Christian Presuppositionalists (Mole, JRobin, Faceofyah) Finally Learn About The Laws Of Logic
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Mole, Jrobin, and Faceofyah (Christian Presuppositional Apologists) FINALLY learn about the laws of logic.
Please like, comment, share, and subscribe for more amazing videos!
Join us at discord.gg/politics for more great conversations!
#religion #christianity #islam #metaphysics #buddhism #christianphilosophy #christian #islamic #metaphysical #morality #moral #ethics #kalam #philosophy #physics #science #quantumphysics #epistemology #ontology #apostasy
Greg Bahnsen, Cornelius Van Til, Presuppositionalist, Presuppositionalism, Presuppositional Apologetics, Kalam Cosmological Argument, Science, Agnostic, Agnosticism, Epistemology, Ontology, Physics, Quantum Physics, Necessary Being, Necessary Existence, Evidentialism, Evidentialist, God, Gods, Argument, Debate, Religion Debate, God Debate, Bible, The Bible, Quran, The Quran, Shroud of Turin, Evolution, Abiogenesis, Argument For God, Argument for Religion, Apologetics, Ignosticism, Metaphysics, Metaphysical, Discord Conversation, Discord, Philosophy, Philosophical, Philosophical Discourse, Theology, Theological Discourse, Noah's Ark, The Great Flood, The Ark, Religion. Argument Against Religion, Arguments Against Religion, Determinism, Free Will, Catholic, Apostasy, Apostate, Evolution, Evolutionism, Evolutionist
![Theists vs Logical POE by Jack Angstreich (ft. monkeyboy) [Trey Host]](/img/n.gif)
"Go to Google!!!"😂
Sometimes it is the best response!
GODDAGEWGULL
??? What?
@@realBreakfasttacos GOOO DAH GEWGULL
a "law of logic" just seems to me to be "accuracy" + "efficiency" + "transmission of descriptive data" + "referential language" + "cogency" + "predictive" + "objects of evidence" + "etc etc", there's more here I guess
Laws of logic are laws we made for systems of logic
What i always say is that Logic is what the brain does. Think of it as running. While running doesnt have a physical form, it is a process that is carried out by things that do (legs, electronics, etc.)
The movement done by running is an emergent property in the same way conciousness is an emergent property of the brain.
This reminds me that God being pure being would be like God being pure running. There's no runner and no place they're running, there's just running. This is of course entirely incomprehensible because processes can't exist independent of the things that do them.
Face's voice is really pleasant. But the Popeye god - I yam what I yam - is so unmoving
Face is always enjoyable lol.
The "Laws of Logic" are just features of language,without us and our desire to communicate with other people, the "laws" wouldn't exist. A=B wouldn't make sense because it would be incoherent, not because of some mystical reason. the term apple can't mean a red fruit and a yellow one at the same time, it would make communication impossible.
The "Laws of logic" are just a way of giving us a coherent way of making sense of what we experience. if we didn't exist it wouldn't matter.
Moreover, the laws of logic really depend on *the person you're talking to.* They're really about which statements are or are not interpretable by the recipient. If you're talking to a quantum physicist, they *can* interpret things like "this particle has both decayed and not decayed at the same time", so the law of non-contradiction doesn't apply in this case.
@@СергейМакеев-ж2н oh yes, the "Laws" depend heavily on how you contextualize the world.
2+2 can equal 5 if you use certain types of math.
Great point!
They’ve glommed onto ‘the laws of logic’ and it’s actually just a more elaborate ‘look at the trees’.
@@davids11131113 They really believe when people speak about "laws of logic" it's like human laws so there must be a law giver instead of it being a metaphor like how DNA is a "code".
somehow physics is related to gods? what is the connection?
Well its an emergent property of the necessary being, the universal quantum field, which he called god for some reason.
@@realBreakfasttacos the "universal quantum field" is concept invented to explain our observations. it does not imply that such a field exists, it only implies that the concept is consistent with observations. so the "universal" part is not quite as universal as the name implies.
@@billjohnson9472 I'm a nominalist, I'm talking about the universal quantum field we observe, the fundamental substrate of all of reality. I am not talking about philosophical universal there.
@@realBreakfasttacos "universal quantum field we observe" - there is no observation of a universal quantum field. it is part of quantum field theory which is based on observed behavior of particles.
No way jrobin gets it. He's too dense.
NO WAY
Yeah, he'd probably sink if he fell into a pool of molten lead.
@@vex1669 but where would you get a pool large enough to submerge his ego?
@@CrowManyClouds Now you got me! No idea!
Either god is subject to the 'laws of logic', in which case the 'laws of logic' are more fundamental than god, or god is _not_ subject to the 'laws of logic', in which case god can both be something and not be that same thing at the same time. Either way, god is not the most fundamental thing.
Hah, see? I out-wordgamed the presups.
Great point!
If God is not subject to logic, then anything said about God can be true, and by explosion, anything said about the objects of God's knowledge can also be true; since God is omniscient (but also simultaneously not), literally any proposition can be made true by phrasing it as "God knows that [proposition] is true" which collapses to "[proposition] is true." Congratulations, if God is not subject to logic, I can truthfully claim to be the King of Earth with an 80 foot dong (and also that God isn't real because God knows God doesn't exist).
Mole got folded 4 or 5 times in a row this day.
Yes he did!
JRobin a while back said he’s leaving the presup game, and that it’s pointless and even apologized and said he’s getting on with his life now….i guess he discovered he was unable to have any life so came back to presup nonsense. It’s so pathetic.
Interesting observation!
Why does jrobin sound like Jay dyre
No clue. You think Jay Dyer is impersonating jrobin? New conspiracy?
How do in get in this discord. VC is lit.
Discord.gg/politics
So desperate for a celestial dictator.
That could possibly be the case.
@@sticks1990 They're closet fascists, thus, my mortal enemy.
hehehehe. GO to Google! Love it.
Yes, all he had to do was stop talking for 10 seconds.
The irony of calling someone crazy while constantly screaming "go to google" 😂😂
I mean google is pretty awesome.
@@realBreakfasttacos Love how you dont even see it. xD
@@andreaskarlsson5251 I think you might be confused.
@@realBreakfasttacos IIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii THINK yooooooooouuuuu are CoNfUUUUseeeed.
Fixed your comment to fit how you speak ;)
GO TO GOOGLE
Presups are obsessed with the word transcendental’s 😂😂😂 they just can’t argue without the same damn darth script. It’s boring and annoying hearing the same script repeatedly
Yes they are!
Any theist think they can whoop me on debate? Bring it and prepare to get wrecked.
Want me to run Darth's script? :)
@@realBreakfasttacos Sure. Let's hear it. Which specific version of a presuppositional, so-called "god" is it that you want everyone to believe in, and why do you want everyone to believe in your Magical Invisible Friend?
@@realBreakfasttacos That's my first question to him, which he will immediately try to dodge and thus CHECKMATE. Happens every time without fail.
Does he think being an incel is making him smarter? Because I beg to differ 😰
Who knows.
2 photons being in the same place at the same times is not a violation of the law of identity.
It's just an example showing the top down image of the world is false.
I would imagine that it would be difficult to distinguish between 2 photon occupying the same space at the same time. Their past and future positions might be different, but in that moment their natures are identical. How could you apply the law of identity?
@@LateNight-zeit Two photons are distinguishable by the fact that there are two of them. If they occupied identical spacetime coordinates they might be very difficult to distinguish, but there would still be an actual distinction between them in that there are, in fact, two photons and not just one.
As you noted, if variable x has coordinates (a,b) at time t and variable y also has coordinates (a,b) at time t, we cannot technically say that x = y, or even that x = y at time t. We can say they occupy the same coordinates at time t, but that alone doesn't make them identical. Other information could lead to the collapse of the variables to one and the same, of course, if it were the case that x and y differ in no way whatsoever. But that kind of clean numeric identity is rare in the real world.
@@Uryvichk can you explain to me how x = (a, b) + t = y is false?
A bunch of made up bs. He has no way to verify anything he says. Complete garbage.
It was all made up.
@JerryPenna do atheists have a way of scientifically verifying that their position for Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics and more are true?
Usually, atheists believe;
For Metaphysics: Materialism - the universal proposition that ONLY the material is real or exists (even beyond the domain of what science can verify)
For Epistemology: Empiricism or Scientism (the universal proposition that truth can only be known if it's empirically verified - or scientifically verified)
For Ethics: Moral Relativism (the universal proposition that morals are determined by an individual person or society)
None of these can possibly be verified. Yet, everyone has a position on them. Including atheists.
And more, too.
So, it makes no sense to critique someone's else's worldview by saying it includes propositions that can't be verified when everyone's worldview does. It just shows a double standard in the application of criticism [top symptom of pseudoskepticism / dogmatism]
@JerryPenna Do atheists have a way of scientifically verifying that their position for Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics and more are true?
Usually, atheists believe;
For Metaphysics: Materialism - the universal proposition that ONLY the material is real or exists (even beyond the domain of what science can verify)
For Epistemology: Empiricism or Scientism (the universal proposition that truth can only be known if it's empirically verified - or scientifically verified)
For Ethics: Moral Relativism (the universal proposition that morals are determined by an individual person or society)
@@JerryPenna None of these can possibly be verified. Yet, everyone has a position on them. Including atheists.
And more, too.
So, it makes no sense to critique someone's else's worldview by saying it includes propositions that can't be verified when everyone's worldview does. It just shows a double standard in the application of criticism [top symptom of pseudoskepticism / dogmatism]
@JerryPenna Sigh... YT hide my 1st reply. Here's what I said:
Do atheists have a way of scientifically verifying that their position for Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics and more are true?
Usually, atheists believe;
For Metaphysics: Materialism - the universal proposition that ONLY the material is real or exists (even beyond the domain of what science can verify)
For Epistemology: Empiricism or Scientism (the universal proposition that truth can only be known if it's empirically verified - or scientifically verified)
For Ethics: Moral Relativism (the universal proposition that morals are determined by an individual person or society)
“One of his properties being logic…”
The way I bursted out laughing at this XD
That one was pretty funny.
The laws of logic dictate reality is such a weird and upside-down notion. If you believe that's the way it works no wonder you have to make a lot of things up to get a "worldview" that fits.
They just need to read a little more.
There is literally no difference in their minds between a speed limit sign reading 60 and the speed of light being c, except that it requires a more powerful government to dictate the latter.
'We don't have journals at my school' Well, we do at mine: no Anthony Ridley has published on the subject of photons. Happy to be corrected if I misheard the name.
I think he said Rizzi, but I might also be mistaken. But if he can’t be bothered to spend 1 minute to substantiate his claim then I wouldn’t bother doing the work for him.
@@erik.a.s It was obvious BS as soon as he claimed that his 'school' doesn't have access to journals.
@@ianchisholm5756 yeah that part made me laugh. But hey, maybe he goes to the same trailer park university that Kent Hovind got his PhD’s at!
That was pretty funny.