Rookie error. Presups aren't supposed to ever be on the defensive. This is why. You'll end up having to actually answer questions that you swore you had an answer to when you didn't.
@@lightbeforethetunnel hey No Light in the Tunnel, how can you establish that a particular god concept is the "correct" god to believe in? Your definition of your god places it outside of any human language to talk about, it literally "exists" outside Space-Time; since everything in every human language is limited by the consistency of reality, how can our Reality based languages ever communicate about a god Concept that is by definition, outside our ability to understand? Even the word "Existence" doesn't apply to god, because to Exist a thing must have physical properties. Your god doesn't have physical limitations, so the word "Existence" doesn't even apply; your god doesn't Exist, it's a Mental Construct that people try to use to describe concepts beyond their linguistic abilities. No matter how god "revealed" itself to any individual person, that person wouldn't be able to communicate about that god, because the limitations on humans languages and understanding prevent humans from experiencing anything relating to a god. All human religions must be false, because our experiences cannot encompass the concepts that define your god; no human language concept applies to an Entity that functions outside Space-Time. So, until you manage to write a "god language" we are stuck not being able to communicate about your god concept.
One of the reasons why I never want to talk to presups: - They start with: "You are lying and know god exists" as a starting point - They are holy circular: The bible is gods word -> how do you know? -> god's word has revealed it to me. It's a complete waste of time when you can't show them that circular argument based on the bible is nothing more than childhood indoctrination. Jean did his best, but you can't win chess against a pigeon.
Darth is an expert at averting confrontation. He has developed a "style" that essentially has a built in "exit strategy" which he engages at will, most predictably, every time, 100% of the time.
Darth dodgins would've muted this guy 2mins in for 'bickering like an 8yr old at the 1st grade cafeteria table', then go on to say he wasn't muted for disagreeing but he's dealt with him before & 'this is what he does'
Jean is essentially trying to "fix" the circularity of "i know the bible is true because the bible is true" by getting Bandou to show HOW he knows that the bible is true. But Bandou is just not getting the point and stays with the same argument that the bible is true because it's true. It's so sad.
If bandou had the bible but it was in Greek, would he recognise God's word? If not then the ability to read would surly be more foundational than the bible right?
No no. The problem is that you can take random verses from the bible, and then random verses from some other similar, dumbshit sounding, book and scramble them up on a table and this moron presup wouldn't be able to tell you which verses are from the bible. The reason for this is the entire claim is hollow. It's just a developmentally delayed christian brain flailing around and giving programmed responses that it has been conditioned to say in order to stay in the in-group. Your problem is that you're looking for some semblance of intelligence in all of this because you're a pattern seeking animal and you're hearing English words being employed, so you're convinced there MUST be some intelligible message coming from its meat flaps. So, as you can see, its far more problematic than your original message conveys. Greek, English, Swahili, Gray Alien, doesn't matter. It's just incoherent ramblings of a damaged, atrophied human cognition that has never actually read the bible to begin with.
@@lightbeforethetunnelwhy are projecting again ,its what you do all the bloody time . Explain the contradictions of your omni quad ! You need to get to the back of the class and stop jumping on the teachers desk and pontificating about your delusions .
@@lightbeforethetunnel hey No Light, there is absolutely nothing to compare, you have a belief in your head that you are trying to utilize linguistic tricks to make it appear as if you have an argument. Presup doesn't lead anywhere, it never connects to any god concept. It's just hard solipsism mixed with blind faith. This is why Cthulhu has equally validity as any other god concept within Presup. Presup Gibberish ultimately becomes useless as hard solipsism, neither belief system has viable grounding, and both lead to being unable to make any differentiations in Reality. There is no difference between Presup and "My dad is bigger than your dad." that children play on the base level, Presup just adds in meaningless jargon to trick people that don't know how con-artists manipulate language to trick marks out of their money like all the Televangelist/Con-Artists do.
@@ajhieb I'd be disappointed as an atheist on a philosophy server if a fellow atheist trolled other atheists by pretending to be a theist who can't argue well.
If Gary Milne and his emules weren't aware that their reasoning was embarrassing, there would be no reason for them to consistently refuse to provide straight answers. They would be candid. Therefore, it's apparent that they sense their convictions are based on sheer stupidity. They only wish to delay that discovery as late as possible, to protect their fragile ego.
It’s why darth relies so heavily upon personal attacks and throwing mute and kick tantrums aFred accusing the interlocutor of being childish, argumentative, insolent, ‘bad behaved’ and all the rest which is just projection.
Did anyone else have the visual imagery of a fish (appropriate metaphor for a Xtian) frantically swimming in a barrel as Jean methodically took shot after shot into the barrel?
Every Presupper ever: But when you're talking about "final authorities" any justification will necessarily be circular, otherwise you aren't talking about a final authority. Thank you for the concise, succinct explanation for why presup necessarily fails.
Nothing you just said entails presup fails. All you did was describe the widely known fact that all worldview utilize epistemic circularity when appealing to its ultimate standard for truth. Epistemic circularity is only fallacious when it's vicious. When it's virtuous, it's valid. This is a common problem where atheists think ALL circularity is automatically fallacious. How would you justify that claim itself? With circular reasoning? See the problem with that?
@@lightbeforethetunnel _"Epistemic circularity is only fallacious when it's vicious. When it's virtuous, it's valid. "_ I've yet to encounter the presupper that can tell me how to differentiate vicious circularity from virtuous and none of them have ever been able to explain how virtuous circularity actually solves the inherent problems of circularity (aside from obvious special pleading) Will you be the first? _[Shakes Magic 8 Ball]_ Outcome doubtful.
There’s no way these guys don’t see how broken these arguments are. If they genuinely don’t, they should be out under someone else’s direct supervision because this would constitute a disability. When do we get to call liars liars?
A strange thing about pre-sups (one of many strange things?) is that if they found a piece of paper with an argument written out, in a language they understand, they claim they can't tell you if it's correct unless they know who wrote it - they need to know whether whoever wrote has God as a foundation for rationality. The rationality they possess is unable to do what the rationality of normal people can do - listen to or read an argument an dassess if they understand it or not, or agree with it or not. It sounds just like BS - the claim they make is just a way of avoiding arguments they don't like engaging with.
All this "The Bible Self Attests To Being Gods Word" goes out the window the second you recognise that it's possible to write a document that self attests to being God's Word without actually being Gods Word. "I expect God's Word to self attest to being God's Word" is no standard for determining if something IS God's Word.
First of all, this is an absolutely brilliant method of uncovering the presup's epistemic errors. Perhaps there's a better way to get at the underlying principles, though. How about: 1. Do you agree that it is possible that we could discover a previously unknown gospel that could be added to Biblical cannon? 2. If yes: Say you find a scroll written in Coptic in a cave in Israel that is a candidate new gospel. Describe the process, step-by-step, that YOU would personally take to determine whether or not the scroll is god's word. 3. If no: Say your friend finds the scroll and believes it is a new, canonical gospel. What steps would you take to show your friend that the scroll is not god's word?
The fun drained out of the exchange as the dodger obfuscated. Seeing him resort to interruptions and repetition was pathetic when he couldn't get agreement for his nonsense. The Patron Saint of Dignity, Saint Matt Dillahunty, has the right idea. With a few simple guidelines, the outcome is often positive during encounters at his sermons in The Chapel of Courtesy. Dodgers, be precise. You might get a trinity of opportunities if comply with a two-way dialogue; alternatively, prepare a cross for yourself. Don't start the backstory from your first day of toilet training. Your story will be boring and unlikely to impress anyone. People who can't control their tongues should learn to feel comfortable with silence. = STFU Please answer questions quickly without patter. Being truthful might be difficult, but do your best. Don't model the apologist's behaviour. Acknowledge what you heard your interlocutor say without gathering straw for the effigy. = Listen and respond without anxiety about your script. Stay on topic, and accept defeat with grace. Please don't repeat the same sentence after the host has acknowledged they heard you.
It's funny to hear him employ Hellen Keller because part of what made her story so impressive was that she DID NOT have a structured understanding before she had language. She had no way to conceptualize before she had labels (words). Just read her explanation of her first understanding of language.
He must use his unaided intellect to approach, read, and understand the Bible to conclude that it's God's revelation. If he begins by believing that the Bible is God's revelation, he's begging the question.
@@skmcee7863 Baseless claims with a threat of torture. How very christian of you. Fortunately I don't share your delusions, you can keep your bronze age superstitions to yourself.
@@skmcee7863the fact that we're going to hell because of God, who introduced sin. Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong prior to eating the Apple, therefore God failed at communication at the very beginning. Then he offers himself to himself as a loophole to the rules he put in place to avoid the punishment of Sin that he created. I would not eternally damn my creation to hell for my own failings, so that makes me Morally superior to your god of the bible.
But ‘the Bible’ is a compilation of many books, men decided which were included and which are left out…. yet the way it is now is ‘the word of god’? How do they know this, they’re just accepting it as true.
The problem in my opinion is that if you are convinced that god revealed something to you, you have no way of knowing if this experience came from god, or if its only made up in your brain or part of a program in the matrix we live in or whatever. There is no way to make the destinction. To say that a god would be able to reveal himself does not help, because it does not show that he actually did.
It should be pointed out that the idea of suppression as he uses it here is a modern one that depends upon the notion of a subconscious; in the New Testament, the word Paul uses is katechein, which means "hold back". So he's apparently talking about keeping the truth from others, the way one might suppress a news story.
If you dropped a Bible at some isolated tribe in some unexplored part of the Amazonas, they would recognize it as "the word of God"? Come on! God didn't learn Bandou to give up when defeated?
How did they get to arbitrarily picking the bible as Gods word of thousands of supposed claimed gods word 😂. Its based on feefees when they read it. And they ignore biblical lies and contradictions
How can someone supress something hidden from them. First Bandou said hes suppressing the truth cause he hates god, then he said they had the same information about god butcame to different conclusions because god choose not to reveal himself hes hiding himself from him.
Compare holy books , a painful silence. I wonder why they never try telepathy on. Automatic writing would be easy surely He could have made a PERFECT rendering of the truth still allowing free for us all. will but didn,t. I can,t hate a fictional character ,just the personality they invent.
They already have the burden by default. Difference being Darth is an expert at shifting the burden of proof by becoming a logical fallacy cannon. As well as an expert at exit strategy engagement to avoid confrontation.
The problem with this argument is that God could make you know something but because you are fallible you can not know if you have been mistaken or deceived.
Babble bible, same thing. Definetly at least copies of copies...curiously does not hold up with the mass education but keeps the word in print. Can the devil talk ? Could he direct the nastiness in the babble...NO.?
This is absolutely painful to watch, Presup is linguistic tricks for children that has no functional grounding. It's literally just a stupid word game that tries to twist the meanings of words to pretend as if god has to exist. Presup is the equivalent of "My dad can beat up your dad." for adults. There is absolutely no reason that any human qualities could be applied to their god, they have literally created an Entity that functions "outside" space-time; so, find human concepts that function without some kind of grounding in our Experiences as Finite Beings. When does a cow become food? When does the food become you? When does it stop being you, and start being whatever it is after it's "not you" anymore? Our concepts of "beginning" and "ending" are arbitrary points of delineation that we simply choose so that we can try and communicate about our reality. Nothing in any human language can really function when attempting to talk about things beyond human experiences. Trying to talk about god, is about as useful as trying to talk about what it would be like to experience the Nothingness after you die and stop having Experiences to talk about. Their god has all the exact same features, as the Nothingness that their god supposedly manifested from. They worship a concept in their mind, and try to define it into Existence as if Existence itself is a Property to have. Existence is when something has Properties in this Reality. Their god has no Functional Properties, and as such cannot Exist in Reality.
If god doesn’t need anything then why did it make a universe for the sole purpose of making humans to worship it? Like a damn Sea Monkey tank basically? Seems this god is needy.
Exactly. The universe prior to creation SHOULD be perfection. The act of creation decreased perfection. So God either failed to create a perfect world or intended not too. Either way, god failed or is evil.
Let me see if I have this right, everyone knows what god’s word is BEFORE they even read the bible but we then know what gods word is AFTER we read it in the bible…….sure
God said that all people know, God. How do you know that? The Bible. How do you know The Bible is the word of God? The Bible. That's circular. How? 🤦♂️
The Christian presupps view seems to be 1) If you don't know everything, you can't know anything, and 2) Without god, you can't know anything. The view I take is 1) We may not know everything, but that does not mean we don't know anything and 2) We will continue to learn more and more over time. Not saying this is necessarily a dichotomy but taking both views at face value I feel mine is far more honest.. and other then honesty then all we have is random chaos. Seems to me the universe is a blend of chaos and order. As far as "what" grounds that I have no definitive explanation but I can go on what I objectively observe and see no reason to ignore/reject that for the sake of any cults, religions or superstitions. If I have any faith in anything aside what I observe, is technological advancements actually making a difference in our lives and more often then not for the better. Prove me wrong. Or explain to me like I am a 5 year old how humanity was better off in the dark ages.
Does God follow the commandments? If not, why is he a hypocrite? If he does, then why does he covet our love? Which also makes him a hypocrite and not maximally great.
The bible might be the most printed book on the planet, but is it actually the best-selling? There are free bibles everywhere, so it's doubtful that many are being bought.
Why is it so hard for a theist to say "If 'A is the reason B exists' means that B is contingent upon A, and if God is not contingent upon anything, then there is no reason that God exists"?
Same reason they have to maintain God has all of the omni/maximal properties, instead of "just" unimaginably smart, unimaginably powerful, etc. The latter have no philosophical baggage whatsoever and still allow for God to do all of his silly whimsical Biblical nonsense, but they have to avoid _any_ perceived "flaw" (like existing for no reason) even at the cost of making their God completely incoherent. Short Answer: Theists tie their ego to their God.
According to saul, god is NOT the author of confusion. According to genesis, god confuses the languages of those who built the tower of babel. Is God's word confused?
Okay! The Beatles are God because they were/are more popular than Christianity. Therefore, anything Ringo Starr says is God's word according to Bandou.
They're already cool with anything that Paul or John says is God's word . . . but I would have expected the Gospel of George gaining acceptance before the Gospel of Ringo!
The book analogy around 6:00 is AWFUL. Any fictional text can claim it is true. Any fictional text (I’m looking at you, Joseph Smith) can claim it’s from a god. A text isn’t justified by the claims it makes for itself. The Bible isn’t justified as the truth because someone believes it’s the word of a god. It must be demonstrated to be the word of a god. There’s a reason presuppositionalism has left no footprint on philosophy. No one outside of a few people who desperately need certainty in their lives take it seriously.
Theist guy says something about youd expect Gods word to tell us it is Gods word. No, i disagree. I would expect Gods word to be instantly recognizable as such based on the perfection of its content, as it would have been the creation of a perfect God. Id expect a person lying and attempting to co opt Gods word for their own uses to browbeat me with how this is REALLY Gods word, and you better listen up or burn bud.
The ability to discern God's Inerrant Word from everything else is either innate, or it isn't. If it _is_ innate, how do you know it is reliable? (any possible verification just leads to an infinite regress) If it _isn't_ innate then it is necessary to acquire this ability prior to the evaluation of some potential Inerrant Word of God. Even if the potential Inerrant Word of God has the procedure/standard for evaluating the Inerrant Word of God, that potential text hasn't been evaluated yet, and thus can't be trusted as the Inerrant Word of God yet. In other words, The text can't be evaluated until the standard is known but The standard can't be known until the text is evaluated.
We know it's reliable the same way we know anything else. God's revelation. The problem is you're beginning with the assumption "verification" is how things are known. But that can't be correct because verification is a scientific concept and science is always provisional.
@@Yahweh_or_noway1 _"We know it's reliable the same way we know anything else. God's revelation. "_ Well, you haven't gotten there yet. "Knowledge" requires justification, and according to presup, it requires infallible epistemic certainty. So let me know when you can demonstrate that revelation necessarily includes epistemic certainty (besides just claiming it to be the case by fiat) and I'll be happy to hear you out. Until then your apologetic is dead in the water.
Just start in Genesis and show him how completely wrong it is on the beginning of the universe and life etc If that’s gods word it’s all screwed up but he probably couldn’t grasp that
I for one am NOT suppressing any belief in a god. I am trying to suppress people who prefer living a lie and use that lie for political gain. As far as just the belief in any god or "higher power" I am all for it and will support anyone's right to believe it. Just don't project your bullshit onto me or into our secular society. It only leads to wars and other bad things.
Why not just cut to the chase and ask the believer how he knows that the bible that he read isn't just a book of stories made up by some random schmuck who decided to put in there that it's the inerrant word of god and that everything in it is true (i.e. self-attesting, claiming to be the word of god, but not really the word of god)? So much time wasted on painstakingly identifying foundational epistemological principles, when the truth is that the Bandou and others don't actually rely on those other principles that they're throwing out there. They are just post-hoc excuses for believing the confirmation of their Bible "Oh the bible has this thing in it? Ok, I'll say that that thing is the thing that the word of god should and would have. Because it's what the bible has." It's like in Idiocracy when they're trying to explain why they should use Brawndo on plants.
I argued with a presup who believes that earth is flat because Bible says so. According to them Bible cannot be wrong, some magic force just makes the reality seem different than the bible.
The untouched tribes ....ignored by a god , bet if you could converse the,d have an imagionary culteral truth...next tribe completely different. and so on and so on round the globe.
What's at stake here is Your eternal soul it's Up In Jesus Christ or it's the second death in the lake of fire Both States are eternal and perpetual states That is That✝️
Lol... atheists think their worldview "is irrelevant" and "doesn't matter" when the entire point of a paradigm-level debate is to compare & contrast each debater's worldview system to determine which one is more rational than the opposition. Until atheists grasp this basic concept, they're never going to be able to comprehend presup. Your worldview (system of presuppositions) obviously does matter. That system of presuppositions is precisely what is in contention in the debate. That seems to be the fundamental intellectual error holding them back. They are under the impression their worldview doesn't matter because they're arbitrarily beginning with the assumption their system is the default, which is just assuming precisely what is in contention (begging-the-question fallacy)
Hey No Light, if you have to continue to hide behind gibberish terminology then you don't have a position that is defendable. The "Until atheist grasp this basic concept..." statement is laughable, because all we have to do is try an apply your gibberish to reality. What we see is that Presup has a similar effect in Reality as does Zeno's paradox. There are theoretically an infinite number of points between any two points, yet every time we travel to from one point to another we arrive at our destination; this is in direct conflict with the very sound Logical Problem of having a theoretical infinite number of halfway points to cross. Presup Gibberish doesn't effect Reality any more than any other childish word games do. Solipsism and Presup are just linguistic tricks that are designed to confuse people. It becomes obvious when we start trying to apply any of the gibberish to the Real World. It's obvious that you don't know how to properly use terminology to communicate.
The sooner you grasp that no one is interested or obligated to participate in your silly "paradigm-level debate" the sooner you'll stop embarrassing yourself with these pathetic attempts to burden shift. People are simply performing an internal critique on your worldview and it is utterly failing.
No Light, you really don't understand what a "fundamental intellectual error" is if you think that starting with Not-Having a belief is the only actually Objective Position possible; assuming any god as the "Instantiator" of the universe and all things, means that anyone that posits a sufficiently powerful Entity has absolutely 100% Equal Validity to any god concept. The concept of "everyone already knows" falls apart immediately when any group outside of any religion is examined; there is absolutely no consistency among any group that would Justify the concept of "god wrote it on their hearts". It's absolutely absurd to try and start with a singular god concept as the basis of someone's epistemology, because Revelation is completely Indistinguishable from having a psychotic break with Reality. Revelation is Indistinguishable from mental illness.
Jesus Christ Is The Eternal Living Word of God That Became Flesh and Dwelt among us He The Immanuel of Isaiah 7:14 He Is The Mighty God of Isaiah 9 6 He Is The LORD of Isaiah 40:3 He Is The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53:1-9 He Is The LORD That Is His Name
I like how easy it is to refute the argumentation of any presupper. Just say "you're using a script" and it necessarily logically follows that whatever he argued is objectively refuted. It's that easy. I'm glad I have channels like this to learn the best atheist talking points from. It's very informative.
You think that’s what happened here? What I heard was an argument that there are more fundamental principles to the presups epistemology, beyond/more basic than the Bible Not sure what video you are watching
@Dave C-137 The Atheists did what I said in the OP multiple times in this video, and do so in almost every debate I see between atheists and presuppers. Every time, they hand-wave dismiss whatever they don't like by arbitrarily accusing the pressupper of using a script. It's used as a "get out of a logical-corner free" card. I'm not saying that the ONLY thing that happened in the video, by the way.
@@AtheistDiscussions Did I say that's all he said? You both strawmanned the OP, predictably by responding as if I claimed that's the ONLY thing atheists ever say... as a way of avoiding what I actually did say.
@@Yahweh_or_noway1 _"You both strawmanned the OP, predictably "_ Turnabout is fair play, seeing as how the OP was a gross strawman of the atheist in the video and atheism in general.
Rookie error. Presups aren't supposed to ever be on the defensive. This is why. You'll end up having to actually answer questions that you swore you had an answer to when you didn't.
exactly
You spelled "atheists" wrong.
@@lightbeforethetunnel hey No Light in the Tunnel, how can you establish that a particular god concept is the "correct" god to believe in? Your definition of your god places it outside of any human language to talk about, it literally "exists" outside Space-Time; since everything in every human language is limited by the consistency of reality, how can our Reality based languages ever communicate about a god Concept that is by definition, outside our ability to understand?
Even the word "Existence" doesn't apply to god, because to Exist a thing must have physical properties. Your god doesn't have physical limitations, so the word "Existence" doesn't even apply; your god doesn't Exist, it's a Mental Construct that people try to use to describe concepts beyond their linguistic abilities.
No matter how god "revealed" itself to any individual person, that person wouldn't be able to communicate about that god, because the limitations on humans languages and understanding prevent humans from experiencing anything relating to a god.
All human religions must be false, because our experiences cannot encompass the concepts that define your god; no human language concept applies to an Entity that functions outside Space-Time. So, until you manage to write a "god language" we are stuck not being able to communicate about your god concept.
@@lightbeforethetunnelwell this is pure play ground level ner ner ner , ner ner 🤦🏽
@@lightbeforethetunnel Do better.
Gary’s flailing is contagious. They just look worse and worse the more they defend their god.
One of the reasons why I never want to talk to presups:
- They start with: "You are lying and know god exists" as a starting point
- They are holy circular: The bible is gods word -> how do you know? -> god's word has revealed it to me.
It's a complete waste of time when you can't show them that circular argument based on the bible is nothing more than childhood indoctrination.
Jean did his best, but you can't win chess against a pigeon.
This is the absolute best way to deal with pre supps and Darth Dawkins. Total badass. Darth would shit his pants and rage quit with this
Darth is an expert at averting confrontation. He has developed a "style" that essentially has a built in "exit strategy" which he engages at will, most predictably, every time, 100% of the time.
@@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306 whatever, troll. @Jordangus, boot this guy from the chat, I've had history with them, this is what they do.
Darth dodgins would've muted this guy 2mins in for 'bickering like an 8yr old at the 1st grade cafeteria table', then go on to say he wasn't muted for disagreeing but he's dealt with him before & 'this is what he does'
Jean is essentially trying to "fix" the circularity of "i know the bible is true because the bible is true" by getting Bandou to show HOW he knows that the bible is true.
But Bandou is just not getting the point and stays with the same argument that the bible is true because it's true.
It's so sad.
this guy dint get the memo, pre sup doesn't work unless you can control the mic or shout the other guy into silence
not ture, presup works perfectly well when the person you're talking to already holds/accepts your presups. lol
Absolute spanking! Loved the forceful staying on point! He wanted to run to the script so bad!
If bandou had the bible but it was in Greek, would he recognise God's word? If not then the ability to read would surly be more foundational than the bible right?
No no. The problem is that you can take random verses from the bible, and then random verses from some other similar, dumbshit sounding, book and scramble them up on a table and this moron presup wouldn't be able to tell you which verses are from the bible. The reason for this is the entire claim is hollow. It's just a developmentally delayed christian brain flailing around and giving programmed responses that it has been conditioned to say in order to stay in the in-group. Your problem is that you're looking for some semblance of intelligence in all of this because you're a pattern seeking animal and you're hearing English words being employed, so you're convinced there MUST be some intelligible message coming from its meat flaps. So, as you can see, its far more problematic than your original message conveys. Greek, English, Swahili, Gray Alien, doesn't matter. It's just incoherent ramblings of a damaged, atrophied human cognition that has never actually read the bible to begin with.
If this debate proved anything, it's that confirmation bias combined with stupidity is an impenetrable defense against reason. 😏
You're displaying confirmation bias that your particular non-theist worldview is true right now.
How did you determine your particular worldview (system of presuppositions) is true?
@@lightbeforethetunnel Nice try, but you have no idea what my worldview is. Try again.
@@lightbeforethetunnelwhy are projecting again ,its what you do all the bloody time . Explain the contradictions of your omni quad ! You need to get to the back of the class and stop jumping on the teachers desk and pontificating about your delusions .
@@lightbeforethetunnel hey No Light, there is absolutely nothing to compare, you have a belief in your head that you are trying to utilize linguistic tricks to make it appear as if you have an argument.
Presup doesn't lead anywhere, it never connects to any god concept. It's just hard solipsism mixed with blind faith. This is why Cthulhu has equally validity as any other god concept within Presup.
Presup Gibberish ultimately becomes useless as hard solipsism, neither belief system has viable grounding, and both lead to being unable to make any differentiations in Reality. There is no difference between Presup and "My dad is bigger than your dad." that children play on the base level, Presup just adds in meaningless jargon to trick people that don't know how con-artists manipulate language to trick marks out of their money like all the Televangelist/Con-Artists do.
Bandou looked really silly in this one! 😢
Part 2 coming soon
Lil guy must have a humiliation fetish
All I heard was a loud whooshing sound going over Bandou's head.
He's so bad... are we sure he's not a Poe?
@@ajhieb I'd be disappointed as an atheist on a philosophy server if a fellow atheist trolled other atheists by pretending to be a theist who can't argue well.
@@ajhieb nah he’s for real.
The absurdity of the clone’s assertions are perfect illustration of the reason Darth shouts over people and sinks to ad hominem.
If Gary Milne and his emules weren't aware that their reasoning was embarrassing, there would be no reason for them to consistently refuse to provide straight answers. They would be candid. Therefore, it's apparent that they sense their convictions are based on sheer stupidity. They only wish to delay that discovery as late as possible, to protect their fragile ego.
It’s why darth relies so heavily upon personal attacks and throwing mute and kick tantrums aFred accusing the interlocutor of being childish, argumentative, insolent, ‘bad behaved’ and all the rest which is just projection.
@@davids11131113 don’t forget feigning victimhood, imbecilic ageism and hollow claims of decency and fairness
👍👍👍
Did anyone else have the visual imagery of a fish (appropriate metaphor for a Xtian) frantically swimming in a barrel as Jean methodically took shot after shot into the barrel?
3 and a half minutes before 'God has revealed it infallibly to me.' AKA 'I am perfect.'
Once the Sye-Ten "How do you know that?" Parachute comes out it's over. Another one bites the dust! Well done, sir!
Dan was 20 steps ahead of that clown 🤡
Every Presupper ever: But when you're talking about "final authorities" any justification will necessarily be circular, otherwise you aren't talking about a final authority.
Thank you for the concise, succinct explanation for why presup necessarily fails.
Nothing you just said entails presup fails.
All you did was describe the widely known fact that all worldview utilize epistemic circularity when appealing to its ultimate standard for truth.
Epistemic circularity is only fallacious when it's vicious. When it's virtuous, it's valid.
This is a common problem where atheists think ALL circularity is automatically fallacious. How would you justify that claim itself?
With circular reasoning?
See the problem with that?
@@lightbeforethetunnel Hi flerfer
Virtuous 🤣
@@lightbeforethetunnel _"Epistemic circularity is only fallacious when it's vicious. When it's virtuous, it's valid. "_ I've yet to encounter the presupper that can tell me how to differentiate vicious circularity from virtuous and none of them have ever been able to explain how virtuous circularity actually solves the inherent problems of circularity (aside from obvious special pleading)
Will you be the first?
_[Shakes Magic 8 Ball]_
Outcome doubtful.
When talking about justification, all circular reasoning is fallacious
Ouch, Darth needs new minions.
Or the minions need a new Darth.
This is so devastating I’m saving it permanently.
The christian guy was not smart enough to have this conversation
“Nobody but a dedicated Christian could possibly read the gospels and not see them as a tissue of nonsense.” (Isaac Asimov)
“The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the gentleman who reads it.” (Robert G. Ingersoll)
There’s no way these guys don’t see how broken these arguments are. If they genuinely don’t, they should be out under someone else’s direct supervision because this would constitute a disability. When do we get to call liars liars?
Oh-oh, bad things happen for the presup when they don’t follow the script and engage questions!
A strange thing about pre-sups (one of many strange things?) is that if they found a piece of paper with an argument written out, in a language they understand, they claim they can't tell you if it's correct unless they know who wrote it - they need to know whether whoever wrote has God as a foundation for rationality. The rationality they possess is unable to do what the rationality of normal people can do - listen to or read an argument an dassess if they understand it or not, or agree with it or not. It sounds just like BS - the claim they make is just a way of avoiding arguments they don't like engaging with.
All this "The Bible Self Attests To Being Gods Word" goes out the window the second you recognise that it's possible to write a document that self attests to being God's Word without actually being Gods Word. "I expect God's Word to self attest to being God's Word" is no standard for determining if something IS God's Word.
As soon as you point that out watch the Simone Biles level of mental gymnastics they do
Why am i 9 mins in and nobody has said “well the Bible isn’t the only book that proclaims to be the word of god so how do we know”
😆
Perfect example of how Christians and flat earthers think and argue the same way. Embarrassing. But great job from their interlocutor.
Isn't there a Godwin's Law equivalent in philosophy that says if you have to resort to hard solipsism you lose?
Milne's Law
First of all, this is an absolutely brilliant method of uncovering the presup's epistemic errors. Perhaps there's a better way to get at the underlying principles, though. How about:
1. Do you agree that it is possible that we could discover a previously unknown gospel that could be added to Biblical cannon?
2. If yes: Say you find a scroll written in Coptic in a cave in Israel that is a candidate new gospel. Describe the process, step-by-step, that YOU would personally take to determine whether or not the scroll is god's word.
3. If no: Say your friend finds the scroll and believes it is a new, canonical gospel. What steps would you take to show your friend that the scroll is not god's word?
That was perfect, I loved it. I cannot believe I missed this one
Danielle Steel is my standard of Truth because she has sold more books than myself or anyone I've ever met.
Is it possible to learn to read without ANY epistemological framework? If not, how do you learn to read the bible in the first place?
“There has to be a chain of causes so god”
The fun drained out of the exchange as the dodger obfuscated.
Seeing him resort to interruptions and repetition was pathetic when he couldn't get agreement for his nonsense.
The Patron Saint of Dignity, Saint Matt Dillahunty, has the right idea.
With a few simple guidelines, the outcome is often positive during encounters at his sermons in The Chapel of Courtesy.
Dodgers, be precise. You might get a trinity of opportunities if comply with a two-way dialogue; alternatively, prepare a cross for yourself.
Don't start the backstory from your first day of toilet training. Your story will be boring and unlikely to impress anyone.
People who can't control their tongues should learn to feel comfortable with silence. = STFU
Please answer questions quickly without patter. Being truthful might be difficult, but do your best. Don't model the apologist's behaviour.
Acknowledge what you heard your interlocutor say without gathering straw for the effigy. = Listen and respond without anxiety about your script.
Stay on topic, and accept defeat with grace.
Please don't repeat the same sentence after the host has acknowledged they heard you.
It's funny to hear him employ Hellen Keller because part of what made her story so impressive was that she DID NOT have a structured understanding before she had language. She had no way to conceptualize before she had labels (words). Just read her explanation of her first understanding of language.
DAZzzzzz ya nobody thanks for being 6 foot and gorgeous!
IM BLACKING YOOOOOU
He must use his unaided intellect to approach, read, and understand the Bible to conclude that it's God's revelation. If he begins by believing that the Bible is God's revelation, he's begging the question.
"The dishonesty of my followers never fails to disappoint me" Jesus H. Christ
😂
@@skmcee7863 Only apologists go to Hell.
@@skmcee7863 Baseless claims with a threat of torture. How very christian of you. Fortunately I don't share your delusions, you can keep your bronze age superstitions to yourself.
I guess I’ll offer a hand job first
@@skmcee7863the fact that we're going to hell because of God, who introduced sin. Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong prior to eating the Apple, therefore God failed at communication at the very beginning. Then he offers himself to himself as a loophole to the rules he put in place to avoid the punishment of Sin that he created. I would not eternally damn my creation to hell for my own failings, so that makes me Morally superior to your god of the bible.
gift wrap the mofo and give it one of the kids ... he is so circular.
Sounds like Daniel Linford. Very smart guy.
At least this guy is trying to have some sort of discussion - unlike DD.
But ‘the Bible’ is a compilation of many books, men decided which were included and which are left out…. yet the way it is now is ‘the word of god’? How do they know this, they’re just accepting it as true.
The problem in my opinion is that if you are convinced that god revealed something to you, you have no way of knowing if this experience came from god, or if its only made up in your brain or part of a program in the matrix we live in or whatever. There is no way to make the destinction. To say that a god would be able to reveal himself does not help, because it does not show that he actually did.
God exists because?.... "I don't know reason". That makes the claim even more absurd.
It should be pointed out that the idea of suppression as he uses it here is a modern one that depends upon the notion of a subconscious; in the New Testament, the word Paul uses is katechein, which means "hold back". So he's apparently talking about keeping the truth from others, the way one might suppress a news story.
If you dropped a Bible at some isolated tribe in some unexplored part of the Amazonas, they would recognize it as "the word of God"? Come on!
God didn't learn Bandou to give up when defeated?
How did they get to arbitrarily picking the bible as Gods word of thousands of supposed claimed gods word 😂. Its based on feefees when they read it. And they ignore biblical lies and contradictions
christianity has taken on some really strange forms.
It has no choice unless it concedes. And I see no signs of concession anytime soon.
Hold on, I wasn't listening. Can you repeat that?
^that is what happens with a theist's brain.
Sooooooo, if the Quran becomes the best selling book of all time..........will he become a Muslim?
Dan is one of my all-time favorites.
How can someone supress something hidden from them. First Bandou said hes suppressing the truth cause he hates god, then he said they had the same information about god butcame to different conclusions because god choose not to reveal himself hes hiding himself from him.
Compare holy books , a painful silence. I wonder why they never try telepathy on. Automatic writing would be easy surely He could have made a PERFECT rendering of the truth still allowing free for us all. will but didn,t. I can,t hate a fictional character ,just the personality they invent.
The old, very tiresome "God is because he says he is". If that's a satisfying answer to these chumps, well what's there to do or say?
Dan made him have the burden 😂😂❤
They already have the burden by default. Difference being Darth is an expert at shifting the burden of proof by becoming a logical fallacy cannon. As well as an expert at exit strategy engagement to avoid confrontation.
The problem with this argument is that God could make you know something but because you are fallible you can not know if you have been mistaken or deceived.
Babble bible, same thing. Definetly at least copies of copies...curiously does not hold up with the mass education but keeps the word in print. Can the devil talk ? Could he direct the nastiness in the babble...NO.?
Love the stoicism of Jean. Jack would nuke this guy already after 5 minutes ;)
I can hear the Jack saying "fucking idiot" in my head
This is absolutely painful to watch, Presup is linguistic tricks for children that has no functional grounding. It's literally just a stupid word game that tries to twist the meanings of words to pretend as if god has to exist.
Presup is the equivalent of "My dad can beat up your dad." for adults. There is absolutely no reason that any human qualities could be applied to their god, they have literally created an Entity that functions "outside" space-time; so, find human concepts that function without some kind of grounding in our Experiences as Finite Beings.
When does a cow become food? When does the food become you? When does it stop being you, and start being whatever it is after it's "not you" anymore?
Our concepts of "beginning" and "ending" are arbitrary points of delineation that we simply choose so that we can try and communicate about our reality. Nothing in any human language can really function when attempting to talk about things beyond human experiences.
Trying to talk about god, is about as useful as trying to talk about what it would be like to experience the Nothingness after you die and stop having Experiences to talk about.
Their god has all the exact same features, as the Nothingness that their god supposedly manifested from. They worship a concept in their mind, and try to define it into Existence as if Existence itself is a Property to have. Existence is when something has Properties in this Reality. Their god has no Functional Properties, and as such cannot Exist in Reality.
Bandou, go read 1 Kings 22 and then realize that the God of the Bible doesn't back up what you are saying.
A Christian reading the bible? Give me a break 🤣🤪
Greg. B . Versus. Dan would have been priceless lol. Van till would be put to rest lol
If god doesn’t need anything then why did it make a universe for the sole purpose of making humans to worship it? Like a damn Sea Monkey tank basically? Seems this god is needy.
Exactly. The universe prior to creation SHOULD be perfection. The act of creation decreased perfection.
So God either failed to create a perfect world or intended not too. Either way, god failed or is evil.
Worse then sea monkeys. Sea monkey puppets with gods arm up our asses and transmitting facts via telepathy.
Let me see if I have this right, everyone knows what god’s word is BEFORE they even read the bible but we then know what gods word is AFTER we read it in the bible…….sure
God said that all people know, God.
How do you know that?
The Bible.
How do you know The Bible is the word of God?
The Bible.
That's circular.
How?
🤦♂️
But that's being virtous circular according to Sye Ten Bruggencate?
If you can't know anything without god's word, how did you learn to read god's word🤔
The Christian presupps view seems to be 1) If you don't know everything, you can't know anything, and 2) Without god, you can't know anything. The view I take is 1) We may not know everything, but that does not mean we don't know anything and 2) We will continue to learn more and more over time.
Not saying this is necessarily a dichotomy but taking both views at face value I feel mine is far more honest.. and other then honesty then all we have is random chaos. Seems to me the universe is a blend of chaos and order. As far as "what" grounds that I have no definitive explanation but I can go on what I objectively observe and see no reason to ignore/reject that for the sake of any cults, religions or superstitions. If I have any faith in anything aside what I observe, is technological advancements actually making a difference in our lives and more often then not for the better.
Prove me wrong. Or explain to me like I am a 5 year old how humanity was better off in the dark ages.
How do you know that? Repeat
Does God follow the commandments? If not, why is he a hypocrite? If he does, then why does he covet our love? Which also makes him a hypocrite and not maximally great.
The bible might be the most printed book on the planet, but is it actually the best-selling?
There are free bibles everywhere, so it's doubtful that many are being bought.
Would it be located in the fiction section....?
@@jayjonah83 If it was marketed as straight fiction, it wouldn't sell at all. Even true believers skip over parts like Leviticus and Chronicles.
Why is it so hard for a theist to say "If 'A is the reason B exists' means that B is contingent upon A, and if God is not contingent upon anything, then there is no reason that God exists"?
Same reason they have to maintain God has all of the omni/maximal properties, instead of "just" unimaginably smart, unimaginably powerful, etc. The latter have no philosophical baggage whatsoever and still allow for God to do all of his silly whimsical Biblical nonsense, but they have to avoid _any_ perceived "flaw" (like existing for no reason) even at the cost of making their God completely incoherent.
Short Answer: Theists tie their ego to their God.
The Bible is true 'cos it's a best seller. Hmmm... 🤔
Man, I guess that mean that Avatar is also true.
Argument ad populum.
Bandou appears to be as annoying as the rest of 'em. The theists, that is.
Only us atheists are free in mind , the others are told what to think.
According to saul, god is NOT the author of confusion. According to genesis, god confuses the languages of those who built the tower of babel. Is God's word confused?
Okay! The Beatles are God because they were/are more popular than Christianity. Therefore, anything Ringo Starr says is God's word according to Bandou.
They're already cool with anything that Paul or John says is God's word . . . but I would have expected the Gospel of George gaining acceptance before the Gospel of Ringo!
I love the new intro!💙💛
😆
I second that emotion.
I was there for that. Dan is great
God Is Love He Is Also Holy
The dismissive laughter coming from Bandou is like music to my ears. No bigger tell someone is scared
The book analogy around 6:00 is AWFUL. Any fictional text can claim it is true. Any fictional text (I’m looking at you, Joseph Smith) can claim it’s from a god. A text isn’t justified by the claims it makes for itself.
The Bible isn’t justified as the truth because someone believes it’s the word of a god. It must be demonstrated to be the word of a god.
There’s a reason presuppositionalism has left no footprint on philosophy. No one outside of a few people who desperately need certainty in their lives take it seriously.
Theist guy says something about youd expect Gods word to tell us it is Gods word.
No, i disagree. I would expect Gods word to be instantly recognizable as such based on the perfection of its content, as it would have been the creation of a perfect God.
Id expect a person lying and attempting to co opt Gods word for their own uses to browbeat me with how this is REALLY Gods word, and you better listen up or burn bud.
Yea even if the Bible god does exist, how could they tell the difference between the Bible being gods or the deceiver Satans word?
The ability to discern God's Inerrant Word from everything else is either innate, or it isn't.
If it _is_ innate, how do you know it is reliable? (any possible verification just leads to an infinite regress)
If it _isn't_ innate then it is necessary to acquire this ability prior to the evaluation of some potential Inerrant Word of God. Even if the potential Inerrant Word of God has the procedure/standard for evaluating the Inerrant Word of God, that potential text hasn't been evaluated yet, and thus can't be trusted as the Inerrant Word of God yet.
In other words,
The text can't be evaluated until the standard is known
but
The standard can't be known until the text is evaluated.
We know it's reliable the same way we know anything else. God's revelation.
The problem is you're beginning with the assumption "verification" is how things are known. But that can't be correct because verification is a scientific concept and science is always provisional.
All observations are theory-laden, meaning you can interpret any observation differently depending on which worldview you presuppose
@@Yahweh_or_noway1 _"We know it's reliable the same way we know anything else. God's revelation. "_ Well, you haven't gotten there yet. "Knowledge" requires justification, and according to presup, it requires infallible epistemic certainty.
So let me know when you can demonstrate that revelation necessarily includes epistemic certainty (besides just claiming it to be the case by fiat) and I'll be happy to hear you out.
Until then your apologetic is dead in the water.
@@Yahweh_or_noway1 : Same as a hindu that's experienced the revelations of Krshna, right?
Just start in Genesis and show him how completely wrong it is on the beginning of the universe and life etc If that’s gods word it’s all screwed up but he probably couldn’t grasp that
Epic…
I for one am NOT suppressing any belief in a god. I am trying to suppress people who prefer living a lie and use that lie for political gain. As far as just the belief in any god or "higher power" I am all for it and will support anyone's right to believe it. Just don't project your bullshit onto me or into our secular society. It only leads to wars and other bad things.
The second you claim that there is no reality, you have lost the debate.
Why not just cut to the chase and ask the believer how he knows that the bible that he read isn't just a book of stories made up by some random schmuck who decided to put in there that it's the inerrant word of god and that everything in it is true (i.e. self-attesting, claiming to be the word of god, but not really the word of god)?
So much time wasted on painstakingly identifying foundational epistemological principles, when the truth is that the Bandou and others don't actually rely on those other principles that they're throwing out there. They are just post-hoc excuses for believing the confirmation of their Bible "Oh the bible has this thing in it? Ok, I'll say that that thing is the thing that the word of god should and would have. Because it's what the bible has." It's like in Idiocracy when they're trying to explain why they should use Brawndo on plants.
Considering HOW MUCH the bible gets wrong, how, TF, is it the "word" of a perfect being? That's ignorant AF.
Key point. Too frequently overlooked.
I argued with a presup who believes that earth is flat because Bible says so. According to them Bible cannot be wrong, some magic force just makes the reality seem different than the bible.
The untouched tribes ....ignored by a god , bet if you could converse the,d have an imagionary culteral truth...next tribe completely different. and so on and so on round the globe.
The Bible was arbitrarily cobbled together by hundreds of people claiming to be people they arent over thousand years. 😂 And its perfect
God has revealed the truth to you? Prove it!
What's at stake here is Your eternal soul it's Up In Jesus Christ or it's the second death in the lake of fire Both States are eternal and perpetual states That is That✝️
Lol... atheists think their worldview "is irrelevant" and "doesn't matter" when the entire point of a paradigm-level debate is to compare & contrast each debater's worldview system to determine which one is more rational than the opposition.
Until atheists grasp this basic concept, they're never going to be able to comprehend presup. Your worldview (system of presuppositions) obviously does matter. That system of presuppositions is precisely what is in contention in the debate.
That seems to be the fundamental intellectual error holding them back. They are under the impression their worldview doesn't matter because they're arbitrarily beginning with the assumption their system is the default, which is just assuming precisely what is in contention (begging-the-question fallacy)
Hey No Light, if you have to continue to hide behind gibberish terminology then you don't have a position that is defendable. The "Until atheist grasp this basic concept..." statement is laughable, because all we have to do is try an apply your gibberish to reality.
What we see is that Presup has a similar effect in Reality as does Zeno's paradox. There are theoretically an infinite number of points between any two points, yet every time we travel to from one point to another we arrive at our destination; this is in direct conflict with the very sound Logical Problem of having a theoretical infinite number of halfway points to cross.
Presup Gibberish doesn't effect Reality any more than any other childish word games do. Solipsism and Presup are just linguistic tricks that are designed to confuse people. It becomes obvious when we start trying to apply any of the gibberish to the Real World.
It's obvious that you don't know how to properly use terminology to communicate.
@@13shadowwolfbloviated waffle this is what they do .
@@13shadowwolfhe has the intellectual integrity of a pork pie .
The sooner you grasp that no one is interested or obligated to participate in your silly "paradigm-level debate" the sooner you'll stop embarrassing yourself with these pathetic attempts to burden shift.
People are simply performing an internal critique on your worldview and it is utterly failing.
No Light, you really don't understand what a "fundamental intellectual error" is if you think that starting with Not-Having a belief is the only actually Objective Position possible; assuming any god as the "Instantiator" of the universe and all things, means that anyone that posits a sufficiently powerful Entity has absolutely 100% Equal Validity to any god concept. The concept of "everyone already knows" falls apart immediately when any group outside of any religion is examined; there is absolutely no consistency among any group that would Justify the concept of "god wrote it on their hearts".
It's absolutely absurd to try and start with a singular god concept as the basis of someone's epistemology, because Revelation is completely Indistinguishable from having a psychotic break with Reality.
Revelation is Indistinguishable from mental illness.
Jesus Christ Is The Eternal Living Word of God That Became Flesh and Dwelt among us He The Immanuel of Isaiah 7:14 He Is The Mighty God of Isaiah 9 6 He Is The LORD of Isaiah 40:3 He Is The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53:1-9 He Is The LORD That Is His Name
Yeah, and I'm King Isildur!
Dan you needed to speak much slower and add in more filler words like uhm and y know.
I like how easy it is to refute the argumentation of any presupper. Just say "you're using a script" and it necessarily logically follows that whatever he argued is objectively refuted.
It's that easy.
I'm glad I have channels like this to learn the best atheist talking points from. It's very informative.
You think that’s what happened here?
What I heard was an argument that there are more fundamental principles to the presups epistemology, beyond/more basic than the Bible
Not sure what video you are watching
I missed the sarcasm here haha.
I mean if you think all Dan said was “ you’re using a script” then I’m not sure you watched the video.
@Dave C-137 The Atheists did what I said in the OP multiple times in this video, and do so in almost every debate I see between atheists and presuppers. Every time, they hand-wave dismiss whatever they don't like by arbitrarily accusing the pressupper of using a script.
It's used as a "get out of a logical-corner free" card.
I'm not saying that the ONLY thing that happened in the video, by the way.
@@AtheistDiscussions Did I say that's all he said?
You both strawmanned the OP, predictably by responding as if I claimed that's the ONLY thing atheists ever say... as a way of avoiding what I actually did say.
@@Yahweh_or_noway1 _"You both strawmanned the OP, predictably "_ Turnabout is fair play, seeing as how the OP was a gross strawman of the atheist in the video and atheism in general.
I don’t know what went on before but this presup clown was done 10 minutes in.
Theists putting themselves in check, but claiming “checkmate” ♟️ 😂