Join this channel to get access to perks: / @dannyphiltalk #apologetics #atheism #god #theism #philosophy #theism #problemofevil #religion #christianity #presuppostionalism
Its a trip that when he is confused he goes meta at lightning speed. The irony is that he starts with that breathy pastor voice that he drops minutes into the convo
"So you're an atheist so you believe only the natural exists, which is a huge problem." "I'm not a naturalist." "Oh. Well here's why naturalism has a huge problem."
I'm so sick of these hacks attempting to paint Danny/You/Me... (the other) as "confrontational, dismissive, upset, aggressive, emotional, not willing to listen or learn, contentious," etc. These dudes are so bad at answering questions sincerely. It's so bad.
Not a philosopher or logician, but this was frustrating to listen to. As I spend more time around theist arguments, they all seem to return to either arguments from incredulity or arguments from ignorance.
I love it when Danny is in "I'm going to stomp a mud hole in your ass and walk it dry!" mode! This video and the video of Danny curb stomping James is Tired are two of my favorites...oh I forgot about the debate with Latex...."...now you're going to give me the Goddamm contradiction!" 🧨
I’ll be more charitable and grant that presuppositionalism works for a certain kind of personality, the kind that wants to be certain and to be right. They like thinking that theirs is an unassailable position from which to get dopamine hits by winning debates with those who disagree with their position. All nonsense of course, but they _feel_ good, so that’s nice for them.
I remember a video (can't remember when) where a bunch of presups were literally saying that they got into presup because it's not that hard to "defend"💀 One of them was Sye Ten🤣🤣
At the end he wants to say that natural things produce other natural things and supernatural or metaphysical things create those kinds of things. So if God is metaphysical how does he create natural things? If it goes both ways then it goes both ways. Natural can make metaphysical things.
Ozy once said that logic and reason are tools or guides, to help us reach higher understanding, but are not a destination themselves. The laws of thought are called that appropriately: they outline our thinking.
If God explains logic, then is it true that God is what God is, and not what God isn't? How can that be if God explains logic? Let's roll out the 5 Modes of Agrippa again: Dissent � The uncertainty demonstrated by the differences of opinions among philosophers and people in general. Progress ad infinitum � All proof rests on matters themselves in need of proof, and so on to infinity. Relation � All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as we look upon them from different points of view. Assumption � The truth asserted is based on an unsupported assumption. Circularity � The truth asserted involves a circularity of proofs. "Atheists create arguments that presuppose logic, so if you're not able to explain the laws by which your logic is correct, how could you possibly know your point is even valid?" People create equations that presuppose maths, so if you're not able to explain the laws by which your maths is correct, how could you possibly know 2+2=4? This analogy highlights that all the work is already done for us. The syntax, the rules, the operators, the definitions, such that by definition, 2 + 2 = 4, whether we understand how maths works fundamentally or not. The same is true for logic. All the rules, definitions, syntax, etc are in place, such that by definition, logic can be applied to appropriate contexts where it is valid to use it.
not that i know anything but i imagine even if god created the universe the "laws" of logic are a by product rather than then a specific creation, if god creates a rock then we have a rock and the rock can't be not a rock, i don't think god has to write a book of rules for that. ditto the universe, if i exist then i exist, and if i don't exist then i am still i. i think god is irrelevant to the laws of logic, but of course if you like gods then you'll say the "laws" are god given cos you have squeeze god in everywhere, otherwise how can you justify bullying people.
Michael was rekt. It’s becoming very boring to listen to them go to the meta every time. If you’re claiming a logical syllogism, yet cannot produce the premises, why should I care about your claim? I’m not telling you to accept mine, but do not expect me to accept your flawed argument just because you’d like there to be a sky daddy.
17:00 eh. "if" god exists. he is outside the physical world? people make these claims, how does anyone know where god lives? wtf? god gives off energy so there is an equal and opposite energy? this guy is mad. 24:00 so despite having said "god is outside space" these are just cliche's people use. blimey, make yer mind up chum. 35:00 please don't get involved with this kind of situation, follow pinecreeks advice, be dead inside, you KNOW they are dishonest, so don't let it bother you, better to laugh at them "plants produce seeds" is the funniest thing i've heard so far today. that's the way to go, he has hot air.
A huge chunk of these types of presup apologists are like this. This practised phoney civility that becomes more annoying as the conversation goes on. They don’t really seem to be capable of having a normal conversation.
Man this guy goes to the meta then when Danny calls him on it, he just tries to imeddiately claim "I'm not trying to do that". My "perspective" is this guy was a dishonest tool.
17:34 - if the metaphysical god exists then metaphysical laws exist. metaphysical laws exist, therefore god exists. isn't that affirming the consequent?
He can’t even keep the topic consistent. Very frustrating. I just wanted to point out how his premises that “logic presumes / is accounted by God” and that “any argument presumes logic” would defeat his position that there is a sound argument for why God accounts for logic and it would also mean there is no sound argument for God’s existence. Think about it. Any argument (at least the formal ones that attempt to support a conclusion based on premises) presumes logic. So any attempt at a formal argument for the conclusion that God is the basis for logic would have to presume logic in the premises, thereby making it circular and thus invalid. If you buy the premise that logic presumes God, then any attempt at a formal argument for the existence of God would presume logic and thus also presume God in the premises, rendering these argument circular and thus invalid as well. The best he can do is just presume God and admit that it’s an presupposition ab initio, but then he would have to admit there is not even a valid (much less than a sound) argument for God’s existence.
@@utubepunk If platonic objects exist and God is a being, it follows that God isn't eternal, non derivative and self contained. Therefore God does not exist.
Painful, felt your frustration. Talking to someone about the laws of logic who seems unable to follow the simplest logical argumentation at all. Was getting real Matt Dillahunty vibes on this one, just need some "stop! stop! stop! no! shut up!"
"man that is crazy" this really says he's willing to discuss, this is a guy out to play word games. i just said this elsewhere, i hate philosophy, it's doubletalk, but the idea of it is to find truth, it's not to win a game of who can word salad more than the other guy. when people start trying "to win arguments" i classify them as pricks and move on. we're here to make the world a better place, not stick "kick me" post its on people's backs.
Yikes….the way he responds is infuriating every time lol I think you actually stayed relatively calm considering that this guy had no idea how to answer your questions. His explanation for why the laws of logic depend on god is that, “I think god is the best explanation.” …..uhhh, no shit, dude but why??
Only the Calvin groupies need to play the silly game of accounting for things that humans themselves formulated through basic common sense trial and error. Logic isn't revealed in the Bible, and most Christians couldn't tell logic from a chicken leg.
Yeah I recently just saw Mikheal get bodied by planet Peterson.
Every apologist has reached that point where they had the choice to be honest, or be an apologist.
This. Absolutely this.
Its a trip that when he is confused he goes meta at lightning speed. The irony is that he starts with that breathy pastor voice that he drops minutes into the convo
Presup always sounds ridiculous when the presupper doesn't have mod powers.
Not only that. It just doesn’t work without it.
Can we agree that most if not the majority of presupers lime hearing the sound of thier own voices.
It always sounds ridiculous regardless.
@@JerkaBackbeat It doesn't work, period.
@@tucarreanusea5464 I'll go with you on that.
"So you're an atheist so you believe only the natural exists, which is a huge problem."
"I'm not a naturalist."
"Oh. Well here's why naturalism has a huge problem."
Cutting edge argument for god: “plants produce seeds”.
I'm so sick of these hacks attempting to paint Danny/You/Me... (the other) as "confrontational, dismissive, upset, aggressive, emotional, not willing to listen or learn, contentious," etc. These dudes are so bad at answering questions sincerely.
It's so bad.
Presup seems like one of the 5 stages of 'Acceptance'; it's kind the middle ground between Anger and Bargaining.
I loved that “animals and plants replicate therefore metaphysics replicates” line of reasoning! 😂
hey been awhile how goes :D
@@DeconvertedMan good and you?
@@JerryPenna eh well. keepin on sorta.
@@DeconvertedMan I hope so, I enjoy your content.
This one was a chore to finish, Danny. My god 😂
27:45 Danny applies the astringent of logical analysis to Michael’s oily and condescending responses.
Not a philosopher or logician, but this was frustrating to listen to. As I spend more time around theist arguments, they all seem to return to either arguments from incredulity or arguments from ignorance.
That was a fantastic line, "as a white man how do you account for physics"
I love it when Danny is in "I'm going to stomp a mud hole in your ass and walk it dry!" mode! This video and the video of Danny curb stomping James is Tired are two of my favorites...oh I forgot about the debate with Latex...."...now you're going to give me the Goddamm contradiction!" 🧨
17:29 he straight up affirms the consequent here too.
I love it when you ask a presupper for an argument and they just crumble. They should definitely teach prop logic in presup school
17:00 - The guy did a Darth!
"If God exists the laws of logic exist. The laws of logic exist, therefore God exists!"
Classic affirming the consequent.
Every day that goes by I become more and more convinced that presups are presups to avoid basically any mental legwork
I’ll be more charitable and grant that presuppositionalism works for a certain kind of personality, the kind that wants to be certain and to be right. They like thinking that theirs is an unassailable position from which to get dopamine hits by winning debates with those who disagree with their position.
All nonsense of course, but they _feel_ good, so that’s nice for them.
I remember a video (can't remember when) where a bunch of presups were literally saying that they got into presup because it's not that hard to "defend"💀
One of them was Sye Ten🤣🤣
LAWS of logic are descriptive, meaning they indicate how logic works. They do not dictate how it works.
Sound argument for theist is “ I have this feeling that a sky daddy exist “ 😅
He employed the "sa'll good bro" strategy.
This Muslim guy reminds me of Paul Dano’s character in There Will Be Blood.
Danny: I AM THE THIRD REVELATION
At the end he wants to say that natural things produce other natural things and supernatural or metaphysical things create those kinds of things. So if God is metaphysical how does he create natural things? If it goes both ways then it goes both ways. Natural can make metaphysical things.
How do you converse with people that are incapable of tracking a conversation?
It's really cool that you got a chance to debate Kenneth from 30 Rock.
"Well essentially, man...
Danny ---- Calm down".
Hack.
Great job, Danny.
So frustrating to listen to their desperate gaslighting and avoidance.
This was sooo good. Mikela is so damn dishonest.
Ozy once said that logic and reason are tools or guides, to help us reach higher understanding, but are not a destination themselves.
The laws of thought are called that appropriately: they outline our thinking.
god depends on logic (it has an identity), so it can't be an explanation for logic.
anything that could explain logic would be utterly inconceivable.
If God explains logic, then is it true that God is what God is, and not what God isn't? How can that be if God explains logic?
Let's roll out the 5 Modes of Agrippa again:
Dissent � The uncertainty demonstrated by the differences of opinions among philosophers and people in general.
Progress ad infinitum � All proof rests on matters themselves in need of proof, and so on to infinity.
Relation � All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as we look upon them from different points of view.
Assumption � The truth asserted is based on an unsupported assumption.
Circularity � The truth asserted involves a circularity of proofs.
"Atheists create arguments that presuppose logic, so if you're not able to explain the laws by which your logic is correct, how could you possibly know your point is even valid?"
People create equations that presuppose maths, so if you're not able to explain the laws by which your maths is correct, how could you possibly know 2+2=4?
This analogy highlights that all the work is already done for us. The syntax, the rules, the operators, the definitions, such that by definition, 2 + 2 = 4, whether we understand how maths works fundamentally or not. The same is true for logic. All the rules, definitions, syntax, etc are in place, such that by definition, logic can be applied to appropriate contexts where it is valid to use it.
not that i know anything but i imagine even if god created the universe the "laws" of logic are a by product rather than then a specific creation, if god creates a rock then we have a rock and the rock can't be not a rock, i don't think god has to write a book of rules for that. ditto the universe, if i exist then i exist, and if i don't exist then i am still i. i think god is irrelevant to the laws of logic, but of course if you like gods then you'll say the "laws" are god given cos you have squeeze god in everywhere, otherwise how can you justify bullying people.
If god is not subject to the laws of logic, then god is subject to the laws of logic.
If god was real and wanted us to know it, we would.
Their phoney politeness is so aggravating. Cloying, saccharine obsequiousness meant to disguise their miserably bad arguments.
Michael was rekt. It’s becoming very boring to listen to them go to the meta every time. If you’re claiming a logical syllogism, yet cannot produce the premises, why should I care about your claim? I’m not telling you to accept mine, but do not expect me to accept your flawed argument just because you’d like there to be a sky daddy.
I like how he keeps spewing out many different unrelated topics like the big bang theory and he has always goes back to that word "Metaphysic". 🤦♂️
I love when theists say they aren't trying to ask any trick questions. They don't HAVE any.
Gotta love the fake sophisticated voice inflection and pomposity. All theater.
17:00 eh. "if" god exists. he is outside the physical world? people make these claims, how does anyone know where god lives? wtf? god gives off energy so there is an equal and opposite energy? this guy is mad.
24:00 so despite having said "god is outside space" these are just cliche's people use. blimey, make yer mind up chum.
35:00 please don't get involved with this kind of situation, follow pinecreeks advice, be dead inside, you KNOW they are dishonest, so don't let it bother you, better to laugh at them "plants produce seeds" is the funniest thing i've heard so far today. that's the way to go, he has hot air.
Dude! You savage as hell. NEW SUBSCRIBER👊
this guy is either one of the best trolls i ever heard or a complete waste of time if he is for real.
A huge chunk of these types of presup apologists are like this. This practised phoney civility that becomes more annoying as the conversation goes on. They don’t really seem to be capable of having a normal conversation.
Won't let him bloviate so he goes to the meta. Says logic requires x y or Z but clearly doesn't know anything about logic.
Man this guy goes to the meta then when Danny calls him on it, he just tries to imeddiately claim "I'm not trying to do that".
My "perspective" is this guy was a dishonest tool.
17:34 - if the metaphysical god exists then metaphysical laws exist. metaphysical laws exist, therefore god exists. isn't that affirming the consequent?
You should have brought this version of Danny out when you were in that room with Pinecreek, and those Christians. Don’t take no shit, Danny!
what a headache.. haha.. what does being a white man has anything to do for account for the laws of physics 🤦🏾♂️
He can’t even keep the topic consistent. Very frustrating. I just wanted to point out how his premises that “logic presumes / is accounted by God” and that “any argument presumes logic” would defeat his position that there is a sound argument for why God accounts for logic and it would also mean there is no sound argument for God’s existence.
Think about it. Any argument (at least the formal ones that attempt to support a conclusion based on premises) presumes logic. So any attempt at a formal argument for the conclusion that God is the basis for logic would have to presume logic in the premises, thereby making it circular and thus invalid. If you buy the premise that logic presumes God, then any attempt at a formal argument for the existence of God would presume logic and thus also presume God in the premises, rendering these argument circular and thus invalid as well.
The best he can do is just presume God and admit that it’s an presupposition ab initio, but then he would have to admit there is not even a valid (much less than a sound) argument for God’s existence.
god's existence presupposes logic, if god is itself and is not not-itself. god can't account for logic because god depends on logic.
He has a script, that's it.
Laws of logic show God. Also reification fallacies violate logic.
@@HarryNicNicholas Because of platonic objects
@@deedrabbit Can you show your work?
@@utubepunk If platonic objects exist and God is a being, it follows that God isn't eternal, non derivative and self contained. Therefore God does not exist.
God is not an explanation for anything.
presups should stay at tiktok
“ the power of his own self“. I don’t think this guy is used to being pushed really hard on justifying his claims.
Painful, felt your frustration. Talking to someone about the laws of logic who seems unable to follow the simplest logical argumentation at all. Was getting real Matt Dillahunty vibes on this one, just need some "stop! stop! stop! no! shut up!"
ah presup... sad.
and, jesus h fkng christ, the "laws" of logic are not "laws", the laws just refers to them being immutable. blimey.
Yes, people need to understand that they are actually just ‘observed regularities’.
This is a bad presupper btw. It can be done much better. I'm not of that school but have studied it enough.
Don't know how you stay so cool
"man that is crazy"
this really says he's willing to discuss, this is a guy out to play word games. i just said this elsewhere, i hate philosophy, it's doubletalk, but the idea of it is to find truth, it's not to win a game of who can word salad more than the other guy. when people start trying "to win arguments" i classify them as pricks and move on. we're here to make the world a better place, not stick "kick me" post its on people's backs.
Yikes….the way he responds is infuriating every time lol I think you actually stayed relatively calm considering that this guy had no idea how to answer your questions. His explanation for why the laws of logic depend on god is that, “I think god is the best explanation.” …..uhhh, no shit, dude but why??
One believer in silly supernatural propositions talking to another.
🙁
Accounting for logic - how does one do so without presupposing logic?
Only the Calvin groupies need to play the silly game of accounting for things that humans themselves formulated through basic common sense trial and error.
Logic isn't revealed in the Bible, and most Christians couldn't tell logic from a chicken leg.
If God exists -- BUzzz!! Sorry, unsound argument from the second word.
Wow. Another lying theist. Presup = make the meaning of words change. Hilarious.