Best way to argue against subjectivism? If anyone tries to argue that reality is subjective, just pretend like they're agreeing with you that reality is objective. They'll see how objective reality is soon enough!
Classical music, named after the classical period of music, is named that because of the embrace of certain elements of classical roman art, such as symmetry, ornaments, systems of tuning, and musical drama.
as an atheist, i find most apologetics pretty unconvincing, but if you represent how close i am to being christian as a bar, what nudges it closer is me seeing christians being more christ-like, and when i see christians doing the opposite, the inverse happens. though pseudoscience (mainly YEC and ID) also does alot of damage, it feels like alot of the big athiest youtubers grew up creationist, and me learning about it almost brought me to antitheism, but i have cooled down since then and have a far more nuanced approach. (like i would now agree that religion does not inherently contradict modern science)
Have you read the god delusion? the non overlapping magisterion he mentions and discounts really does apply I think. God is subtle; he is not malicious. I also view religion as one of our greatest evolutionary adaptations , an augmentation of our storytelling, pattern recognition and pattern creation ability.
I don't think the label "anti-science" is very applicable to the group of Christians you're referring to. While there is certainly a minority that is anti-science, a better term for the larger group I believe would be "anti-secular". Like you said (which I'm really glad you pointed out by the way!) the church has been historically pro-science and even funding scientists and their research. Galileo, Boyle, Newton, Euler, Maxwell, Dalton, Pascal, Kelvin, Morse, Joule, the list goes on. However, around the 19th century, give or take a bit, is when science(or rather scientists) started to drift away from Christianity. Around this same time was when government, philosophy, education, etc started to separate themselves from religion. Only after this change did fundamentalism start to become an issue as these major institutions began to reject Christianity and embrace secularism. So I suppose just as you see the Protestant Reformation as a continuation of the original church of the apostles, Fundamentalists see themselves as a continuation of what the church was before Darwin, Huxley, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, etc.
"the church" was firmly not on the side of Galileo, Copernicus, etc, do fundamentalism today may believe it's following in the footsteps of theistic scientists of the past, but certainly not of the church as a whole
As a lifelong atheist until maybe a couple years ago, I think evidential proofs are not as stable as purely logical proofs. It wasn't evidence that woke me up to god, but a solidification of logic that at first permitted such, then required such.
To me, people who use presuppositional apologetics feel very close minded and unwilling to hear the opinions of others. While I’m never turning away from Christianity, I would still like to hear others worldviews and ways of thinking and interpreting the supernatural and concepts within it.
My favorite defense of my Christian faith is to be able to bench press 350 lbs and explain that I would like to go on my way to make the world a better place.
I agree with adaptation yes, it's one of the rules of nature, all species adapt to their own environment. The flying squirrel adapted it's flappy skin so it can stretch it and glide from tree to tree to escape predators. But evolution no, one species can't evolve into another 'Kind' of species and even if it could we don't see variations of it between the two. Let's say birds evolve into cats, do we see variations of bird/cats or turtle dogs or whale bats. All species have sub species too like lots of variations of monkeys, apes, birds etc. But God made us in his image we did not evolve into humans from apes otherwise that's like saying God is an ape but we evolved into humans. Eventually as time goes on we will continue to adapt to our environment like all species and that includes adapting to temperature, pressure and predators. Also i love your video's i learn alot from you, I'm still finding my way as a Christian. Thank you Zoomy i will continue to binge watch your channel and re watch. =)
We do see variations like you are describing, though. Cats didn't evolve from birds, but birds evolved from reptiles. The variation that's in-between the two is dinosaurs. (And yes, of course not all reptiles evolved into dinosaurs and then into birds, obviously since we still have reptiles.) And, a flying squirrel is clearly a different species from other squirrels. That's because it evolved from another kind of squirrel, through exactly the method of adaptation you mentioned. Most species alive today are in a stage between what they were before, and what they are going to evolve into. We just don't know what that will be, yet. Humans can have evolved from apes and still be made in the image of God. That's not a contradiction. It just means it took a good long while for us to get made.
I personally do not understand how you can reconcile Darwinian evolution with scripture, I do believe In some elements of Darwinism but certainly not the theory of evolution as taught and I don't quite understand how you can reconcile that with scripture
The main thing about evolution as taught, is it is taught without god, purely materialistically. I see it as a physical aspect of a physical spiritual truth. God is beyond time and space. That makes it hard for us to really consider the mysterious ways, but evolution looks to me like how it would look to beings in time vs a being outside of time. Biological evolution, like god, can be hard to grasp. It's truly a beautiful marvel when you comprehend it. Certainly more in tune with a god unimaginably beyond humans. Genesis was recorded as a spiritual origin of man and the world and outlines the relationships. When you take the Bible as a whole, and theology as a whole, knowing everything we do of god and science, it's not so hard to reconcile. It does take a bit of work to understand both well enough. If you accept evolution on any level, you really cant deny it on longer timespans. It truly works the same way all the way down and we see it happening on a molecular basis up. The thing that does make it hard is large changes do take to long to accumulate compared to our lifetimes, but not always. YECs and creationists are about as good a source on science as Dawkins is on theology and they both cause confusion.
Statistically, the majority of people consider themselves spiritual today. Atheism is still big but it's not right to say it's the majority belief. Goodness, truth and beauty all the way. We should be telling people about the beauty we've found. Scripture says our speech should be seasoned with salt, so we may know how we ought to answer each person. Let us consider how to stir one another up to love and good works. Evangelicals made me feel guilty for thinking about my faith like it was worldly wisdom. Let's go back to the classical approach. I clung to intelligent design ideas in my darker moments doubting modern evangelism before I came to the historic faith. We've got the incarnation for a reason Christians should be using the material to point to the immaterial all day every day.
Presuppositional apologetics is objectively the worst form. It’s essentially the same as the pro papal apologetics used by cardinal Henry Manning a hundred years before Van Til. Where he claims you must presupposed the papacy is true in order to be able to understand anything about the Bible and church history. Jordan Cooper just made a video about him and I can’t believe he didn’t mention the similarities
Wil people be singing Cardi B in 200 years? Probably not. Will they be singing Sinatra, Led Zeppelin, Michael Jackson, Nirvana, and Adele? Yes, 100%. There is plenty of music that has been made recently that will ABSOLUTELY stand the test of time. The one and only reason people haven't been listening to it for 200 years is that it wasn't made 200 years ago. I love a lot of your work, but you are ridiculous about art.
People who mostly listen to classical music often have this delusion that modern music is not artful, carefully crafted, well-made, or timeless. That is such a stupid assumption and so obviously just a product of you not listening to any modern music that isn't just chart-topping. I have a dog in this fight, I'm a music producer by trade, so I hear new music every single day. A lot of it is bad, but a lot of it is exceptional too. You can make and distribute music with a cheap laptop, a used Focusrite interface for $30, the earbuds that came with your cellphone, and a free trial of Reaper. Tons of people do it that way, and make good music like that. You cannot realistically say that modern music will not stand the test of time when there are literally millions of songs released every single day. Will most of those make it to the next century? No, but neither did most of the music in the past. And just because it won't be heard doesn't mean it isn't beautiful. There is no correlation between quality and popularity in art, especially in a world where music distribution is free.
idk the people listening to Sinatra in 2023 arent that large. Not many listening to Led Zeppelin either. Not even the king of pop gets much airtime anywhere. Im not saying they arent good, but it's pretty myopic to think they are going to be around in 100 years. Classical music was kept alive by people playing it and valuing it enough. Recorded music has different incentive. Especially modern music and even the music you mentioned was made by a very different machine than classical was.
@@calebneff5777 llol we literally can through when a bucket of water can erase those bits into oblivion. I also say you cannot assert there is no correlation between popularity and quality. especially as a music producer. Just because you like it doesnt make it timeless. People said the same shit about ragtime. and Schwingtunes.
regarding your argument from mathematics, i think there was a guy who commented in your first video ever refuting that argument no one ever counterrefuted him, neither can i refute him. link:th-cam.com/video/V5l-b7RPzt0/w-d-xo.html
Yea I saw. When I first saw his comment it was too long for me to respond and then I forgot. But cuz of your comment I just posted a quick response to his comment.
I dont think you will ever have a 2 + 2 = god, outside of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. I prefer the midhusband automechannacil term, evidences. To me, it concords with free will better and seems to accurately describe what I see
I don't even believe it, but I think your framing of presuppositionalism as relativistic regarding truth is completely made up. Yes you could be morally relativistic and presuppositional, but all presuppositionalists I've ever met have been staunchly absolutist
Okay, you really have a weak grasp on philosophy. You will not find a single philosopher who would argue that reality is subjective; that is not a stance that exists. As Dr. Rick Rodrick put it "relativism is only something we bring up in Philosophy 101 classes to point out how stupid it is and then move on" Things like the post-modern tendency of questioning the validity of metanarratives, the poststructuralist concept of the instability of language, and the challenging of the arborescence of knowledge structures may sound like subjectivist contentions to someone who knows very little about philosophy, but, to quote Ludwig Wittgenstein, "whereof one does not know, thereof he shall be silent".
Best way to argue against subjectivism? If anyone tries to argue that reality is subjective, just pretend like they're agreeing with you that reality is objective. They'll see how objective reality is soon enough!
🤣
How well does this work
It's just the cultural artifacts that are subjective. But everyone agrees that the consequences of one own actions are objective
Classical music, named after the classical period of music, is named that because of the embrace of certain elements of classical roman art, such as symmetry, ornaments, systems of tuning, and musical drama.
as an atheist, i find most apologetics pretty unconvincing, but if you represent how close i am to being christian as a bar, what nudges it closer is me seeing christians being more christ-like, and when i see christians doing the opposite, the inverse happens.
though pseudoscience (mainly YEC and ID) also does alot of damage, it feels like alot of the big athiest youtubers grew up creationist, and me learning about it almost brought me to antitheism, but i have cooled down since then and have a far more nuanced approach. (like i would now agree that religion does not inherently contradict modern science)
Have you read the god delusion? the non overlapping magisterion he mentions and discounts really does apply I think. God is subtle; he is not malicious. I also view religion as one of our greatest evolutionary adaptations , an augmentation of our storytelling, pattern recognition and pattern creation ability.
@@jhoughjr1 no, but i do know about that sort of belief, and although i do not personally believe it, i see no issues with others believing it.
I don't think the label "anti-science" is very applicable to the group of Christians you're referring to. While there is certainly a minority that is anti-science, a better term for the larger group I believe would be "anti-secular". Like you said (which I'm really glad you pointed out by the way!) the church has been historically pro-science and even funding scientists and their research. Galileo, Boyle, Newton, Euler, Maxwell, Dalton, Pascal, Kelvin, Morse, Joule, the list goes on. However, around the 19th century, give or take a bit, is when science(or rather scientists) started to drift away from Christianity. Around this same time was when government, philosophy, education, etc started to separate themselves from religion. Only after this change did fundamentalism start to become an issue as these major institutions began to reject Christianity and embrace secularism. So I suppose just as you see the Protestant Reformation as a continuation of the original church of the apostles, Fundamentalists see themselves as a continuation of what the church was before Darwin, Huxley, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, etc.
"the church" was firmly not on the side of Galileo, Copernicus, etc, do fundamentalism today may believe it's following in the footsteps of theistic scientists of the past, but certainly not of the church as a whole
@@killiemonwhat?
As a fundamentalist myself I prefer evidential apologetics and philosophical apologetics.
As a lifelong atheist until maybe a couple years ago, I think evidential proofs are not as stable as purely logical proofs. It wasn't evidence that woke me up to god, but a solidification of logic that at first permitted such, then required such.
@@jhoughjr1 I agree, sound logic comes first and an understanding thereof determines how evidence is used or understood.
21:37 Well guess what? You do now. I converted from Pagan/Diest to Christian due to pre-sups. I think there's far more than just me tbh.
I belive that ecumenism will unite protestants and catolics.
I absolutly agree with thats you say in this video
Girls with autism: omg I can't listen to this song it makes stim so hard
Boys with Autism:
LOL im a sperg and agree the music is good. Im a garden variety male though.
To me, people who use presuppositional apologetics feel very close minded and unwilling to hear the opinions of others. While I’m never turning away from Christianity, I would still like to hear others worldviews and ways of thinking and interpreting the supernatural and concepts within it.
19:37 WOW THAT WAS CLOSE
My favorite defense of my Christian faith is to be able to bench press 350 lbs and explain that I would like to go on my way to make the world a better place.
I agree with adaptation yes, it's one of the rules of nature, all species adapt to their own environment. The flying squirrel adapted it's flappy skin so it can stretch it and glide from tree to tree to escape predators. But evolution no, one species can't evolve into another 'Kind' of species and even if it could we don't see variations of it between the two. Let's say birds evolve into cats, do we see variations of bird/cats or turtle dogs or whale bats. All species have sub species too like lots of variations of monkeys, apes, birds etc. But God made us in his image we did not evolve into humans from apes otherwise that's like saying God is an ape but we evolved into humans. Eventually as time goes on we will continue to adapt to our environment like all species and that includes adapting to temperature, pressure and predators.
Also i love your video's i learn alot from you, I'm still finding my way as a Christian. Thank you Zoomy i will continue to binge watch your channel and re watch. =)
We do see variations like you are describing, though.
Cats didn't evolve from birds, but birds evolved from reptiles. The variation that's in-between the two is dinosaurs. (And yes, of course not all reptiles evolved into dinosaurs and then into birds, obviously since we still have reptiles.) And, a flying squirrel is clearly a different species from other squirrels. That's because it evolved from another kind of squirrel, through exactly the method of adaptation you mentioned.
Most species alive today are in a stage between what they were before, and what they are going to evolve into. We just don't know what that will be, yet.
Humans can have evolved from apes and still be made in the image of God. That's not a contradiction. It just means it took a good long while for us to get made.
I personally do not understand how you can reconcile Darwinian evolution with scripture, I do believe In some elements of Darwinism but certainly not the theory of evolution as taught and I don't quite understand how you can reconcile that with scripture
The main thing about evolution as taught, is it is taught without god, purely materialistically.
I see it as a physical aspect of a physical spiritual truth. God is beyond time and space. That makes it hard for us to really consider the mysterious ways, but evolution looks to me like how it would look to beings in time vs a being outside of time.
Biological evolution, like god, can be hard to grasp. It's truly a beautiful marvel when you comprehend it.
Certainly more in tune with a god unimaginably beyond humans.
Genesis was recorded as a spiritual origin of man and the world and outlines the relationships.
When you take the Bible as a whole, and theology as a whole, knowing everything we do of god and science, it's not so hard to reconcile. It does take a bit of work to understand both well enough.
If you accept evolution on any level, you really cant deny it on longer timespans.
It truly works the same way all the way down and we see it happening on a molecular basis up.
The thing that does make it hard is large changes do take to long to accumulate compared to our lifetimes, but not always.
YECs and creationists are about as good a source on science as Dawkins is on theology and they both cause confusion.
Statistically, the majority of people consider themselves spiritual today. Atheism is still big but it's not right to say it's the majority belief.
Goodness, truth and beauty all the way. We should be telling people about the beauty we've found. Scripture says our speech should be seasoned with salt, so we may know how we ought to answer each person. Let us consider how to stir one another up to love and good works. Evangelicals made me feel guilty for thinking about my faith like it was worldly wisdom. Let's go back to the classical approach.
I clung to intelligent design ideas in my darker moments doubting modern evangelism before I came to the historic faith. We've got the incarnation for a reason Christians should be using the material to point to the immaterial all day every day.
Presuppositional apologetics is objectively the worst form. It’s essentially the same as the pro papal apologetics used by cardinal Henry Manning a hundred years before Van Til. Where he claims you must presupposed the papacy is true in order to be able to understand anything about the Bible and church history.
Jordan Cooper just made a video about him and I can’t believe he didn’t mention the similarities
My favorite argument is
Women
Wil people be singing Cardi B in 200 years? Probably not. Will they be singing Sinatra, Led Zeppelin, Michael Jackson, Nirvana, and Adele? Yes, 100%. There is plenty of music that has been made recently that will ABSOLUTELY stand the test of time. The one and only reason people haven't been listening to it for 200 years is that it wasn't made 200 years ago. I love a lot of your work, but you are ridiculous about art.
People who mostly listen to classical music often have this delusion that modern music is not artful, carefully crafted, well-made, or timeless. That is such a stupid assumption and so obviously just a product of you not listening to any modern music that isn't just chart-topping. I have a dog in this fight, I'm a music producer by trade, so I hear new music every single day. A lot of it is bad, but a lot of it is exceptional too.
You can make and distribute music with a cheap laptop, a used Focusrite interface for $30, the earbuds that came with your cellphone, and a free trial of Reaper. Tons of people do it that way, and make good music like that. You cannot realistically say that modern music will not stand the test of time when there are literally millions of songs released every single day. Will most of those make it to the next century? No, but neither did most of the music in the past. And just because it won't be heard doesn't mean it isn't beautiful. There is no correlation between quality and popularity in art, especially in a world where music distribution is free.
idk the people listening to Sinatra in 2023 arent that large. Not many listening to Led Zeppelin either. Not even the king of pop gets much airtime anywhere. Im not saying they arent good, but it's pretty myopic to think they are going to be around in 100 years. Classical music was kept alive by people playing it and valuing it enough.
Recorded music has different incentive. Especially modern music and even the music you mentioned was made by a very different machine than classical was.
@@calebneff5777 llol we literally can through when a bucket of water can erase those bits into oblivion.
I also say you cannot assert there is no correlation between popularity and quality. especially as a music producer.
Just because you like it doesnt make it timeless. People said the same shit about ragtime. and Schwingtunes.
regarding your argument from mathematics, i think there was a guy who commented in your first video ever refuting that argument
no one ever counterrefuted him, neither can i refute him.
link:th-cam.com/video/V5l-b7RPzt0/w-d-xo.html
Yea I saw. When I first saw his comment it was too long for me to respond and then I forgot. But cuz of your comment I just posted a quick response to his comment.
@@redeemedzoomer6053
looks like he only made responses to two videos
I dont think you will ever have a 2 + 2 = god, outside of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
I prefer the midhusband automechannacil term, evidences.
To me, it concords with free will better and seems to accurately describe what I see
I don't even believe it, but I think your framing of presuppositionalism as relativistic regarding truth is completely made up. Yes you could be morally relativistic and presuppositional, but all presuppositionalists I've ever met have been staunchly absolutist
This is a pretty poor representation on presup
What evidence has led you to your conclusion?
I think you don't know very much about presuppositional apologetics.
I think you dont know much about converting atheists.
Okay, you really have a weak grasp on philosophy. You will not find a single philosopher who would argue that reality is subjective; that is not a stance that exists. As Dr. Rick Rodrick put it "relativism is only something we bring up in Philosophy 101 classes to point out how stupid it is and then move on"
Things like the post-modern tendency of questioning the validity of metanarratives, the poststructuralist concept of the instability of language, and the challenging of the arborescence of knowledge structures may sound like subjectivist contentions to someone who knows very little about philosophy, but, to quote Ludwig Wittgenstein, "whereof one does not know, thereof he shall be silent".