“You can’t find truth under a rock” if the question is wether it’s is true that rocks have an underside, you would confirm the truth by looking under the rock. So you can find truth under a rock lmao
The existence of Roland the Closet Goblin, Lisa the Rainbow Giraffe (leaf be upon her,) and the Fergleburglemanergleburgle are intrinsic to their definitions. Which one you want to choose to worship is up to you.
I am always trying to better understand the world and the people who populate it… but this kind of thinking just seems… asinine to me. Words are made up and malleable. And they are only as useful as the shared supposition of understood meaning, which is subjective. I just…. I do not get philosophy at this level. The pedantry seems a waste of time. Perception and thought are subjective. How can anyone think they can assume something into existence? I always check myself against Cartesian logic. It’s served me well to regularly test my assumptions and adjust accordingly. I do things systematically and that system is designed to re-prove the merit to myself. When i make something out of wood, i don’t just take measure and use that number, assuming all my tools are the same; i measure the parts against the tools AND against eachother to verify that they will fit even though the numbers say they should.
Why do these people not get this? If you can define your god into existence, then **everyone else can too** By your own rules then, an infinite number of gods exist, and they're ALL real
the argument is philosophical not religious. The God that exists in all possible worlds, altho thought by a Christian, is not the christian God, but the God that all other ideas of God came from. All possible contingent ideas of it are a representation of the necessary one, that is the ultimate truth (I am agnostic, basically a non-believer, but I wanted to help elaborate the nuance of the argument since I study philosophy).
@@phonesjuda7318 The argument doesn't contain nuance. It's word salad. It's just a ham fisted attempt to define a god into existing. It isn't sophisticated, it isn't based on any coherant train of thought. It's just based on picking at belly button lint until you find an argument there.
@@phonesjuda7318that wouldn’t in any way validate Christianity then. It’s a widget called “god” with no intrinsic properties EXCEPT that it exists in those realities, correct? That’s no way to determine what its qualities or wants are. I’m just trying to wrap my head around this; I’m very new to “classical logic” and epistemological and all this stuff
I think the clarification could have been that presupposition in science is that our senses have to be real and meaningful enough to use for any further exploring of nature. When we see something, it has to mean that what we saw has value. We might be wrong in what we saw or there might be a truer nature of what we saw than what we saw, but it still means we saw something. From here we can build off our senses to further understand the nature of the universe we are able to sense. We conduct experiments and build tools and verify our experiments and tools through out the process. I think the “foundationist” is presupposing that our existence was created by something and that has to be god. Although it is fair to presuppose that something had to create us, they go wrong in further assigning god as the creator. We could have been created by a god or an event. We do not presuppose the mechanism, just that it had to have happened because we are here and had a beginning.
The ontological argument (God exists, because he must exist by definition) isn't a compelling argument, because it's essentially just saying "Something that is defined as having the property of existence must exist because it has the property by definition." If I define "Super Realio" as "a being that has all of the same properties as Super Mario, with the additional property of existing in real life," does that conjure Super Realio into existence? Of course not. That would be an absurdity. Structurally, the ontological argument does the exact same thing.
So if I have a all powerful comic book character then by definition that’s character has transcended the comic and exists within our universe, because definitionally they’re all powerful. Nonsense.
it's incorrect modal argument - because it is presenting direct begging the question fallacy - correct one involves at least one more step, though anyway it's flawed
Science has metaphysical presuppositions, that the universe exists and it's intelligible. Adding a god to those presuppositions just creates more questions than answers. It offers no additional explanatory power, therefore it's a useless addition.
Philosophy is something I'll never accept in any argument. It's such a stupid arguing point. (Logic and fallacies are fine, but this dude was waffling)
"the definition of god"... well dude, Satan has confused you about "the definition of god"... the *real* definition of god is the spaceless timeless nothingness that cannot possibly exist... sorry, that's just the definition so we know it's true.
Planet…. just for fun, turn the argument around! You’d have to do some homework to come up with some “legit bullshit baffles brains” ideas/theories/calculations/whatever. Just create something where you essentially use science to PROVE god exists. I’m not saying literally, your “proof” would be as accurate as the current claims for a god, but with made up scientific correlations. You’ll come up with FAR BETTER examples than I could, so I’ll throw a made up idea: 1) ask how lightening happens. 2) whatever answer is (provided it IS the truthful scientific answer) you now throw some god-wrapping around it and say “there, god exists and this proves it”! It’s out there and ridiculous, but that’s what they do already. You’ll Flip them all around and they will not know what hit them. Again, you’ll do better than I am with it. 😂
I just love presuppers because of my fav logical arguments: "In all possible worlds presuppers got to shut up, therefore they have to shut up."
the problem with presuppers, is that it ruins my appetite, and i'm too full for supper
“You can’t find truth under a rock” if the question is wether it’s is true that rocks have an underside, you would confirm the truth by looking under the rock. So you can find truth under a rock lmao
The existence of Roland the Closet Goblin, Lisa the Rainbow Giraffe (leaf be upon her,) and the Fergleburglemanergleburgle are intrinsic to their definitions. Which one you want to choose to worship is up to you.
Lisa the rainbow giraffe (leaf be upon her). She pooped the universe into existance and then fucked off. More Hen!
Another one of those "I can babble my fantasy friend into existence, by arranging words into sentences."
I am always trying to better understand the world and the people who populate it… but this kind of thinking just seems… asinine to me. Words are made up and malleable. And they are only as useful as the shared supposition of understood meaning, which is subjective. I just…. I do not get philosophy at this level. The pedantry seems a waste of time. Perception and thought are subjective. How can anyone think they can assume something into existence? I always check myself against Cartesian logic. It’s served me well to regularly test my assumptions and adjust accordingly. I do things systematically and that system is designed to re-prove the merit to myself. When i make something out of wood, i don’t just take measure and use that number, assuming all my tools are the same; i measure the parts against the tools AND against eachother to verify that they will fit even though the numbers say they should.
@@Salamander_falls Fantastic response. I would give you 3 "thumbs up" if I could.
@@andreasplosky8516 Thank you. That’s very kind.
I'd say, "Never have I heard someone day so much to say so little," but that would be a lie. 🤦♂️
That’s the pedantry of philosophy.
Why do these people not get this?
If you can define your god into existence, then **everyone else can too**
By your own rules then, an infinite number of gods exist, and they're ALL real
the argument is philosophical not religious. The God that exists in all possible worlds, altho thought by a Christian, is not the christian God, but the God that all other ideas of God came from. All possible contingent ideas of it are a representation of the necessary one, that is the ultimate truth (I am agnostic, basically a non-believer, but I wanted to help elaborate the nuance of the argument since I study philosophy).
@@phonesjuda7318 The argument doesn't contain nuance. It's word salad. It's just a ham fisted attempt to define a god into existing. It isn't sophisticated, it isn't based on any coherant train of thought. It's just based on picking at belly button lint until you find an argument there.
@@phonesjuda7318 and yours is just one of the many he stated get to exist
@@phonesjuda7318that wouldn’t in any way validate Christianity then. It’s a widget called “god” with no intrinsic properties EXCEPT that it exists in those realities, correct? That’s no way to determine what its qualities or wants are. I’m just trying to wrap my head around this; I’m very new to “classical logic” and epistemological and all this stuff
Presuppers are like people that have shit themselves, and everyone sees and smells it, but they’re just like “no, that you shit yourself.”
Love your content. Rarely get to see your lives being in Australia. Would love to see the full streams.
When has philosophy ever proven anything Supernatural?
.
Never
Presup: “if I’m right, then I’m right.”
maybe the caller should stay away from edibles
No that’s gasoline
Religious nerds aren't cool enough to eat edibles
Hey, I enjoy edibles, and I don't presuppose shit.
I think the clarification could have been that presupposition in science is that our senses have to be real and meaningful enough to use for any further exploring of nature. When we see something, it has to mean that what we saw has value. We might be wrong in what we saw or there might be a truer nature of what we saw than what we saw, but it still means we saw something.
From here we can build off our senses to further understand the nature of the universe we are able to sense. We conduct experiments and build tools and verify our experiments and tools through out the process.
I think the “foundationist” is presupposing that our existence was created by something and that has to be god. Although it is fair to presuppose that something had to create us, they go wrong in further assigning god as the creator. We could have been created by a god or an event. We do not presuppose the mechanism, just that it had to have happened because we are here and had a beginning.
The ontological argument (God exists, because he must exist by definition) isn't a compelling argument, because it's essentially just saying "Something that is defined as having the property of existence must exist because it has the property by definition."
If I define "Super Realio" as "a being that has all of the same properties as Super Mario, with the additional property of existing in real life," does that conjure Super Realio into existence? Of course not. That would be an absurdity. Structurally, the ontological argument does the exact same thing.
Presupposition splits hairs
Did it become a different speaker at the end there?
So if I have a all powerful comic book character then by definition that’s character has transcended the comic and exists within our universe, because definitionally they’re all powerful. Nonsense.
"Im not stupid... but I am a Catholic" 😂 The caller low-key knows he's full of it.
These people are vampires. You can literally try to make them look at themselves in the mirror and they still won't see anything.
The existence of magnetic monopoles has been verified.
What a cheerful gaslighting champion this guest was. Insidious if you look beyond the polite surface.
This guy again. Herp derp.
11:15 Hahahaha, it's like he's talking to himself but he doesn't realize it.
He got it at the end :)
"God is a thing that exists in all possible worlds". A THING. Is "God" the most useful term to attach to a thing?
Show me in the Bible where it explains how a combustion engine works and maybe the I'll start taking it more seriously.
it's incorrect modal argument - because it is presenting direct begging the question fallacy - correct one involves at least one more step, though anyway it's flawed
Truth is what is true, which our mind determines. It exists, like it or not.
Mental gymnastics is laughable here. 😂
Science has metaphysical presuppositions, that the universe exists and it's intelligible. Adding a god to those presuppositions just creates more questions than answers. It offers no additional explanatory power, therefore it's a useless addition.
Philosophy is something I'll never accept in any argument. It's such a stupid arguing point. (Logic and fallacies are fine, but this dude was waffling)
Happy "gods-believer" day, "gods-believers" 😘✌
"the definition of god"... well dude, Satan has confused you about "the definition of god"... the *real* definition of god is the spaceless timeless nothingness that cannot possibly exist... sorry, that's just the definition so we know it's true.
Planet…. just for fun, turn the argument around! You’d have to do some homework to come up with some “legit bullshit baffles brains” ideas/theories/calculations/whatever. Just create something where you essentially use science to PROVE god exists. I’m not saying literally, your “proof” would be as accurate as the current claims for a god, but with made up scientific correlations. You’ll come up with FAR BETTER examples than I could, so I’ll throw a made up idea:
1) ask how lightening happens.
2) whatever answer is (provided it IS the truthful scientific answer) you now throw some god-wrapping around it and say “there, god exists and this proves it”!
It’s out there and ridiculous, but that’s what they do already. You’ll Flip them all around and they will not know what hit them. Again, you’ll do better than I am with it. 😂
I see a promising future for this guy at the Discovery Institute or ICR.