.
May I suggest that in conversations like this, one of the co-hosts takes the lead while the other only interjects when they feel it really necessary or if the other co-host is struggling. Striving for equality of air time (between the co-hosts) is all well and good but if one is ahead of the other in terms of having a strategy to deal with a caller (especially this type of caller) they should be allowed to follow it through rather than be held back or even diverted onto a different tack. Perhaps a little secret signal to say 'Leave this one to me' could be arranged?
It obvious what Robin is trying to do here: he is trying to counter the recent Athiest move towards "lacktheism" by insisting that one cannot withold belief, or cannot remain neutral. In other words, one either believes god exists or one believes god does not exist, one cannot lack belief. He is trying to force the athiest to take on the burden of proof that way he can box one into the impossible position of proving god does not exist. He has attempted this multiple times.
This was one of the better calls for sure where conversation was actually had. We can't just jump to the end of a conversation. Rightly, you guys don't let people go off what they said to other hosts or build off previous conversations. These topics can be complex and we need to go through these steps. Great job Eric!! Thanks for showing everyone what it means to have a real conversation and be willing to make revisions. I thoroughly enjoy your calm and collected style 😎
His whole call is just an underhanded attempt to try to get you to say yes it is reasonable for a Christian to expect you to prove God false or you are at least as unreasonable as they are.
Here's the problem... JRobin wants to play this game at looking at the entailments of a thing, hypothetically. That's fine, but all of the entailments are also hypothetical, until you show that the thing is actual. So when we look at the entailments of JRobin's hypothetical ultimate bacon cheeseburger, those entailments DO NOT APPLY in this world, unless you can demonstrate the actuality of the ultimate bacon cheeseburger, in this world. So, yes, in a world where there is an ultimate bacon cheeseburger, then it would follow that I can't be neutral about it. Now demonstrate that I'm in a world where there is an ultimate bacon cheeseburger, or STFU.
You know, I dream about the ultimate bacon cheeseburger, but as much as I want it to exist, my desires don’t reify the object of my dreams. Sadly. Because bacon.
@@diogeneslamp8004 but there can be only one ultimate bacon cheeseburger. And what if someone else gets the ultimate bacon cheeseburger? Or is self-replication or an unlimited size a property of the ultimate bacon cheeseburger?
While it might seem to be prudent not to engage with presups, there is value in understanding their mindset because they offer us willing examples of the most ardent and shameless in demonstrating the frailties of human cognition. Their tells are remarkable. They start off with false modesty and maybe even some contrition, but are impatient to engage in the strategy to force listeners to defend a worldview via standards that are not theirs. When rebuked, their brains flood with neurotransmitters in post-synaptic modulation. This blanket stimulation enhances grief, seeking, rage and fear. Imagine a brain that is hyper excited by this activity and we can begin to understand why presups quickly escalate behaviors like stammering, over talking, tonal and speech pace when critiqued or their interlocutors do not follow their predictive script. I say let them talk. You can't pay better case studies.
A claim isn't an argument. It's a claim. An argument is a thing that might or might not validate a claim. A secondary claim is not an argument either. It's a secondary claim.
30:34 Don’t be so humble. If JRobin can claim that the opinions of billions validate his definition of God, then billions can also attest that they have no experience of a mind existing outside of a living human body with a relatively healthy brain.
"You're trivializing and making a joke out of a serious argument!" Translation: Robin is getting his metaphorical ass kicked. Agree with his definition of a god only HE is sure exists or let the whining begin.
13:00 to 18:55 is the substance of the call and what to focus on if you want to understand not only presuppositionalism, but atheism as well: 15:40 - Robin: "to be metaphysically arbitrary is to think that there is no metaphysical framework for things like 'truth' or 'intelligibility'...which is suicidal philosophically." 16:20 - Eric: "I operate under the correspondence theory of truth..." 16:52 - Robin: "right, a metaphysical frame of reference, that is what you are talking about..." 17:08 to Robin describes his "metaphysical framework," which is "one of many a person can have," as well as what he calls a "non-framework" culminating in 18:25 - Robin: "bottom line, everyone has to have a metaphysical framework if they are operating meaningfully in the world." 18:28 - Vi: "so what makes yours right?" Vi acknowledges that Robin is "right," about everyone needing a metaphysical framework, but from there, the conversation degenerates to confusion between all parties. The essence of theism is the metaphysical assertion that humans are to achieve what they value via a relationship with something non-human. This is unsettling to we atheists, but it means that Robin is right - Eric, for example, operates under the "correspondence theory of truth," which is a metaphysical framework on par with theism. The reason it is on par with theism is because it posits that "truth" is the relationship between humans and something non-human, i.e "reality." But there is no mechanism by which this relationship occurs; there is no definition of this "correspondence;" at any given time, we don't actually know when or if we "correspond" to reality, we just claim that we do because it is convenient and declare this convenience "necessary" for "truth." In this sense, Eric is not only a presuppositionalist, but a "theist" as well. The only "atheist" response to Robin is to say he is right! But not in the way he wants to be.... As Robin pointed out, an alternative is to claim there is no "metaphysical framework." And yes, this is philosophical suicide in the sense that it is the death of traditional western metaphysics, which, as demonstrated above, is the source of theism itself. You can't have "truth" as traditionally defined, or "operate meaningfully in the world" according to Robin, without also having a "theism" of sorts. The self realized atheist must accept that when god goes, he takes "truth" with him. There is no "correspondence" between humans and non-humans. There is no "foundation" to knowledge; there is no "framework" within which we operate; there is no "certainty" of anything, including the self. This is what Nietzsche was warning, what Heidegger and Sartre tried to help with, what James and Wittgenstein elaborated, and what Rorty finally codified as "neo-pragmatism." Our fate is to play the game while we make the rules and lament that people inevitably get hurt. This is atheism. This is human.
Let me get this straight: A skeptic can always be neutral about experienced events or things. Jesus botherers like JRobin on the other hand can not. Because they are so full of themselves. And they need to, because that is their supposed inerrant way to claim God into existence. It"s the usual schtick. JRobins jumps from meta-physics to ontology and back whenever he pleases. JR: (meta-phy.) You can't be neutral towards "God as defined" SG: Are there any other things we cannot be neutral about? JR: (jumping to ontology) You can't be neutral about you being alive or that you experience things.
Some of the best people I have ever known are too busy helping others to stop and consider if they are "neutral about their existence", while some of the worst only contemplate their own navel.
How much would I have to donate to y'all's channel to set up a two to three hour conversation between just Eric and just Robin? I am totally on Vi side about how every conversation restarts to step one, and their dislike of talking to Robin. Robin is a Darth Dawkins clone and a piece of garbage but I do enjoy seeing Eric attempt to discern and find the intricate points of Robin's idiotic argument.
"God is defined as: that which is ultimate & a mind". They are very big assertions (presuppositions) that necessarily need to be validated in order to continue on with an honest discussion, which he obviously didnt do, so any positive argument based on those presupps amount to nothing more than baseless assertions that can be ignored. Contrary to what presuppers think, you cant assert or define something into existence, and presupposing a conclusion and then making up arguments to support that conclusion is antithetic to the truth of the matter, so once again, its pointless trying to have an honest conversation with someone who is knowingly being dishonest.
It’s not really what they believe either, jrobin is describing deism. But he’s a fundamentalist Bible believer. They also believe several Omni properties. They’re so dishonest they hide in deism so they have less to defend.
Amazing how he may be the only pre-sup in history to actually have a minor breakthrough and have people want to engage them on a point they made, and have them saying they made a really good point... only for them to brush it aside as "going off-track" because it's not the point/script he was trying to work through.
@@ThePixel1983 In all seriousness-and I posted a top-level message about this-I totally don’t get the intelligibility argument. Any clues you can offer?
Normally whenever a Darth clone argues they ask a question, fain dissatisfaction and repeat it until you rip your ears from your head but this is the very first time I've heard one of them switch it up and use word salad and Gish gallop. Good job, JRobin!
Holy f'ing crap. No wonder so many people consider philosophy as total B.S. when people like Robin get to use it as freely as honest, intelligent people.
Actually presups tend to cherry pick philosophy and/or change definitions to suit their arguments For example Darth Dawkins loves the law of excluded middle which states that every proposition is either true or false and that there is no middle ground, but then he will assert that knowledge requires 100% certainty but in a philosophy there something called Fallibilism which states that knowledge does not require 100% certainty but requires justification which is something that makes something more likely true than not true They either cherry pick, change the definition or avoid...and some do all 3
Yes, Robin, it IS trivial. Every one of your calls is trivial. That being said, repeat after me: "Even without justification, I am good enough, I am smart enough, and people like me."
Awareness is primarily in a physical mind and contingent on the same processes of that mind , nobody has demonstrated that is possible without one, metaphysics are products a physical mind nothing more , all Robin has is word salad that doesn’t show god is required for anything
Hmm... Robin: God is eternal with a transcendent mind, timeless, yada, yada, yada. You: Wait, wait... Where do you get eternal, etc.? Robin: You don't get to ask that because billions of people believe that. Me: That's the "McDonald's Sign Fallacy: billions and billions served. Just because many people ate them doesn't mean they're any good. Plus, my parents only gave us those crappy Happy Meals when I was a child." Right, gotcha Robin...
no one ever talks like this unless they are trying to argue for the existence of god. if anyone talked like this about anything else everyone including (religious apologist)in the room would not give their claim the time of day
I only have this 5 minutes... I have No idea what this caller was on about... No existing god would be this hard to find, or need this man to speak for it.
this felt like SUCH a waste of time....arguing definitions and semantics only to finally get to the truth that he doesnt have any argument...ugh. Its hard to connect with a call like this or stay focused to be honest. Respect to you two for trying
I commend your epic levels of patience in interacting with this Flying Monkey, but I think it might be better to enforce limits on the amount of of aggressive overtalking he’s allowed to get away with. He tends to use people’s politeness against them, so you’re sitting trying to interject and get clarity on something and he just keeps right on talking, raising his voice so he can’t hear you...and then getting shirty and saying that something he brought up, that you’re trying to clarify, isn’t relevant. He’s NOT acting in good faith.
JRobin is used to bullying theist kids who are doubting their faith. His rambling makes just as much sense as the drunk who won't go home until someone either smacks him on the nose or the police chuck him in the drunk tank.
He throws in the word metaphysical every time he needs to conflate his fantasy reality (which contains a magical being) with the objective reality that we all must suppose we are operating in. "Metaphysically arbitrary" is a meaningless phrase on its own which he threw in as a placeholder for the view opposite his. No matter how you slice this he is trying to find fancy ways, with vague terminology, to post hoc necessity onto his magical being as foundational. He cannot get away from presupposing a being he merely defines into existence and these conversations go around and around with him playing word games to not get nailed down on it. He insists we need a metaphysical foundation. I say we don't. I say we have our opinions about an objective reality we presuppose that we all share and in mine a god cannot and does not exist because consciousness only exists in living tissue and magic does not exist at all.
Thats fine, but also "metaphysically arbitrary," meaning your act of presupposing is no different than his act of presupposing. You can't claim to be "more rational" or "more objective" or "more real" or better in any sense. At best you can agree to presuppose different things for different reasons, but there is no metaphysical distinction between you. This equivalence starts with the metaphysics you share, namely your definition of truth as that which corresponds to reality.
Robin was working from a Wikipedia script, no? 1. God is a necessary precondition for logic and morality (because these are immaterial, yet real universals). 2. People depend upon logic and morality, showing that they depend upon the universal, immaterial, and abstract realities which could not exist in a materialist universe but presupposes (presumes) the existence of an immaterial and absolute God. 3. Therefore, God exists. If He didn't, we could not rely upon logic, reason, morality, and other absolute universals (which are required and assumed to live in this universe, let alone to debate), and could not exist in a materialist universe where there are no absolute standards or an absolute Lawgiver.
That first WORD presupposes a God to exist, for it to be necessary. How can something that doesn't exist be necessary? So he presup's that God exists and then feels he can say that this God is necessary. Absurd.
What JRobin is attempting to do is argue that because God is in the category of "primary metaphysic" that you can't be neutral about God. And this _could_ be true _if_ JRobin could also demonstrate that everyone _necessarily affirms_ some primary metaphysic. If _that_ were the case, then yes, the affirmation of some other primary metaphysic that is definitionally mutually exclusive with God would end up being a de facto denial of God. But of course JRobin can't demonstrate that to be true because it isn't true, so instead he's relying on the old presupper trick of the malformed disjunctive syllogism. Proper disjunction that doesn't get JRobin to his conclusion: Either you affirm God is the primary metaphysic in your worldview or don't affirm God is the primary metaphysic in your worldview. Malformed disjunction that JRobin is trying to use: Either you affirm God is the primary metaphysic in your worldview or you affirm not-God is the primary metaphysic in your worldview. The latter is just a false dichotomy, and that's where JRobin's argument falls apart. Like most things that come out of any presupper's mouth, it's nothing but sophistry.
There is zero point in taking this trolls calls. I enjoy the show and you guys are great but if you ban a guy because he's wasted enough time previously then why let him back on to waste more time?
What happened in this conversation was: 1. Robin asked about a definition. Then… 2. Created an ontological ‘bait and switch’ from a definition of a hypothetical mental concept to physical existence.
I'll say it again: when you need a 4h explanation filled with definition to prove that something exists, it's time to stop. I have watched 20 min documentary explaining quantom physics and even though I am no where near the scientists who worked the field, I understood immediately what they were teaching. This is insane: "sit and listen to me proselytizing and preach for 3 hours straight because I believe in xyz". PreSups only sound smart, but their entire script is empty.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 91 | คู่เอก "คมอาวุธ vs อเล็กเซย์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/V0RkEfYFsgM/mqdefault.jpg)
Engaging a Presup in conversation is like playing Poker with a guy holding Baseball Cards.
It's like playing Calvinball with Calvinists.
I once had a full house ,two barry bonds and three mike trouts.
@@hifijohn did your hand score a touchdown?
Oh dang I love that metaphor
... while mocking you for holding actual Poker cards.
Robin’s God is entirely contingent…it requires Robin to define it into existence.
But my (w)holy book. xD
@@PraiseIAmThatIAm you’re entirely wrong. What a fool! Not even worth anymore of my time.
@@PraiseIAmThatIAm I don't think you know what solipsism is. The problem of hard solipsism is what YOU use when you assert that we can't know anything or trust any of our knowledge, and then you use the special pleading fallacy to assume God as the basis for reason a priori and argue that somehow he is the one type of knowledge we can trust. This is just incoherent, and what's even worse is that you refuse to acknowledge that the cosmic god creator fart blob outside of the outside of space and time is necessary to accept God as the basis for knowledge, and whatever method you have used to determine God's existence depends entirely on the great blob, without which you cannot trust any of your conclusions about god.
@@PraiseIAmThatIAm solipsism doesn't require anything. Neither does the rule following paradox. Things that are don't require anything.
You are imposing nomrativity onto things and then getting upset when people don't agree with you.
But the conclusion of these problems is that you can't have conclusions about them. And then you are coming in claiming you have solutions.
You are just hiding a God of the gap behind a philosophical problem. And the problem is that everyone intuitively sees right passed that and finds it very uninteresting. Uninteresting in the same way that somone tries to solve philosophical problems with tautologies
@@PraiseIAmThatIAm the solution of those problems require that you can justify the laws of logic in the first place.
You don't know if logic works differently in a different reality. The problem of solipsism.
You don't know if the laws of logic can work differently in this reality. The rule flowing paradox.
You can't justify meaning. To appeal to intelligibility is just to appeal to the conclusion of these problems.
And if you can't justify logic you can't use logic to justify logic. It doesn't matter what logical problem you appeal to. Reduction ad absurdim or whatever.
For all you know there is an uncountable infinite number of possibilities that you can never grasp here.
At most you are just stating a brute fact. In which case you could just state meaning and a shared reality is a brute fact without a God.
You can't justify there needs to be a reason without justifying reason first
Please reinstate the ban. Please. Robin has learned nothing, and brings nothing worthy of discussion, sadly.
Yep!
It seems he brings entertainment value, people tune in to hear the obnoxious crazy man spar with the hosts.
@@BadgerGirl777 Personally, I tune out, as in stop watching. There used to be a trend of taking repeat pointless/obnoxious callers, on their prior platform, and I actually unsubscibed, it became so irritating. Maybe some people find nails on a chalkboard "entertaining" as well, lol.
It also wastes the time that a productive call could be hosted, and that's a shame considering the excellence of the hosts.
And, while other positions seem to produce meaningful deconstruction, a presup call really doesn't, which is why they often get banned across multiple similar shows. The "because I say so" argument is very aptly compared to the analogy of the chess playing pigeon, that knocks over the pieces, craps on the board, and declares victory.
Maybe it's funny/sad once? But for dedicated listeners, no thanks.
I suggested maybe dedicating a series of shows on the various "main arguments" that have been long proven ineffective. Ontological, cosmological, look at the trees/ignorance, presup, etc. Perhaps schedule calls from defenders of such positions, like this caller for a dedicated presup show.
I've always thought it would be handy to be able to point people to such a database of sorts, given that no new arguments are ever made anyway.
@@BadgerGirl777 It was fun at first, but I can only listen to this word salad for so long before my eyes glaze over.
@@EaglesQuestions I agree. I've stopped listening to it months ago and moved on
The Darth Dawkins approach only really works when you talk over people and give them no chance to wrap their head around your word salad
exactly if they cant control , dominate , mute a conversation it quickly unravels . the next thing they do is insult and when its all said and done that is all they really have are insults
Always remember that the great Greg Bahnsen himself said that presup isn't to convince the atheist it's to "shut their mouths". It is, at its roots, an exercise in applied sophistry. At best it's "Here's a bunch of weirdly phrased epistemological problems. Solve them now while I shout over you and insist that only my God can".
The proper name for that individual is Derp Dawk, because "Darth Dawkins" carries implications of being a threat (Darth) and being intelligent (Dawkins). Since neither is factually correct, Derp Dawk is more appropriate.
What is your specific objection to the argument he gave?
@@lightbeforethetunnel what argument?
Robin: "My argument for God is this: There needs to be a being--"
Aaaand he already lost me. Six words in and he's already made a positive claim that he needs to justify.
Every single step of this brain dead argument is like that.
Is that how you have conversations with people?
@@Loneshdo This isn't a conversation, it's me reacting to someone talking in a video. They're not the same thing.
@@fisheyenomiko I think we get that… and I agree with your general idea.
@@rrpostalagain loneShdo doesnt seem to get that though 🤷♂️
Me initially: "Ooh! This could be fun :D"
About halfway through the call: "Nope. Just another script with no depth."
Never expect fun from a presup and you will never be disappointed.
@@ThEjOkErIsWiLd00 Especially if the presup is a Darth Dawkins minion.
Yeah, but Vi had him off his script and cornered and Eric swooped in to let him off the hook.
Eric: Has Robin learned his lesson
Robin: Neutrality toward God is impossible because He is metaphysically primary
Me: No. No he has not.
Even before he started talking, when Eric said what his claim was.
Step 1:"Define" God as existing and magical. Refuse to demonstrate anything as "I'm just providing a definition! You can't argue with a definition!" [note: caller is defined as a Plonker]
Step 2:Point to definition as proof of itself.
Step 3:Crash and Burn
Step 4:Declare victory.
It’s the only thought line that have. They can’t expand on it. They can’t define the concepts. And it all depends on their magic man being real.
100% with Vi on this one. Robin is painful to listen to because the conversations don't go anywhere. It's a circular mess of nonsense and there hasn't been a breakthrough in HOURS of discussion with him. Please for the love of all that isn't holy, stop letting him on the show.
I'm glad to see him be a little better about this, but i think he still enjoys the process too much and gives these people way more air than they should have.
While JRobin is pretty much wrong about just about everything, in this video, Vi is the one that derailed the conversation.
JRobin called in with a very narrow and specific claim (namely, that one can not be neutral on the existence of god). He is wrong about that, but Vi never even let him properly formulate his argument, and definitely failed to offer a refutation. Vi just constantly brought up unrelated points and directed the conversation to the question of god's existence, then complains that is where the conversation ended up.
I know
Luckily for all, JRobin has quit the presup game. He signed off the discord and ClubHouse app, actually made a few apologies, and left.
@@BlueEyesDYshe did this for a very specific reason and she stated it. He is reading from a script and as his mentor darth Dawkins is he is scared to go off it. That’s why she did it. She wanted him to be honest and speak for himself not from a script.
Robin appears to be trying to define god in such a way that nobody can deny its existence. So, god is gravity? Anyway, hope he gets laid soon so he can focus on something more fun and meaningful, but his amateur philosophy is a big turnoff.
I hope he gets laid soon too. His public displays of mental masturbation are becoming more disturbing with every call.
I used to buy weed inside you Ziploc
So Robin is defining God as the thing that all things derive from. In other words, for anything to exist, God has to exist. Now, by definition, it is impossible to be neutral about God's existence unless you can be neutral about your own existence.
BTW this also strawmanning the agnostic, because their position does not include this definition for God. JRobin's definition for God restricts people to only their beliefs from WITHIN JRobin's Christian worldview (AKA defend "I don't know" in a world where God exists).
What Robin desperately needs is.... serious training in logical thinking..... and then, let's see what happens to his faith in god!!!
You should hear him on the topic of the problem of evil.where he switches between different definition of "good" all the time. 😆
First he says everything god permits is good. Everything that occurs is good. But he refuses to say "the holocaust is good." cause apparently when the atheist asks him that hes dishonest and using a different definition of good. Despite the atheist clearly stating that he means that definition 😆
A hilarious pretzel of bullshit.
His argument is literally straight from Darth Dawkins
If you didn't know JRobin is part of DD's legion of yes men echo chamber. Darth is banned from these shows because of his openly bigoted speech, so Darth gets his minions to call for him. There are other small TH-cam channels that record them planning and talking about calling in on their discord. And will even post their reactions.
They don't care about hiding their dishonesty, even saying recording them is an attack on them. Afew think Darth and JRobin and crew are really a Poe faking calling to make Christian's look bad and give videos for these shows.
@@ericwilliams1659 painfully aware
Word for word, JRobin AKA JDoger for how often he doesn't answer questions, has been using the same pile of gibberish for at least 5 years. He literally hasn't changed his argument in years, because he doesn't even understand his own argument. JDoger is just saying words that he doesn't actually understand.
How can one be such a play-acting cheating lying sickening copiumed delusional hallucinous gullible religious clown?
@@13shadowwolf It's the standard presupper spiel. Make a bald claim about some epistemological problem, asserting that their version of Ultimate Reality and _only_ theirs can adequately underpin, explain and/or justify the foundations of knowledge (and often using the terms "atheist" and "non-Christian" interchangeably), and instead of defending any of their claims (spoiler alert: their worldview isn't superior to anyone else's in this regard, they are working with all the same common assumptions as everyone else, they just add more assumptions about reality on top, which are just as vulnerable to exactly the same charges as those of which they accuse their critics), attempt to tie their interlocutors up in knots by continually asking "how do you know that?" "how do you know that?" until they give up in exhaustion. It's pure sophistry and it is literally an attempt to gaslight their critics.
Like in the film "WarGames", the only way to win is not to play. At least, not to play along to their script, but ideally, to send the lot of them to Coventry and not play with them at all. They're not arguing an intellectually honest position in good faith. They have latched onto an argument not because it is sound or convincing or even that their propositions are even remotely defensible if the spotlight were turned harshly upon themselves, but because they think it's clever and because they think they can use it to trick or trap unwary critics. Even other believers shun them for the charlatans they are.
Credit to you both for engaging with the caller again. His passive agressive game of logical-entrapment-gotcha is really an elaboatre ruse to avoid ever answering his claims that God actually exists in a way beyond philosophical masturbation. So far all he has demonstrated is that he thinks very highly of his approach and is dissmisive and contemptuous of those who refuse to join his circle jerk.
Circle jerk 🤣🤣🤣
Wow, thank you! You just distilled it down and clarified my feeling about these presups .Philosophical Masturbation or a Philosophical Circle Jerk captures it brilliantly.
Love that comment dude 👍
succinctly put.
Once again Robin turns up to play Pigeon Chess.
I suggest a ban be a ban. Like all other presups I’ve encountered, he’s a performative troll who scolds & lectures & asserts & declares for the benefit of an audience of presups. An absolute oxygen thief.
Oxygen thief. I think I’ll be borrowing that one.
@@mrhyde7600 Oxygen-thief thief
"Let your yes be yes and your no be no." ... and your ban be a ban :P
How can one be such a play-acting cheating lying sickening copiumed delusional hallucinous gullible religious clown?
The correct way to handle presups is to say “call back when you can prove it” and hang up.
You cant define something into existence, Robin
Vi nailed it in replacing "God" with "flour."
Even as a believer the presup argument loses me quickly:
Presup: God exists, it is the reason, cause, and continued support for all things that exist
Me: Ok, so how do I make certain that is correct beyond your assertion?
Presup: You have to accept it is true before we can go any further
Me:...
Robin lost me with his second sentence. It's obviously all the same crap again...
Which God are you a believer of?
@@drewdrake9130 zeus
@@hecticnarcoleptic3160
Ok
@@hecticnarcoleptic3160 Heretic! Blind Io is the only true god!
Eric needs to appreciate that not every caller earns an honest discussion. Viewers like us tune out when a caller like this is allowed to listen to themselves talk.
I appreciate Eric, he's a swell guy and granting disagreeable people a conversation only shows how much of a fair and diplomatic player he is. That being said, I think he's a bit too rose-colored to think he's going to have an honest discourse with someone like Robin or any of Darth Dawkin's other puppets...
You're both forgetting that they're talking to JRobin for the benefit of the audience as well, and there may be at least one person listening who's on the fence where this conversation helps them land on the non-presupp side of that fence after hearing this.
@@ThEjOkErIsWiLd00 this! I get a lot out of those conversations. I wouldn't like listening to Robin all the time, but once in a while I feel like i get something out of it.
@@bryanaperry8760 For me though, I just can't stomach half an hour of bullshit mouth diarrhea.
It is not clear why I should care about the details of how someone defines their god(s). If I define god as the thing that necessarily exists and plays goalie for Manchester United Football/Soccer, then would anyone believe that the goalie is god? No? Even tho I defined it as necessary? Oh, then i will define it as metaphysically necessary. Now do you believe the goalie created everything?
Why should we care what the presup says or does? Thanks for the hangout.
Because there may be someone listening who's on the fence about all this presup nonsense and this conversation may help them land on the non-presup side.
Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
Wow! I miss the dislikes count. He's talking over the hosts with the same bullshit he always spews. Nothing new here, except that he's more assertive and confident in his nonsense.
Exactly. It’s also rather coincidental that the times were he talks over people the most, is when the host is highlighting the obvious flaws in his argument, or when they’re asking a key question he knows he can’t answer.
Would have been an unearned dislike tho
How can one be such a play-acting cheating lying sickening copiumed delusional hallucinous gullible religious clown?
In my definition God is defined as ultimate, a mind, and specifically a duck. Please debunk my Duck-God, JRobin
JRobin probably holds a neutral position towards that. xD
The cookie cutter response will be "You're making a joke out of this and therefore you're a troll" if its Darth he'll then mute and boot you. Jrobin will fiddle around a bit more before he either leaves or if he has mod powers mute and boot.
The answer is no by the way. He in fact DID not learn his lesson. Darth Dawkins I'm sure is extremely proud of his flunkies.
Actually Darth is only capable of being proud of himself.
Darth Karen’s minions are only useful thugs to him, he doesn’t give a shit about them he actually hates them too.
How can one be such a play-acting cheating lying sickening copiumed delusional hallucinous gullible religious clown?
Interesting that Christians now minimize gods attributes: that which is ultimate and a mind. The less they have to defend, the easier for them. But it’s so dishonest. That’s not what they believe at all. Jrobin believes all the stories in the 2000 year old book of talking animals. Let’s start with their source material. That is just full of nonsense.
Vi started down the road of asking him where he got his belief, but he just started up again with his definitions.
They do this on purpose because Christianity has a lot more baggage. The presup end-run around that is to go Deist and burden-shift so atheists have to defend their disbelief in a transcendental God concept. That way they avoid having to defend Christianity.
The idea that humans are made in the image of god would (by Robin's definition of god) mean that humans are also disembodied minds.
Kinda kills his claim right there.
Every presup debate, every single one, when their opponent brings up biblical atrocities (for example), the presup all of a sudden shifts his grounding to something more deistic, usually adding as a crutch, "I'm not hear to defend Christianity, just to show the atheist world view is absurd."
This guy just uses lots of words for hard solipsism
No. No he hasn't. Darth and his minions never will.
presups are literally incapable of learning. Funny how their god hasn't revealed how stupid their argument is to them.
How can one be such a play-acting cheating lying sickening copiumed delusional hallucinous gullible religious clown?
Based on the clip title, I'm going to presuppose that he has not.
We would need him to provide his definition of a "mind"... However, everything that is defined as the mind is tied to the body in ways that we can manipulate it through physical means. This is more than enough for "the mind cannot exist without the body" to be the null hypothesis. Now, he must provide his proof that a mind can and does exist not only without a physical body but also outside of any and all possible time and space presentations.
Until Robin can demonstrate the existence of anything, it doesn't exist, other we can define anything into existence.
Lmao Darth is going rage so hard over this!
Nope. No he won't. Darth won't waste a second backing his minion.
Are we not going to acknowledge that Vi is actually wearing Tony Stark’s Friday glasses?…
My first instinct would have been to reject his initial definition of God: How did he come to the conclusion that his definition is correct? How did he determine that God really do have these characteristics? The Flower in his example we can observe and test. Not with God.
JRobin already conceeded that it is just a definition, just like the definition of Iron-Man. It's just a concept, an idea. *Then he want's us to disprove that idea, and if we can't, the subjects of that idea are automatically part of reality. No demonstration needed. It's like magic, but without the magic. Because magic is what atheists do.
@@blackpolishedchrome4774 I'm an atheist and I do magic. Mostly card magic -- my coin magic is terrible. I'm out of practice though.
@@blackpolishedchrome4774 You hit the nail on the head.
Not to mention you can bake a cake without flour.
"...I think you're making a joke out of a serious argument "
Robin your serious argument is a joke. And vii demonstrated that sufficiently by using your argument.
Sad that you can't see it.
Vi was right there. By forcing Eric to revise his position on brainless minds, Robin proved that being neutral towards his definition of god is not only possible, but the only position one can take if one does not accept it.
Also, you can’t be neutral towards your own existence, but neither can you deny it. It’s a proposition that you can only accept, therefore, it’s in a different category than his god definition
You are incorrect on being unable to be neutral towards your own existence. I have no way to know or test if I'm just part of a simulation and just the result of code. "I think therefore I am" doesn't apply to AI
@@synnical77 I agree that I could be neutral about the nature of my existence. Am I a human, an AI that thinks it’s a human, or something else, I can’t say for absolute certain. But whatever my nature, I AM thinking. Therefore I am. So long as that’s true, I cannot be neutral about it.
@@jennosyde6903 You think you're thinking. Something else could be in complete control of that process.
@@synnical77 Not sure I said I was in control of, or generated my thoughts, just that I am aware of them. Therefore the thing that is aware - that I label “I” - exists.
Look at it this way: AI’s, that are not self-aware, currently exist. I have one on my phone and another in my car. They are extant things. Would they become non-extant if you add self-awareness to them? Obviously, they wouldn’t.
@@jennosyde6903 I suppose we're not agreeing on what "existence" means. If, in the future, I play a computer game like The Sims where all the inhabitants are self aware AI I would easily say that they don't exist.
Much the same way that a ogre in world of warcraft doesn't exist. Even if that ogre was given the AI to make it's own decisions and had freedom to interact in it's world it still would categorically not exist. It's code. Running it's life in the only ways it knows how. From the ogre's perspective it most definitely exists. How could it not. It thinks therefore it is...Until you turn off the power supply. It doesn't actually take up any space and inhabits access space in a computer's RAM.
So, AI's are a thing but I can't bring myself to say that they "exist". They're the end product of a bunch of code and computers that give the veneer of being intelligent or an actual thing.
Frankly, I agree with Vi. I can only imagine how painful it is to sit through the full call. I used the skip ahead feature continuously and it still set my teeth on edge. Last time I listen to a clip with this dingus.
The mental gymnastics is next level.
I think at one point Vi misspoke and the conversation moved on before they could finish the line of reasoning. Vi said "you are defining things by their properties" when what I think is meant is pretty much the opposite. He is constructing those properties around a definition.
When we define a spider as a creature with 8 legs that is because it is a property of spiders to have 8 legs, what Robin is doing is arguing that the spider has 8 legs because we define it that way. His logic is just backwards.
You don't get to just attribute properties and definitions to something and then say "therefore necessary", you have to break down each of those properties and prove that the thing you are defining has those properties. So you can't just say it is a property of God to be Primary or ultimate, you have to prove that to be the case otherwise it's all pointless. At best his argument gets you to "If we accept your definition of God, and that God exists, then that God exists". That is a nonsensical, circular pile of bollocks. Prove the properties or get the fuck outta here.
Everything you described is Presup 101. They attribute all these properties and expect the person will just accept them.
I like the part where he said he didn't have to prove a god to prove that everything is contingent on a god.
My brother in christ, thats exactly what you have to do, because things can't be contingent on a thing that doesn't exist. So first, start by proving a god exists, and then we can move to whether anything is contingent on it.
9:25 the hell you can't 🤣🤣🤣🤣
May I suggest that in conversations like this, one of the co-hosts takes the lead while the other only interjects when they feel it really necessary or if the other co-host is struggling. Striving for equality of air time (between the co-hosts) is all well and good but if one is ahead of the other in terms of having a strategy to deal with a caller (especially this type of caller) they should be allowed to follow it through rather than be held back or even diverted onto a different tack. Perhaps a little secret signal to say 'Leave this one to me' could be arranged?
It obvious what Robin is trying to do here: he is trying to counter the recent Athiest move towards "lacktheism" by insisting that one cannot withold belief, or cannot remain neutral. In other words, one either believes god exists or one believes god does not exist, one cannot lack belief. He is trying to force the athiest to take on the burden of proof that way he can box one into the impossible position of proving god does not exist. He has attempted this multiple times.
Ok JRobin.. Listen carefully...Communicating badly is not the same as cleverness." Okay ?
Wayne Gretzky
This was one of the better calls for sure where conversation was actually had.
We can't just jump to the end of a conversation. Rightly, you guys don't let people go off what they said to other hosts or build off previous conversations. These topics can be complex and we need to go through these steps.
Great job Eric!! Thanks for showing everyone what it means to have a real conversation and be willing to make revisions. I thoroughly enjoy your calm and collected style 😎
Thanks for the new word, Eric. Pettifogging. I will be using this a lot in the future.
"Pettifogging lawyers," a line from Rooster Cogburn in True Grit.
Ultimate doesn't mean great, or powerful, or best; it means final, last, nothing further...
His whole call is just an underhanded attempt to try to get you to say yes it is reasonable for a Christian to expect you to prove God false or you are at least as unreasonable as they are.
Hold up I have made a cake that is made with no flour multiple times!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's the problem... JRobin wants to play this game at looking at the entailments of a thing, hypothetically. That's fine, but all of the entailments are also hypothetical, until you show that the thing is actual. So when we look at the entailments of JRobin's hypothetical ultimate bacon cheeseburger, those entailments DO NOT APPLY in this world, unless you can demonstrate the actuality of the ultimate bacon cheeseburger, in this world.
So, yes, in a world where there is an ultimate bacon cheeseburger, then it would follow that I can't be neutral about it. Now demonstrate that I'm in a world where there is an ultimate bacon cheeseburger, or STFU.
You know, I dream about the ultimate bacon cheeseburger, but as much as I want it to exist, my desires don’t reify the object of my dreams. Sadly. Because bacon.
@@diogeneslamp8004 but there can be only one ultimate bacon cheeseburger. And what if someone else gets the ultimate bacon cheeseburger? Or is self-replication or an unlimited size a property of the ultimate bacon cheeseburger?
@@pezfam
I vote for unlimited size, because in this life there are only two kinds of people: those who like bacon and those who are wrong.
@@diogeneslamp8004 if it is unlimited in size. Does that mean we would be living within the ultimate bacon cheeseburger?
@@diogeneslamp8004 that’s as true of a dichotomy as I’ve ever seen.
I agree on Vi. This dude is not honest & condescending. His script is garbage. Foundation of his argument is god exist. Prove first that god exist!
He is in for the gotcha, any gotcha.
While it might seem to be prudent not to engage with presups, there is value in understanding their mindset because they offer us willing examples of the most ardent and shameless in demonstrating the frailties of human cognition.
Their tells are remarkable. They start off with false modesty and maybe even some contrition, but are impatient to engage in the strategy to force listeners to defend a worldview via standards that are not theirs. When rebuked, their brains flood with neurotransmitters in post-synaptic modulation. This blanket stimulation enhances grief, seeking, rage and fear.
Imagine a brain that is hyper excited by this activity and we can begin to understand why presups quickly escalate behaviors like stammering, over talking, tonal and speech pace when critiqued or their interlocutors do not follow their predictive script.
I say let them talk. You can't pay better case studies.
A claim isn't an argument. It's a claim. An argument is a thing that might or might not validate a claim. A secondary claim is not an argument either. It's a secondary claim.
28:50 sorry JRobin, you can be neutral towards even your definition of god
30:34 Don’t be so humble. If JRobin can claim that the opinions of billions validate his definition of God, then billions can also attest that they have no experience of a mind existing outside of a living human body with a relatively healthy brain.
"You're trivializing and making a joke out of a serious argument!"
Translation: Robin is getting his metaphorical ass kicked. Agree with his definition of a god only HE is sure exists or let the whining begin.
13:00 to 18:55 is the substance of the call and what to focus on if you want to understand not only presuppositionalism, but atheism as well:
15:40 - Robin: "to be metaphysically arbitrary is to think that there is no metaphysical framework for things like 'truth' or 'intelligibility'...which is suicidal philosophically."
16:20 - Eric: "I operate under the correspondence theory of truth..."
16:52 - Robin: "right, a metaphysical frame of reference, that is what you are talking about..."
17:08 to Robin describes his "metaphysical framework," which is "one of many a person can have," as well as what he calls a "non-framework" culminating in
18:25 - Robin: "bottom line, everyone has to have a metaphysical framework if they are operating meaningfully in the world."
18:28 - Vi: "so what makes yours right?"
Vi acknowledges that Robin is "right," about everyone needing a metaphysical framework, but from there, the conversation degenerates to confusion between all parties.
The essence of theism is the metaphysical assertion that humans are to achieve what they value via a relationship with something non-human. This is unsettling to we atheists, but it means that Robin is right - Eric, for example, operates under the "correspondence theory of truth," which is a metaphysical framework on par with theism. The reason it is on par with theism is because it posits that "truth" is the relationship between humans and something non-human, i.e "reality." But there is no mechanism by which this relationship occurs; there is no definition of this "correspondence;" at any given time, we don't actually know when or if we "correspond" to reality, we just claim that we do because it is convenient and declare this convenience "necessary" for "truth." In this sense, Eric is not only a presuppositionalist, but a "theist" as well.
The only "atheist" response to Robin is to say he is right! But not in the way he wants to be....
As Robin pointed out, an alternative is to claim there is no "metaphysical framework." And yes, this is philosophical suicide in the sense that it is the death of traditional western metaphysics, which, as demonstrated above, is the source of theism itself. You can't have "truth" as traditionally defined, or "operate meaningfully in the world" according to Robin, without also having a "theism" of sorts.
The self realized atheist must accept that when god goes, he takes "truth" with him. There is no "correspondence" between humans and non-humans. There is no "foundation" to knowledge; there is no "framework" within which we operate; there is no "certainty" of anything, including the self.
This is what Nietzsche was warning, what Heidegger and Sartre tried to help with, what James and Wittgenstein elaborated, and what Rorty finally codified as "neo-pragmatism."
Our fate is to play the game while we make the rules and lament that people inevitably get hurt. This is atheism. This is human.
The entire presup schtick is just trying to find a way to shift the burden of proof
Let me get this straight: A skeptic can always be neutral about experienced events or things. Jesus botherers like JRobin on the other hand can not. Because they are so full of themselves. And they need to, because that is their supposed inerrant way to claim God into existence.
It"s the usual schtick. JRobins jumps from meta-physics to ontology and back whenever he pleases.
JR: (meta-phy.) You can't be neutral towards "God as defined"
SG: Are there any other things we cannot be neutral about?
JR: (jumping to ontology) You can't be neutral about you being alive or that you experience things.
this guy should... just stay banned.
Some of the best people I have ever known are too busy helping others to stop and consider if they are "neutral about their existence", while some of the worst only contemplate their own navel.
How much would I have to donate to y'all's channel to set up a two to three hour conversation between just Eric and just Robin? I am totally on Vi side about how every conversation restarts to step one, and their dislike of talking to Robin. Robin is a Darth Dawkins clone and a piece of garbage but I do enjoy seeing Eric attempt to discern and find the intricate points of Robin's idiotic argument.
Oh my gosh the reductio ad absurdum with the cake killed me hahahaha
It’s a trick and the caller is a troll-conscious or not. It is a linguistic conflation of terms.
How does an immaterial mind obtain sensory perception?
Can anyone show that this is even possible?
No, because they'd have to prove that a immaterial mind is possible first and that hasn't happened
@LeoB
If it's all in a mind, doesn't that fit the definition of imaginary?
@LeoB
I agree.
And, they do it while thinking arguments are evidence.
"God is defined as..." continues to making shit up.
As perfect a circle as ever I have seen.
"God is defined as: that which is ultimate & a mind".
They are very big assertions (presuppositions) that necessarily need to be validated in order to continue on with an honest discussion, which he obviously didnt do, so any positive argument based on those presupps amount to nothing more than baseless assertions that can be ignored.
Contrary to what presuppers think, you cant assert or define something into existence, and presupposing a conclusion and then making up arguments to support that conclusion is antithetic to the truth of the matter, so once again, its pointless trying to have an honest conversation with someone who is knowingly being dishonest.
It’s not really what they believe either, jrobin is describing deism. But he’s a fundamentalist Bible believer. They also believe several Omni properties. They’re so dishonest they hide in deism so they have less to defend.
Amazing how he may be the only pre-sup in history to actually have a minor breakthrough and have people want to engage them on a point they made, and have them saying they made a really good point... only for them to brush it aside as "going off-track" because it's not the point/script he was trying to work through.
"There needs to be a being that is ultimate" ... Nice claim, of no connection to all the stuff beforehand.
“Needs to be”? I wonder why?
@@diogeneslamp8004 Because, you know, you can't THINK unless you believe in my specific god! 😉
@@ThePixel1983
In all seriousness-and I posted a top-level message about this-I totally don’t get the intelligibility argument. Any clues you can offer?
@@diogeneslamp8004 Not really.
@@ThePixel1983
Bummer.
Normally whenever a Darth clone argues they ask a question, fain dissatisfaction and repeat it until you rip your ears from your head but this is the very first time I've heard one of them switch it up and use word salad and Gish gallop. Good job, JRobin!
Oh not this clown again
I lasted 7 min and 45 seconds, congratulate me.
I'm not convinced the universe is dependent on ultimates.
Lol! "Please don't "
Don't sic J Robin on Austin!
Best line - this conversation does not even get to the grown-up table for a sit down discussion! Fucking classic - and mic drop!
Holy f'ing crap. No wonder so many people consider philosophy as total B.S. when people like Robin get to use it as freely as honest, intelligent people.
Actually presups tend to cherry pick philosophy and/or change definitions to suit their arguments
For example Darth Dawkins loves the law of excluded middle which states that every proposition is either true or false and that there is no middle ground, but then he will assert that knowledge requires 100% certainty but in a philosophy there something called Fallibilism which states that knowledge does not require 100% certainty but requires justification which is something that makes something more likely true than not true
They either cherry pick, change the definition or avoid...and some do all 3
Yes, Robin, it IS trivial. Every one of your calls is trivial. That being said, repeat after me: "Even without justification, I am good enough, I am smart enough, and people like me."
Awareness is primarily in a physical mind and contingent on the same processes of that mind , nobody has demonstrated that is possible without one, metaphysics are products a physical mind nothing more , all Robin has is word salad that doesn’t show god is required for anything
Robin: if you ask anyone that already believes what I say then they will tell you that they agree with what I say.
Hmm...
Robin: God is eternal with a transcendent mind, timeless, yada, yada, yada.
You: Wait, wait... Where do you get eternal, etc.?
Robin: You don't get to ask that because billions of people believe that.
Me: That's the "McDonald's Sign Fallacy: billions and billions served. Just because many people ate them doesn't mean they're any good. Plus, my parents only gave us those crappy Happy Meals when I was a child." Right, gotcha Robin...
Robin defines God into existence and then can not demonstrate God existence in reality!
no one ever talks like this unless they are trying to argue for the existence of god. if anyone talked like this about anything else everyone including (religious apologist)in the room would not give their claim the time of day
I only have this 5 minutes...
I have No idea what this caller was on about...
No existing god would be this hard to find, or need this
man to speak for it.
this felt like SUCH a waste of time....arguing definitions and semantics only to finally get to the truth that he doesnt have any argument...ugh. Its hard to connect with a call like this or stay focused to be honest. Respect to you two for trying
Robin is the best sleep aid ever!
Pigeons and chessboards
watching the outro, i have to say, i totally love the two of you
I commend your epic levels of patience in interacting with this Flying Monkey, but I think it might be better to enforce limits on the amount of of aggressive overtalking he’s allowed to get away with. He tends to use people’s politeness against them, so you’re sitting trying to interject and get clarity on something and he just keeps right on talking, raising his voice so he can’t hear you...and then getting shirty and saying that something he brought up, that you’re trying to clarify, isn’t relevant. He’s NOT acting in good faith.
JRobin is used to bullying theist kids who are doubting their faith. His rambling makes just as much sense as the drunk who won't go home until someone either smacks him on the nose or the police chuck him in the drunk tank.
He throws in the word metaphysical every time he needs to conflate his fantasy reality (which contains a magical being) with the objective reality that we all must suppose we are operating in. "Metaphysically arbitrary" is a meaningless phrase on its own which he threw in as a placeholder for the view opposite his. No matter how you slice this he is trying to find fancy ways, with vague terminology, to post hoc necessity onto his magical being as foundational. He cannot get away from presupposing a being he merely defines into existence and these conversations go around and around with him playing word games to not get nailed down on it. He insists we need a metaphysical foundation. I say we don't. I say we have our opinions about an objective reality we presuppose that we all share and in mine a god cannot and does not exist because consciousness only exists in living tissue and magic does not exist at all.
Thats fine, but also "metaphysically arbitrary," meaning your act of presupposing is no different than his act of presupposing. You can't claim to be "more rational" or "more objective" or "more real" or better in any sense. At best you can agree to presuppose different things for different reasons, but there is no metaphysical distinction between you. This equivalence starts with the metaphysics you share, namely your definition of truth as that which corresponds to reality.
Damn, was on the edge of my seat waiting for evidence that a disembodied mind IS POSSIBLE.
Robin was working from a Wikipedia script, no?
1. God is a necessary precondition for logic and morality (because these are immaterial, yet real universals).
2. People depend upon logic and morality, showing that they depend upon the universal, immaterial, and abstract realities which could not exist in a materialist universe but presupposes (presumes) the existence of an immaterial and absolute God.
3. Therefore, God exists. If He didn't, we could not rely upon logic, reason, morality, and other absolute universals (which are required and assumed to live in this universe, let alone to debate), and could not exist in a materialist universe where there are no absolute standards or an absolute Lawgiver.
That first WORD presupposes a God to exist, for it to be necessary. How can something that doesn't exist be necessary? So he presup's that God exists and then feels he can say that this God is necessary.
Absurd.
I found Robin more engaging than usual. He even laughed along with the hosts at the end. There is hope (maybe 🙂).
What about a flourless cake?
Plus we know what cakes and flour are, jrobin is pretending a god obviously just exists same as a car or something.
No more calls from him please.
What JRobin is attempting to do is argue that because God is in the category of "primary metaphysic" that you can't be neutral about God. And this _could_ be true _if_ JRobin could also demonstrate that everyone _necessarily affirms_ some primary metaphysic. If _that_ were the case, then yes, the affirmation of some other primary metaphysic that is definitionally mutually exclusive with God would end up being a de facto denial of God.
But of course JRobin can't demonstrate that to be true because it isn't true, so instead he's relying on the old presupper trick of the malformed disjunctive syllogism.
Proper disjunction that doesn't get JRobin to his conclusion: Either you affirm God is the primary metaphysic in your worldview or don't affirm God is the primary metaphysic in your worldview.
Malformed disjunction that JRobin is trying to use: Either you affirm God is the primary metaphysic in your worldview or you affirm not-God is the primary metaphysic in your worldview.
The latter is just a false dichotomy, and that's where JRobin's argument falls apart.
Like most things that come out of any presupper's mouth, it's nothing but sophistry.
Another smug darth Dawkins word salad drone
In the Oxford English Dictionary, at the definition of "Word Salad", there's a picture of Robin. Lol.
There is zero point in taking this trolls calls. I enjoy the show and you guys are great but if you ban a guy because he's wasted enough time previously then why let him back on to waste more time?
I believe in the cake world !
Another presup that has no basis for the faith claim.... Yawn.
What happened in this conversation was:
1. Robin asked about a definition.
Then…
2. Created an ontological ‘bait and switch’ from a definition of a hypothetical mental concept to physical existence.
I'll say it again: when you need a 4h explanation filled with definition to prove that something exists, it's time to stop. I have watched 20 min documentary explaining quantom physics and even though I am no where near the scientists who worked the field, I understood immediately what they were teaching.
This is insane: "sit and listen to me proselytizing and preach for 3 hours straight because I believe in xyz".
PreSups only sound smart, but their entire script is empty.