I thought this guy was being intentionally dishonest, but his brain bottoms out at "it says it's God's word". he thinks that's enough. he simply doesn't understand why it's not.
Why is epistemic circularity okay when you do it with your ultimate standard for truth in your worldview then? If you bother to actually research Presup fully & properly, you'll learn all worldviews use epistemic circularity when appealing to its ultimate standard for truth. The difference is: the Christian worldview uses virtuous epistemic circularity (valid) while any non-Christian worldview uses vicious epistemic circularity (fallacious).
@@lightbeforethetunnel lol I know your script. your reasoning is just as circular, you just have an additional assumption. it's also not a fallacy to have a circular world view. why don't you go look up Occam's Razor
So a person ‘knows nothing’, then a scribe brings a Bible and puts it in front of him, somehow he can suddenly read now since he couldn’t before since he knew nothing, and then he reads it and he just know this is gods word……yea I don’t see how that follows.
The worst thing about a guy like Bandou is that he tries to act like he wants an honest discussion and won't even drop the act when it becomes obvious that he wants anything but. He's either a really good Poe or just a total dishonest pos. I'd love to see Godless interact with him. Also, has anyone let Darth know that his new fanboy is interacting with the people who "slander and defame" him? Might be time for that block list to get a little longer.
🤔 If god's word is the bible and Adam and Eve knew god's word, does that mean that they knew Cain would kill Able? Or does it mean god's word has changed over time?
They had god's word, but it wasn't the bible, but the bible is god's word. Faith, here's an equivocator, that could swear in both the scales against either scale; who committed treason enough for God's sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven. O, come in, equivocator.
The problem is that they don’t even understand their own theology and epistemology! They learned this water downed, confused view of a fringe and obscure apologetics and think they received a formidable philosophical trump card! It’s almost fascinating.
@@daviddevries8242 it is extremely obscure! It’s only talked about it here, in the interwebs. Most philosophers don’t give it more than a passing paragraph (if at all) and I am unaware of it being taught in any relevant seminary or philosophy university!
Wow that was freakin awesome! Classic presup behavior too. They will immediately try and shift the discussion to YOU defending your worldview when their feet are put to the fire to defend their own worldview. It’s always met with constant redirection to get you back on THEIR script. Presup apologetics is literally the most academically lazy position to hold.
Presup is just meant to blow up conversations, and hide behind some baseless claim that they win because it was revealed to them in a way that they can’t be wrong. It’s just claims.
Its the only worldview with justification for it's epistemological starting point. The Christian God is justified transcendentally. And given an entire worldview necessarily follows once the Christian God has been affirmed, this means the Christian worldview (as a complete system) is the only worldview that can be affirmed with justification.
@lightbeforethetunnel Nice story. ,Sadly the universe has revealed that its the fundamental ultimate and that there is no God. That makes my worldview insurmountable as nonintelligent revelation is superior to intelligent revelation. You lose.
@ryanrawlings4244 Whatever the ultimate metaphysic is for your worldview, it needs to have the necessary attributes required to justify the pre-conditions for knowledge & rational thought. So, it must be capable of justifying: 1. Laws of logic 2. Uniformity of Nature 3. The Causal Principle 4. The self / consciousness 5. Identity over time 6. Meaning of words / symbols 7. Unity among diversity 8. Laws of Mathematics 9. That knowledge is possible Etc, etc By logical deduction, we can conclude that whatever justifies them must necessarily have all of the following attributes: 1. Must be universal (to justify the universal laws, such as the laws of logic, laws of nature, laws of mathematics, etc... It is deductively true that whatever justifies universal laws like that must be universal itself) 2. Must be static & unchanging (It is deductively true that whatever justifies the uniformity of nature must be static & unchanging, as the uniformity of nature itself is static & unchanging) 3. Must be the ultimate of the worldview systemically, which entails it must be A) Eternal (whatever is the ultimate of ANY worldview system must be eternal. This is why you hear atheists like Richard Dawkins arguing "something must be eternal, why can't it be the universe itself instead of God? Etc? B) Unconditionally Non-contingent (whatever it ultimate must not depend upon anything else for it's existence. It is self-contained and everything else is contingent upon it) C) Metaphysical grounding for all dependent facts / all dependent facts ultimately derive from it. D) Personal in theistic worldviews, but non-theistic worldviews would have to say how they determined its impersonal. 4. Must have Causal Power (deductively true that it must have this attribute in order to justify the Causal Principle). 5. Must be immaterial (deductively true that it must be, in order to justify all the immaterial pre-conditions for knowledge such as the causal principle, the laws of logic, the self / consciousness, etc) 6. It must be personal / a mind (it is deductively true that whatever justifies the self / consciousness must be personal itself. It cannot prescribe personhood without possessing personhood itself. Another reason it deductively must be a mind is there are only two types of immaterial objects philosophers discuss: 1. Numbers, propositions, etc 2. Unembodied mind. Only 1 of those 2 types has causal power - an unembodied mind. You won't see the number 7 cause anything begin to exist, for example. So, by disjunctive syllogism, it necessarily follows it must be an unembodied mind. (If you don't know what a disjunctive syllogism is, it's when either P or Q must be true. If P is false then Q is necessarily true, or vice versa) 7. It must be singular (this is an entailment of its ultimacy within the system. Whatever is ultimate must be singular, so it cannot be a plurality of different things justifying the pre-conditions by proxy). 8. Must be concrete (minds are concrete objects. It also must be concrete because abstractions cannot possibly be a metaphysical truth. This must be the metaphysical grounding for all dependent facts, so it can't be abstract like the laws of logic as many Atheists try to claim is their ultimate in their worldview system, which is very silly since the laws of logic are one of the pre-conditions that need to be justified). 9. Must be Revelatory (it must be a mind that is a communicative agent capable of revealing knowledge in order to justify knowledge. Without this attribute, the system could never justify knowledge and we know knowledge is possible, so it must necessarily be Revelatory. The Christian God revealed / reveals Himself through General & Special Revelation). 10. Must be always truth revealing (knowledge must be certain, so if it could lie then it couldn't possibly justify knowledge... and the entire system falls apart. Again, we experience knowledge IS possible, which entails it must have this attribute). Etc, etc. I'm not even listing them all... I'm just listing the bare minimum needed to demonstrate that only the Christian God has all the necessary attributes needed to play the role of the ultimate metaphysical foundation so that the system entails knowledge is possible. The issue is very clear to me at this point what the issue is with people who aren't following Presup. Every single person who isn't getting it does not understand worldviews *systemically* at all. Presup is entirely based on understanding worldviews *as systems* We are demonstrating, through systemic knowledge (other examples of which are Mathematics, Geometry, etc) that any worldview that does NOT have the Christian God as the foundation of the system will necessarily entail that knowledge is not possible. The key word is systemically. To people who understand worldview as systems, as well as the specific differences between the competing systems being compared, Presup is just common sense. It's obvious.
Bandou’s brain exploded when Dan agreed with him that he suppresses the truth in unrighteousness and yet it wasn’t a defeater for Dan’s argument. I said it when Bandou debated Jack, and I’ll say it again now. Bandou has no idea the depth of what he does not know. He’s a babe in the woods in these conversations.
Why wouldn't he say it out loud? Presuppers don't deny the Christian worldview uses epistemic circularity when appealing to their ultimate standard for truth, as all worldviews do. The difference: We can justify the Christian God with transcendental argumentation so its virtuous.
@@lightbeforethetunnel didn’t you accuse AJ of being a known paid atheist troll with psychopathic stalking behavior? Yet you continue to engage with him?
@@lightbeforethetunnel Transcendental argumentation is just a standard argument form that anyone can use. It's not something only available to the Christian position, and it's not some special exception to the Munchausen/Agrippa's trilemma, i.e. people can still endlessly ask you 'and what's a proof of the premises in _that_ argument?'. :)
@@lightbeforethetunnel Ahhhhh ha ha ha ha , the transcendental argument proves any god not the christian one !!! Why do you stalk AJHEIB ?? I have been asking you the same question for over a month and you keep running away because you know it destroys you at your base arbitrary assertion !!! What color is my front door, and what car do I drive ??? You need to go to your fundamental source of all knowledge as you claim !! But you won't have an answer, then I will provide that knowledge , instantly falsifying every presup claim !! Now go run away again you logically illiterate coward !!! or stump up
Its a self affirming answer: if I come to the truth of the bible then its the Word of God; if I come to any other truth then its a lie, go back to step one.
What baffles me the most, is the lack of self awareness of presups. They rely on a script based on interrogation and usage of proprietary terms. But it all falls apart, when someone more knowledgeable, puts them off script. I almost feel embarrassed for the presup, the way he left in a hurry.
So if people instinctively know that the Bible is the gods word, could I test this out by giving children sentences randomly selected from the bible and ones just made up? Surely they should be able to pick out the revelation from god.
“Without [the bible] you wouldn’t know anything” - I guess people just walked around in a general zombie state for tens of thousands of years until the Bible was assembled. Makes perfect sense.
Hmmm... Almost makes you wonder how ancient people, thousands of years before the bible was ever written, already had amazing art, literature, arquitecture, etc.
That's the entire purpose of the presup argument. 1. Avoid defending your worldview at all costs 2. Shift the burden to the opponent ad quickly as possible 3. Claim that if they can't name the fundamental ultimate source of all reality, they have no ability to reason 4. Claim victory
The problem is that the bible is a collection of texts. There are multiple different collections of different texts each claiming to be the "actual bible." This guy has no idea how they were collected, selected and compiled into the bible.
The only thing more demeaning than arguing, in earnest, with an idiot is arguing with an idiot who is clearly and deliberately being intellectually dishonest. The fact that Jean seemed to take this a-hole seriously, and became so obviously flustered by him, simply added insult to injury. The only bright spot in this "debate" was Daddy Jack stepping in and putting Baby Darth in his place. That was golden.
why does Bandou keep trying? not sure if it's an unawareness of his inability or ''bravery'', but maybe go back to the drawing board and study if this is the outcome every time haha. great content!
Because they go back to their safe rooms to lick their wounds and DD's minions gather around and tell them how they owned the atheists, and how they were unfair, or didn't let them talk, or didn't understand their points, and as the echo chamber keeps echoing they convince themselves that they DID own the atheists. That's how you create a JRobin, a TonLoc or a Darth Dawkins. People with self-respect don't let that happen to themselves. Will Bandou pull out of the dive or join the others as one of Darth's less-clever carbon copies? Only time will tell.
It's the will to survive. He wants to play the attrition game by shutting down and spamming orbital nukes, ("What's wrong with contradictions in ***YOOOUUURRRR*** world-view?), in order to escape having to concede.
People that existed before the bible did didn't know anything, because they couldn't know anything without the bible. all of history was gibberish before the bible existed. What a clown.
Hey, don't you know that the wheel, fire, metallurgy, wood work, writing, mathematics, philosophy weren't invented until the first bit of the Torah was conceived? Makes perfect sense when you think about it if you believe that the world is only 6000 years old. ;-)
The funny little game of presupp takes the hard work of philosophers over the millennia and carefully notes that at some point, our epistemology bottoms out in a bunch of assumptions that are unjustified. Whether it’s the basic laws of logic, the axioms of mathematics, or the bare sense data anyone might start from, this epistemic ‘bottom rung’ of the ladder is as far as we can go, because any ‘ground’ beneath that cannot be further justified. Since you’ve reached the epistemic limit, any attempt to offer justification would be no more than a modest, speculative thought experiment, and even if you managed to make such a speculative account coherent, you have no way of justifying it, so wouldn’t try to, as your ladder has run out of rungs. That’s the intellectually honest approach. What presupp does, however, is dishonestly assert some abitrary ‘X’ *beneath* the ladder, and then call it “self-justifying” - as though that acts as some sort of justification for an unjustified assumption! 🤣. It then lards up this arbitrary, unfounded move by calling it a ’worldview’, and decides that this worldview now ‘owns’ all that work that much smarter people did, because its postulated 'X' erroneously claims to ‘ground’ that work. And then, having thus ‘justified’ that which cannot be justified - and nicked all of *your* stuff - it then refuses to engage with you until you too have ‘justified’ your own unjustified assumptions in a similarly speculative or dishonest fashion. If you don’t do this - which you won’t if you’re honest - it’ll accuse you of 'stealing' all that stuff it stole from you because it’s now suddenly standing on the make-believe 'X' it inserted underneath it! If you’re dumb (or dishonest), you’ll think this fraudulent move is ‘smart’, because you won't spot the fraud (or won't care). If you’re smart or honest, you’ll see that this move is dumb, because you’re already over the intellectual bridge that lets you know that sticking a ‘justified’ or ‘necessary’ label on something that is neither, is a move that only an uninformed idiot or an ambitious fraudster would make. Presupp is a rhetorical technique for helping Santa believers reinforce their belief that Santa is real. The trick about delivering the presupp routine is remembering that you’re *only* talking to the dumb part of the crowd (which often includes the presupp engaging in the delivery). The motivation for countering presupp is just to explain *WHY* it’s dumb, but this explanation will *only* be understood by the smart part of the crowd (who already know it’s dumb). Whether the explanation is understood by the presupp himself depends on whether he’s dumb or smart. But if he’s smart, he already knows presupp is dumb, so he’ll just pretend not to understand the explanation, otherwise he’ll have to abandon the dumb part of the crowd he’s talking to. If he’s dumb (common with internet presupps), he actually WON’T understand WHY presupp is dumb, because he’s too dumb to understand WHY it’s dumb. Now there may be sophisticated and honest presupps out there, who are simply making an ontological commitment to that 'X' and recognising it gives a SUFFICIENT condition that would 'ground' their preferred worldview, IF it were true. But they wouldn't be making the dumb moves that internet presupps make, because they wouldn't be dumb enough to do so in the first place.
What I wonder is... what if satan wrote a book full of deception and lies, and called it "the bible"... How would he know which one is the bible from god and which one is the bible from satan? Would the first one he reads just be the real one by default, and the second one he reads must then be the fake one?
The Christian God is the ultimate standard for truth. He reveals knowledge in multiple different ways, the Bible being one of them. This really isn't complex.
Jack calling this guy a troll seems redundant. He's a presup, being a troll is part of the script. They're well aware that there's no evidence. Every presup is a failed evidentialist.
Epistemology is about how we know if we know! Do we really know, or are we kidding ourselves? 😅 but seriously, to study if knowledge is knowledge sounds psychotic!
We have knowledge in our minds and hearts that we ignore! Da! So God made holy men to write his word down and use it to teach us how to access this knowledge.
Couldn't it also be that we aren't born with that knowledge, rather the holy books and religious cultures impart novel ideas to people, who get so used to those ideas that it they mistakenly project false memories of knowing it before they were taught it? How could we test whether my scenario or yours is right?
@HarmonicaLuke no, it can't be! These ideas, virtues, and instincts are part of all life forms and the basis for all "natural" behaviors and understandings. Except for those atheist who are born as murderers! Hahaha lol 😆 🤣 😂 Kidding, of course! But you get the point. Most of the fundamental teachings of all religions are basic instincts. I'm not sure why you don't see that. Everyone knows we should all get along, and we should respect all life and our world. What is your problem!?
@@constructivecritique5191 Oh okay, I expected you had items of Christian Doctrine in mind, that don't perfectly overlap with evolved instincts. Hmm... Tell me again what the point of holy books is? "to teach us how to access this knowledge." --- It seems like when I enquired you said that everyone already has access to this knowledge, regardless of holy books. Perhaps by 'giving us access to this knowledge' you meant holy books provide origin stories for explaining where our instincts come from?
@HarmonicaLuke thanks for the healthy response. 🙏 yes, we have access to our own car and home. But we lost the keys. The Bible is the reminder of the importance of the keys and why we should pay attention, give more respect, so we don't lose our keys. That way, we don't end up banging on the windows and frustrated that we can't access our own properties. The Bible also teaches how important we are in relation to our properties. This is historical and universal! We sit in the driver's set, not the trunk, and we decide where we're going! Most Bible teachings are reminders of what we already know but don't use effectively. Some teachings seem odd, like loving your enemy! To love is to know! Don't fear, but pay attention and give due respect or be eaten! Hope this explanation provides a better understanding . The Bible says the laws of God are written in our hearts/desires and our minds/plans. It doesn't say we know them or are following them. It also teaches that we reject the laws. That's food for your thought! Do we desire to follow the laws of the creative source of the universe and life. Or do we prefer following our own rules as if they compare and will get us where we want to go in a world not designed by us?
@constructivecritique5191 1/ I had an operation on my heart and the surgeon and I were able to see inside my heart. There was no sign of any law written in my heart. Your claim is demonstrably, utter BS. 2/ Can you tell me a single word that you can prove was written by your 'god' thing in the bible? 3/ If there is supposed jut one or three 'god' things, why are there so many thousands of different so-called Christian 'god' things/denominations. Why couldn't your imaginary 'god' thing simply write a book that was clear and unambiguous and that didn't contain lies by the 'god' thing in the bible? 4/ Christians are very confused about their own supposed religion. Is the Catholic Church a Christian religion? Are all the many thousands of Protestant denominations Christian.
@niblick616 1) Your search for truth proves the law is written in your heart. Buy better glasses! 2) My God thing wrote the ten commandments. Also wrote in the sand to not make judgments until you have perfect knowledge! Da! You failed at that, I guess!! 3) Yes, god is one person with three persons, just as you are one person with a will, intellect, and attitude. The religion emphasizes all three because people are stupid and don't realize each is required to reach the goal. The Bible isn't written for morons so if it's confusing, it's on you to get smarter. 4) Rdligions are paths to understanding God! All religions have potential! None are perfect.
@@constructivecritique5191 1/ How could better glasses help anyone see what obviously, only exists in your imagination? 2/ I challenge you to be the first to demonstrate that any 'god' thing, including the invisible one you claim to worship, ever existed by using at least some valid and verified evidence and facts. Christians are fundamentally confused about who are even supposed to be Christians. Millions of so-called Christians claim that the Catholic Church is not Christian and millions of others make the same claim about every Protestant church/denomination. Which group of so-called Christians are correct? 3/ Your analogy compares my "attitude", "intellect" and "will" to your imaginary 'god' things. By definition, my 'attitude' 'intellect' and 'will' cannot be 'god' things. They obviously cannot even make up a third of a 'god' thing. I am also composed of many other things than the three things you mentioned, so your silly analogy is even more absurd, if that were even possible. I challenge you to produce a complete and self-consistent description of what it actually is you are claiming to worship, and provide a list of exactly what capabilities it/they are supposed to have, so we can go through each one in detail. 4/ Thanks for telling me that your 'god' thing did not intend the book it supposedly'inspired' about itself to be understood by all of its so-called 'children'. According to you, your imaginary 'god' thing specifically didn't want any of the 'morons' it created to understand it. That proves that the claim that it wanted all of its so-called 'children' to know it is yet another lie for Jesus. 5/ If no religions are 'perfect' as you assert, then no religion has the perfect understanding of what their supposedly 'perfect' 'god' thing is. Therefore, all their supposed 'god' things failed to give them a fully correct description of itself. Therefore, all those imaginary 'god' things are incompetent and basically impotent, and therefore none of them can be a 'god' thing. 6/ Thanks for making my points for me and for demonstrating that your 'god' imaginary 'god' thing is incompetent and only exists in your ..............imagination.
I thought this guy was being intentionally dishonest, but his brain bottoms out at "it says it's God's word". he thinks that's enough. he simply doesn't understand why it's not.
...And he also might be dishonest.
@@Peter_Wendt well, all presups are dishonest. i meant dishonest for a presup.
Why is epistemic circularity okay when you do it with your ultimate standard for truth in your worldview then?
If you bother to actually research Presup fully & properly, you'll learn all worldviews use epistemic circularity when appealing to its ultimate standard for truth.
The difference is: the Christian worldview uses virtuous epistemic circularity (valid) while any non-Christian worldview uses vicious epistemic circularity (fallacious).
@@lightbeforethetunnel lol I know your script. your reasoning is just as circular, you just have an additional assumption. it's also not a fallacy to have a circular world view. why don't you go look up Occam's Razor
@lightbeforethetunnel
You, my friend, are hilarious.
We need more of this man but I'm scared the presups will give him an early heart attack
"Oooohh, naughty word" gets me EVERYTIME!
So a person ‘knows nothing’, then a scribe brings a Bible and puts it in front of him, somehow he can suddenly read now since he couldn’t before since he knew nothing, and then he reads it and he just know this is gods word……yea I don’t see how that follows.
This is the Bible, therefore it's the Bible. Checkmate. Chritatheists. Or something.
So before the bible people didn't know anything?
@@russwren3373 Well that was the Christian dudes argument anyway.
The worst thing about a guy like Bandou is that he tries to act like he wants an honest discussion and won't even drop the act when it becomes obvious that he wants anything but.
He's either a really good Poe or just a total dishonest pos.
I'd love to see Godless interact with him.
Also, has anyone let Darth know that his new fanboy is interacting with the people who "slander and defame" him? Might be time for that block list to get a little longer.
I think Darth has lost all respect. People don’t take him seriously and almost no1 listens to him anymore
@@DegenClips819 Did anyone ever listen to him? Nothing he ever said was convincing.
@@queuecee People listen to him....but just for entertainment purposes.
I just can't believe that Darth Dodgekins has any fans...
🤔 If god's word is the bible and Adam and Eve knew god's word, does that mean that they knew Cain would kill Able? Or does it mean god's word has changed over time?
They had god's word, but it wasn't the bible, but the bible is god's word. Faith, here's an equivocator, that could swear in both the scales against either scale; who committed treason enough for God's sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven. O, come in, equivocator.
How about that Daz?
Put that on your fookin TH-cam
@@DegenClips819 🤣🤣
The problem is that they don’t even understand their own theology and epistemology! They learned this water downed, confused view of a fringe and obscure apologetics and think they received a formidable philosophical trump card!
It’s almost fascinating.
I don't think you can call it obscure at this point.
@@daviddevries8242 it is extremely obscure! It’s only talked about it here, in the interwebs.
Most philosophers don’t give it more than a passing paragraph (if at all) and I am unaware of it being taught in any relevant seminary or philosophy university!
Ooh, naughty word!
Bart's act is overrated.
Wow that was freakin awesome! Classic presup behavior too. They will immediately try and shift the discussion to YOU defending your worldview when their feet are put to the fire to defend their own worldview. It’s always met with constant redirection to get you back on THEIR script. Presup apologetics is literally the most academically lazy position to hold.
Presup is just meant to blow up conversations, and hide behind some baseless claim that they win because it was revealed to them in a way that they can’t be wrong. It’s just claims.
I think we have a contender for Thickest Theist of the Month.
That's the gift that keeps on giving!
Once again, when you get a presup off the offense/script, their position is a potato.
It is a worldview based on having control of the mute button
Its the only worldview with justification for it's epistemological starting point. The Christian God is justified transcendentally.
And given an entire worldview necessarily follows once the Christian God has been affirmed, this means the Christian worldview (as a complete system) is the only worldview that can be affirmed with justification.
@lightbeforethetunnel Nice story. ,Sadly the universe has revealed that its the fundamental ultimate and that there is no God. That makes my worldview insurmountable as nonintelligent revelation is superior to intelligent revelation. You lose.
@ryanrawlings4244 That doesn't even make sense. "The universe" cannot be an epistemological starting point for a worldview. Category error fallacy
@ryanrawlings4244 Whatever the ultimate metaphysic is for your worldview, it needs to have the necessary attributes required to justify the pre-conditions for knowledge & rational thought. So, it must be capable of justifying:
1. Laws of logic
2. Uniformity of Nature
3. The Causal Principle
4. The self / consciousness
5. Identity over time
6. Meaning of words / symbols
7. Unity among diversity
8. Laws of Mathematics
9. That knowledge is possible
Etc, etc
By logical deduction, we can conclude that whatever justifies them must necessarily have all of the following attributes:
1. Must be universal (to justify the universal laws, such as the laws of logic, laws of nature, laws of mathematics, etc... It is deductively true that whatever justifies universal laws like that must be universal itself)
2. Must be static & unchanging (It is deductively true that whatever justifies the uniformity of nature must be static & unchanging, as the uniformity of nature itself is static & unchanging)
3. Must be the ultimate of the worldview systemically, which entails it must be
A) Eternal (whatever is the ultimate of ANY worldview system must be eternal. This is why you hear atheists like Richard Dawkins arguing "something must be eternal, why can't it be the universe itself instead of God? Etc?
B) Unconditionally Non-contingent (whatever it ultimate must not depend upon anything else for it's existence. It is self-contained and everything else is contingent upon it)
C) Metaphysical grounding for all dependent facts / all dependent facts ultimately derive from it.
D) Personal in theistic worldviews, but non-theistic worldviews would have to say how they determined its impersonal.
4. Must have Causal Power (deductively true that it must have this attribute in order to justify the Causal Principle).
5. Must be immaterial (deductively true that it must be, in order to justify all the immaterial pre-conditions for knowledge such as the causal principle, the laws of logic, the self / consciousness, etc)
6. It must be personal / a mind (it is deductively true that whatever justifies the self / consciousness must be personal itself. It cannot prescribe personhood without possessing personhood itself. Another reason it deductively must be a mind is there are only two types of immaterial objects philosophers discuss: 1. Numbers, propositions, etc 2. Unembodied mind. Only 1 of those 2 types has causal power - an unembodied mind. You won't see the number 7 cause anything begin to exist, for example. So, by disjunctive syllogism, it necessarily follows it must be an unembodied mind. (If you don't know what a disjunctive syllogism is, it's when either P or Q must be true. If P is false then Q is necessarily true, or vice versa)
7. It must be singular (this is an entailment of its ultimacy within the system. Whatever is ultimate must be singular, so it cannot be a plurality of different things justifying the pre-conditions by proxy).
8. Must be concrete (minds are concrete objects. It also must be concrete because abstractions cannot possibly be a metaphysical truth. This must be the metaphysical grounding for all dependent facts, so it can't be abstract like the laws of logic as many Atheists try to claim is their ultimate in their worldview system, which is very silly since the laws of logic are one of the pre-conditions that need to be justified).
9. Must be Revelatory (it must be a mind that is a communicative agent capable of revealing knowledge in order to justify knowledge. Without this attribute, the system could never justify knowledge and we know knowledge is possible, so it must necessarily be Revelatory. The Christian God revealed / reveals Himself through General & Special Revelation).
10. Must be always truth revealing (knowledge must be certain, so if it could lie then it couldn't possibly justify knowledge... and the entire system falls apart. Again, we experience knowledge IS possible, which entails it must have this attribute).
Etc, etc.
I'm not even listing them all... I'm just listing the bare minimum needed to demonstrate that only the Christian God has all the necessary attributes needed to play the role of the ultimate metaphysical foundation so that the system entails knowledge is possible.
The issue is very clear to me at this point what the issue is with people who aren't following Presup. Every single person who isn't getting it does not understand worldviews *systemically* at all.
Presup is entirely based on understanding worldviews *as systems*
We are demonstrating, through systemic knowledge (other examples of which are Mathematics, Geometry, etc) that any worldview that does NOT have the Christian God as the foundation of the system will necessarily entail that knowledge is not possible.
The key word is systemically. To people who understand worldview as systems, as well as the specific differences between the competing systems being compared, Presup is just common sense. It's obvious.
Bandou’s brain exploded when Dan agreed with him that he suppresses the truth in unrighteousness and yet it wasn’t a defeater for Dan’s argument.
I said it when Bandou debated Jack, and I’ll say it again now. Bandou has no idea the depth of what he does not know. He’s a babe in the woods in these conversations.
7:49 _"You keep asking the same questions and this keeps going in a circle."_ Oops. He's not supposed to say that part out loud is he?
Why wouldn't he say it out loud? Presuppers don't deny the Christian worldview uses epistemic circularity when appealing to their ultimate standard for truth, as all worldviews do.
The difference: We can justify the Christian God with transcendental argumentation so its virtuous.
@@lightbeforethetunnel Uhhh nope.
The transcendental argument I'd easily refuted.
It doesn't "justify" the Christian god... at all.
@@lightbeforethetunnel didn’t you accuse AJ of being a known paid atheist troll with psychopathic stalking behavior?
Yet you continue to engage with him?
@@lightbeforethetunnel Transcendental argumentation is just a standard argument form that anyone can use. It's not something only available to the Christian position, and it's not some special exception to the Munchausen/Agrippa's trilemma, i.e. people can still endlessly ask you 'and what's a proof of the premises in _that_ argument?'. :)
@@lightbeforethetunnel Ahhhhh ha ha ha ha , the transcendental argument proves any god not the christian one !!!
Why do you stalk AJHEIB ?? I have been asking you the same question for over a month and you keep running away because you know it destroys you at your base arbitrary assertion !!!
What color is my front door, and what car do I drive ??? You need to go to your fundamental source of all knowledge as you claim !! But you won't have an answer, then I will provide that knowledge , instantly falsifying every presup claim !!
Now go run away again you logically illiterate coward !!! or stump up
Ahh, the magic of the book that existed before it existed. Worshipping a book at its finest.
Its a self affirming answer: if I come to the truth of the bible then its the Word of God; if I come to any other truth then its a lie, go back to step one.
What baffles me the most, is the lack of self awareness of presups. They rely on a script based on interrogation and usage of proprietary terms. But it all falls apart, when someone more knowledgeable, puts them off script. I almost feel embarrassed for the presup, the way he left in a hurry.
It's really hard to drive Bandou into a corner because his answers are completely circular.
You’re noooooobody
So if people instinctively know that the Bible is the gods word, could I test this out by giving children sentences randomly selected from the bible and ones just made up? Surely they should be able to pick out the revelation from god.
Bandou saw DD get crushed by Shannon Q, and thought he would follow suit.
“Without [the bible] you wouldn’t know anything” - I guess people just walked around in a general zombie state for tens of thousands of years until the Bible was assembled. Makes perfect sense.
Aside from the foundations of mathematics and philosophy being developed during and before this period.
Zombie Jesus. Also the crucifixion zombie apocalypse.
Sorry: saw “zombie” in your message and I went into auto-type mode.
Hmmm... Almost makes you wonder how ancient people, thousands of years before the bible was ever written, already had amazing art, literature, arquitecture, etc.
The guy is so desperate to avoid explaining his worldview, then simultaneously accuses his opponent of being insecure about his worldview
That's the entire purpose of the presup argument. 1. Avoid defending your worldview at all costs 2. Shift the burden to the opponent ad quickly as possible 3. Claim that if they can't name the fundamental ultimate source of all reality, they have no ability to reason 4. Claim victory
I wish the presup would just stop pretending he has any other reasoning other than circular 😂
Oh that was good! He backed him right into a corner.
If i can recognize gods word I've just converted to Kemeticism. The 42 Ideals of Ma'at speak to me far more than any passages in the Bible
I’m partial to the Norse gods because they’re relatable.
The problem is that the bible is a collection of texts. There are multiple different collections of different texts each claiming to be the "actual bible." This guy has no idea how they were collected, selected and compiled into the bible.
Being in possession of the superior worldview Bandou sure comes out poorly. Laughable I would say.
Fantastic how much Christians know about ancient times, even people's thoughts. Amazing! Smh
Fanboy could argue the word is eternal and is God . Therefore it’s irrational to say “before” Bible .
The only thing more demeaning than arguing, in earnest, with an idiot is arguing with an idiot who is clearly and deliberately being intellectually dishonest. The fact that Jean seemed to take this a-hole seriously, and became so obviously flustered by him, simply added insult to injury. The only bright spot in this "debate" was Daddy Jack stepping in and putting Baby Darth in his place. That was golden.
Keep Daz here I gotta go to my car poppin’ the trunk!
why does Bandou keep trying? not sure if it's an unawareness of his inability or ''bravery'', but maybe go back to the drawing board and study if this is the outcome every time haha. great content!
They have unwarranted confidence and an overwhelming lack of awareness
Because they go back to their safe rooms to lick their wounds and DD's minions gather around and tell them how they owned the atheists, and how they were unfair, or didn't let them talk, or didn't understand their points, and as the echo chamber keeps echoing they convince themselves that they DID own the atheists. That's how you create a JRobin, a TonLoc or a Darth Dawkins. People with self-respect don't let that happen to themselves. Will Bandou pull out of the dive or join the others as one of Darth's less-clever carbon copies? Only time will tell.
It's the will to survive. He wants to play the attrition game by shutting down and spamming orbital nukes, ("What's wrong with contradictions in ***YOOOUUURRRR*** world-view?), in order to escape having to concede.
Has Jean debated Darth Dawkins yet?
Late I know. Nobody debates Darth. Or should I say, Darth debates nobody. Whenever anyone challenges the script there we get mute and boot.
People that existed before the bible did didn't know anything, because they couldn't know anything without the bible. all of history was gibberish before the bible existed. What a clown.
Hey, don't you know that the wheel, fire, metallurgy, wood work, writing, mathematics, philosophy weren't invented until the first bit of the Torah was conceived?
Makes perfect sense when you think about it if you believe that the world is only 6000 years old.
;-)
Still think this guy is worse than Vekl
Direct R but still stuffed up...?
The funny little game of presupp takes the hard work of philosophers over the millennia and carefully notes that at some point, our epistemology bottoms out in a bunch of assumptions that are unjustified. Whether it’s the basic laws of logic, the axioms of mathematics, or the bare sense data anyone might start from, this epistemic ‘bottom rung’ of the ladder is as far as we can go, because any ‘ground’ beneath that cannot be further justified. Since you’ve reached the epistemic limit, any attempt to offer justification would be no more than a modest, speculative thought experiment, and even if you managed to make such a speculative account coherent, you have no way of justifying it, so wouldn’t try to, as your ladder has run out of rungs.
That’s the intellectually honest approach.
What presupp does, however, is dishonestly assert some abitrary ‘X’ *beneath* the ladder, and then call it “self-justifying” - as though that acts as some sort of justification for an unjustified assumption! 🤣. It then lards up this arbitrary, unfounded move by calling it a ’worldview’, and decides that this worldview now ‘owns’ all that work that much smarter people did, because its postulated 'X' erroneously claims to ‘ground’ that work. And then, having thus ‘justified’ that which cannot be justified - and nicked all of *your* stuff - it then refuses to engage with you until you too have ‘justified’ your own unjustified assumptions in a similarly speculative or dishonest fashion. If you don’t do this - which you won’t if you’re honest - it’ll accuse you of 'stealing' all that stuff it stole from you because it’s now suddenly standing on the make-believe 'X' it inserted underneath it!
If you’re dumb (or dishonest), you’ll think this fraudulent move is ‘smart’, because you won't spot the fraud (or won't care).
If you’re smart or honest, you’ll see that this move is dumb, because you’re already over the intellectual bridge that lets you know that sticking a ‘justified’ or ‘necessary’ label on something that is neither, is a move that only an uninformed idiot or an ambitious fraudster would make.
Presupp is a rhetorical technique for helping Santa believers reinforce their belief that Santa is real. The trick about delivering the presupp routine is remembering that you’re *only* talking to the dumb part of the crowd (which often includes the presupp engaging in the delivery).
The motivation for countering presupp is just to explain *WHY* it’s dumb, but this explanation will *only* be understood by the smart part of the crowd (who already know it’s dumb). Whether the explanation is understood by the presupp himself depends on whether he’s dumb or smart. But if he’s smart, he already knows presupp is dumb, so he’ll just pretend not to understand the explanation, otherwise he’ll have to abandon the dumb part of the crowd he’s talking to. If he’s dumb (common with internet presupps), he actually WON’T understand WHY presupp is dumb, because he’s too dumb to understand WHY it’s dumb.
Now there may be sophisticated and honest presupps out there, who are simply making an ontological commitment to that 'X' and recognising it gives a SUFFICIENT condition that would 'ground' their preferred worldview, IF it were true. But they wouldn't be making the dumb moves that internet presupps make, because they wouldn't be dumb enough to do so in the first place.
What I wonder is... what if satan wrote a book full of deception and lies, and called it "the bible"...
How would he know which one is the bible from god and which one is the bible from satan?
Would the first one he reads just be the real one by default, and the second one he reads must then be the fake one?
So why was the Bible even written? Was there any problem with the proceeding revelation?
So, no one knew his existed before the Bible was written?
Bye bye Daz! Byeeeee byeeee!!!!!
Daz! You're a no-bodeeeeeee!
IM BLACKING YOU
Hahaha......the point when this Clown theist goes from being cocky to a stuttering wreck is hilarious.
Troll
What have I walked in to ?
Someone trying to get sense out of a religious presup. It's like trying to weave with canned spaghetti.
The Christian God is the ultimate standard for truth. He reveals knowledge in multiple different ways, the Bible being one of them. This really isn't complex.
We understand you believe this.
What you don’t understand is you have no good reasons to infer this claim.
@@manuell3505 are you asking me what I believe or telling me what I believe?
@@manuell3505 well I did think you were asking me but then you seemed to want to answer for me too.
I believe there are no gods
@@manuell3505
Manuell3505: “ what do you believe”
Me: I believe god doesn’t exist.
@@manuell3505 yeh ma’am, im not obliged to answer your questions.
Come ask me on voice - download clubhouse and I’ll be free to answer you
Jack calling this guy a troll seems redundant. He's a presup, being a troll is part of the script.
They're well aware that there's no evidence. Every presup is a failed evidentialist.
Epistemology is about how we know if we know! Do we really know, or are we kidding ourselves? 😅 but seriously, to study if knowledge is knowledge sounds psychotic!
We have knowledge in our minds and hearts that we ignore! Da! So God made holy men to write his word down and use it to teach us how to access this knowledge.
Couldn't it also be that we aren't born with that knowledge, rather the holy books and religious cultures impart novel ideas to people, who get so used to those ideas that it they mistakenly project false memories of knowing it before they were taught it?
How could we test whether my scenario or yours is right?
@HarmonicaLuke no, it can't be! These ideas, virtues, and instincts are part of all life forms and the basis for all "natural" behaviors and understandings. Except for those atheist who are born as murderers!
Hahaha lol 😆 🤣 😂
Kidding, of course! But you get the point. Most of the fundamental teachings of all religions are basic instincts.
I'm not sure why you don't see that.
Everyone knows we should all get along, and we should respect all life and our world.
What is your problem!?
@@constructivecritique5191 Oh okay, I expected you had items of Christian Doctrine in mind, that don't perfectly overlap with evolved instincts. Hmm...
Tell me again what the point of holy books is?
"to teach us how to access this knowledge."
--- It seems like when I enquired you said that everyone already has access to this knowledge, regardless of holy books.
Perhaps by 'giving us access to this knowledge' you meant holy books provide origin stories for explaining where our instincts come from?
@HarmonicaLuke thanks for the healthy response. 🙏 yes, we have access to our own car and home. But we lost the keys. The Bible is the reminder of the importance of the keys and why we should pay attention, give more respect, so we don't lose our keys. That way, we don't end up banging on the windows and frustrated that we can't access our own properties.
The Bible also teaches how important we are in relation to our properties. This is historical and universal! We sit in the driver's set, not the trunk, and we decide where we're going!
Most Bible teachings are reminders of what we already know but don't use effectively. Some teachings seem odd, like loving your enemy!
To love is to know! Don't fear, but pay attention and give due respect or be eaten!
Hope this explanation provides a better understanding .
The Bible says the laws of God are written in our hearts/desires and our minds/plans. It doesn't say we know them or are following them.
It also teaches that we reject the laws. That's food for your thought! Do we desire to follow the laws of the creative source of the universe and life. Or do we prefer following our own rules as if they compare and will get us where we want to go in a world not designed by us?
@@constructivecritique5191 Okay, that makes more sense to me :) Thanks!
Yes, God's law is written in our hearts and minds! But we aren't reading it. So God put it on paper for our a reminder and for teaching.
@constructivecritique5191
1/ I had an operation on my heart and the surgeon and I were able to see inside my heart. There was no sign of any law written in my heart. Your claim is demonstrably, utter BS.
2/ Can you tell me a single word that you can prove was written by your 'god' thing in the bible?
3/ If there is supposed jut one or three 'god' things, why are there so many thousands of different so-called Christian 'god' things/denominations. Why couldn't your imaginary 'god' thing simply write a book that was clear and unambiguous and that didn't contain lies by the 'god' thing in the bible?
4/ Christians are very confused about their own supposed religion. Is the Catholic Church a Christian religion? Are all the many thousands of Protestant denominations Christian.
@niblick616
1) Your search for truth proves the law is written in your heart. Buy better glasses!
2) My God thing wrote the ten commandments. Also wrote in the sand to not make judgments until you have perfect knowledge! Da! You failed at that, I guess!!
3) Yes, god is one person with three persons, just as you are one person with a will, intellect, and attitude. The religion emphasizes all three because people are stupid and don't realize each is required to reach the goal. The Bible isn't written for morons so if it's confusing, it's on you to get smarter.
4) Rdligions are paths to understanding God! All religions have potential! None are perfect.
@@constructivecritique5191
1/ How could better glasses help anyone see what obviously, only exists in your imagination?
2/ I challenge you to be the first to demonstrate that any 'god' thing, including the invisible one you claim to worship, ever existed by using at least some valid and verified evidence and facts.
Christians are fundamentally confused about who are even supposed to be Christians. Millions of so-called Christians claim that the Catholic Church is not Christian and millions of others make the same claim about every Protestant church/denomination. Which group of so-called Christians are correct?
3/ Your analogy compares my "attitude", "intellect" and "will" to your imaginary 'god' things. By definition, my 'attitude' 'intellect' and 'will' cannot be 'god' things. They obviously cannot even make up a third of a 'god' thing. I am also composed of many other things than the three things you mentioned, so your silly analogy is even more absurd, if that were even possible.
I challenge you to produce a complete and self-consistent description of what it actually is you are claiming to worship, and provide a list of exactly what capabilities it/they are supposed to have, so we can go through each one in detail.
4/ Thanks for telling me that your 'god' thing did not intend the book it supposedly'inspired' about itself to be understood by all of its so-called 'children'. According to you, your imaginary 'god' thing specifically didn't want any of the 'morons' it created to understand it. That proves that the claim that it wanted all of its so-called 'children' to know it is yet another lie for Jesus.
5/ If no religions are 'perfect' as you assert, then no religion has the perfect understanding of what their supposedly 'perfect' 'god' thing is. Therefore, all their supposed 'god' things failed to give them a fully correct description of itself. Therefore, all those imaginary 'god' things are incompetent and basically impotent, and therefore none of them can be a 'god' thing.
6/ Thanks for making my points for me and for demonstrating that your 'god' imaginary 'god' thing is incompetent and only exists in your ..............imagination.