The funniest part about Darth is that his whole worldview does depend on the Bible. And does he imagine early Christian’s were having these discussions? Thinking like this? It’s nonsense.
Exactly. He says because it’s impossible to not be the case. And his argument for that is “wel then tell me how in a not-god world how you account for blah blah”. He’s so dumb.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it seemed like DD was saying that one can't even postulate another worldview outside their own nor is it possible to not have any worldview at all. If that's the case, how do people convert from other religions to Christianity or deconvert to atheism? WTAF is he saying? I'm lost...
Clear succinct and without the need to sound pompously erudite you utterly reveal DD to be an intellectual dishonest bully. I happily subscribe to your channel.
You're breaking up. What a liar. He wanted an excuse to ditch the question. He applies his law of excluded middle incorrectly. His definition is too imprecise for that to be used. Incoherence. You keep using that word however I don't think you know what it means. LOL also he just admitted it's just his world view vs the other world view. Slammed himself.
Around 6:04 Darth says "He wouldn't have the requisite basis for human intelligibility." Can someone break this down into laymen's terms? I feel like this is a nonsense statement, but this could just be a lacking in my comprehension of what he's trying to (enigmatically) convey.
lol i find it funny that presups assumes that people have got a world view without having any ideas of what your world views are or you don't hold one but they still like to think that you do. Certainly fits the quote from under siege 2 " assumption is the mother of all fuck ups" haha
You got slaughtered around 5 minutes onward. It's like you have no idea what a metaphysic is. Religions describe a metaphysic, just because two religions are theistic in nature does not mean they teach the same things about the way reality is. Hinduism, and let's say Pantheism, are good examples as they are most often monistic. This means that they deny the distinction between God and the world, and because God is one reality which is identical with God is also one. This leads to a conception of distinction as illusion and this is called maya in Hinduism. Predication is not meaningful unless the distinction between subject and predicate is a real one. Christianity does not teach that reality is monistic. I've just given you good reason to believe what is revealed by Hinduism and Pantheism cannot actually be the case. The metaphysics behind the various views of religion are not the same. So you're incorrect in thinking that just because darth uses an argument about revelation that you can just use it with other religions, because other religions have revealed different things about the nature of reality, and this things may not provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for our ability to understand anything at all. Darth tried to explain to you using a basic law of logic known as the law excluded middle that your argument was incoherent, and you just told him you don't care about the law of excluded middle which means you don't care about bring rational. Either your view of reality is correct or Hinduism is correct. If reality is as the Hindu says, then reality cannot be as the atheist says for the atheist believes reality is most likely godless. Either knowledge and what it is and how it exist and how we acquire it is dependent upon an existential context that is atheistic or it is dependent on one like that revealed in hinduism or neither of these. You cannot accept that it is neither or Hinduism, and consistently believe reality to be godless.
You think Darth has solved the philosophical problem of hard solipsism with these crap arguments? Get real. Keep being a bootlicker to that clown though.
@@johnpaulmarkes There is no problem of hard solipsism for Darth to solve. By hard solipsism I am assuming you're referring to metaphysical solipsism, which is peformatively flaccid in debate. Imagine showing up to debate me, while arguing to me that you're the only thing that exist. That would be entirely ridiculous to everyone who isn't you. Let's suppose you're being a bit more modest, and you're talking about epistemological solipsism. In this case you're claiming that only directly accessible mental contents can be known by humans. This again is fatally flawed. What a human is and how it relates to the rest of reality is not directly accessible mental content, but an existential state of affairs. So there would be no grounds from which you could claim to know that only mental contents are knowable. This position cuts out its legs from under itself.
@@S0l40; Good evening, Tanner. I've just discovered this little wing of the internet, and I was wondering if you could help me out with something. Based on your comments, I get the feeling that you are a great fan/admirer of this Darth Dawkins person; so, you're probably way more familiar with his stuff than I am. What I'm curious about is: Why does he never show his face? He already doesn't speak very much like how most Christians I've met speak; but, refusing to show his face or use his real name seems even more different than anything I've seen from any other Christians I've met.
@@sharkrancher282 No idea why he doesn't use his name or show his face. I don't know why anyone would care about that. Tons of people on youtube that don't use their name or show their face. Prophet of zed. Undoomed. Classical Theist. These people all hide their face and name. Perhaps they do it, because they want people to focus on content and not them as a person. Why is this your most pressing concern after coming across presupp apologetics ?
@@S0l40; I dunno, to be honest. Just kind of bugs me. I guess part of it is because I've spent a lot of time around a lot of different Christians, and big common theme has been a desire for transparency and one-on-one connection. I remember when Corona first hit, a lot of churches became extremely upset at the idea of not holding in-person congregations. I mean, if it's just about the message, then that shouldn't matter, right? You can just hold sermons over Zoom or whatever. I figure there must be another element involved, then. Like, a human element, y'know? Something that just doesn't track as well through a screen. A connection that requires one to be at church in person. I don't know what that element is, but an awful lot of churches seem to be in agreement on this. So, it's a bit jarring I suppose to see a Christian of some degree of acclaim pretty much do the opposite. It's not unreasonable, I think, to take measures to protect one's identity online; that makes sense to me. But, is that the reason he does it? You seem to suggest otherwise, which piques my curiosity.
So, unless a person knows the source of all existence, they are incapable of coherent reasoning. Right.
No wonder Darth doesn't show his face.
-Everybody else: "Would you please explain what on earth you're talking about?"
- "You're overtalking me"
Darth Dawkins in a nutshell.
The funniest part about Darth is that his whole worldview does depend on the Bible. And does he imagine early Christian’s were having these discussions? Thinking like this? It’s nonsense.
Poor sad little Gary Milne's humiliated himself again
That wasn't a reductio. It was a declaration that he offered no justification for.
Worldviews are not exclusive. They're like Venn diagrams where different beliefs overlap.
*The contents of ...
@@RustyWalker venn diagrams are the best because simple ones look like boobs!
Exactly. He says because it’s impossible to not be the case. And his argument for that is “wel then tell me how in a not-god world how you account for blah blah”. He’s so dumb.
From the very beginning of the conversation- FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, the moderator needed to step in and tell Darth to stop droning on and on.
This looks awfully familiar!
Poor sad little Gary Milnes humiliated himself again
So one man has a philosophical grounding for his beliefs and the other does not, facinating.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it seemed like DD was saying that one can't even postulate another worldview outside their own nor is it possible to not have any worldview at all.
If that's the case, how do people convert from other religions to Christianity or deconvert to atheism? WTAF is he saying? I'm lost...
Clear succinct and without the need to sound pompously erudite you utterly reveal DD to be an intellectual dishonest bully. I happily subscribe to your channel.
You're breaking up. What a liar. He wanted an excuse to ditch the question.
He applies his law of excluded middle incorrectly. His definition is too imprecise for that to be used.
Incoherence. You keep using that word however I don't think you know what it means.
LOL also he just admitted it's just his world view vs the other world view. Slammed himself.
He sounds very familiar? He rambles on and does not give the other person a chance to speak. I think he was on talk Heathen
He's shown up on a fair few different programs. He's a pretty well known apologist/troll
Your worldview is my worldview
Around 6:04 Darth says "He wouldn't have the requisite basis for human intelligibility." Can someone break this down into laymen's terms? I feel like this is a nonsense statement, but this could just be a lacking in my comprehension of what he's trying to (enigmatically) convey.
It's basically nonsensical word salad. He does it to sound like he knows what he's talking about.
lol i find it funny that presups assumes that people have got a world view without having any ideas of what your world views are or you don't hold one but they still like to think that you do. Certainly fits the quote from under siege 2 " assumption is the mother of all fuck ups" haha
And nothing in gary's rambling rants get anywhere near establishing his little god. He actually diminishes the case for it.
Darth is a liar. He makes the most ignorant statements
Why did Chris stop posting videos?
9:05 Must a given worldview have one (and only one) foundation?
Accordibg to darth, yes. And if you dont believe in his god then you need to omniscient to be intelligible. 😆
You got slaughtered around 5 minutes onward. It's like you have no idea what a metaphysic is. Religions describe a metaphysic, just because two religions are theistic in nature does not mean they teach the same things about the way reality is.
Hinduism, and let's say Pantheism, are good examples as they are most often monistic. This means that they deny the distinction between God and the world, and because God is one reality which is identical with God is also one. This leads to a conception of distinction as illusion and this is called maya in Hinduism. Predication is not meaningful unless the distinction between subject and predicate is a real one. Christianity does not teach that reality is monistic. I've just given you good reason to believe what is revealed by Hinduism and Pantheism cannot actually be the case.
The metaphysics behind the various views of religion are not the same. So you're incorrect in thinking that just because darth uses an argument about revelation that you can just use it with other religions, because other religions have revealed different things about the nature of reality, and this things may not provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for our ability to understand anything at all.
Darth tried to explain to you using a basic law of logic known as the law excluded middle that your argument was incoherent, and you just told him you don't care about the law of excluded middle which means you don't care about bring rational.
Either your view of reality is correct or Hinduism is correct. If reality is as the Hindu says, then reality cannot be as the atheist says for the atheist believes reality is most likely godless. Either knowledge and what it is and how it exist and how we acquire it is dependent upon an existential context that is atheistic or it is dependent on one like that revealed in hinduism or neither of these. You cannot accept that it is neither or Hinduism, and consistently believe reality to be godless.
You think Darth has solved the philosophical problem of hard solipsism with these crap arguments? Get real. Keep being a bootlicker to that clown though.
@@johnpaulmarkes There is no problem of hard solipsism for Darth to solve. By hard solipsism I am assuming you're referring to metaphysical solipsism, which is peformatively flaccid in debate. Imagine showing up to debate me, while arguing to me that you're the only thing that exist. That would be entirely ridiculous to everyone who isn't you.
Let's suppose you're being a bit more modest, and you're talking about epistemological solipsism. In this case you're claiming that only directly accessible mental contents can be known by humans. This again is fatally flawed. What a human is and how it relates to the rest of reality is not directly accessible mental content, but an existential state of affairs. So there would be no grounds from which you could claim to know that only mental contents are knowable. This position cuts out its legs from under itself.
@@S0l40; Good evening, Tanner. I've just discovered this little wing of the internet, and I was wondering if you could help me out with something. Based on your comments, I get the feeling that you are a great fan/admirer of this Darth Dawkins person; so, you're probably way more familiar with his stuff than I am.
What I'm curious about is: Why does he never show his face? He already doesn't speak very much like how most Christians I've met speak; but, refusing to show his face or use his real name seems even more different than anything I've seen from any other Christians I've met.
@@sharkrancher282 No idea why he doesn't use his name or show his face. I don't know why anyone would care about that. Tons of people on youtube that don't use their name or show their face. Prophet of zed. Undoomed. Classical Theist. These people all hide their face and name. Perhaps they do it, because they want people to focus on content and not them as a person.
Why is this your most pressing concern after coming across presupp apologetics ?
@@S0l40; I dunno, to be honest. Just kind of bugs me. I guess part of it is because I've spent a lot of time around a lot of different Christians, and big common theme has been a desire for transparency and one-on-one connection.
I remember when Corona first hit, a lot of churches became extremely upset at the idea of not holding in-person congregations. I mean, if it's just about the message, then that shouldn't matter, right? You can just hold sermons over Zoom or whatever.
I figure there must be another element involved, then. Like, a human element, y'know? Something that just doesn't track as well through a screen. A connection that requires one to be at church in person. I don't know what that element is, but an awful lot of churches seem to be in agreement on this.
So, it's a bit jarring I suppose to see a Christian of some degree of acclaim pretty much do the opposite. It's not unreasonable, I think, to take measures to protect one's identity online; that makes sense to me. But, is that the reason he does it? You seem to suggest otherwise, which piques my curiosity.