Why Don't You Believe? | "Adam"/Andrew - WV | Atheist Experience 21.11
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ส.ค. 2024
- The Atheist Experience 21.11 for March 19, 2017 with Tracie Harris and guest Phil Ferguson.
Call the show on Sundays 4:00-6:00pm CDT: 1-512-686-0279
We welcome your comments on the open blog thread for this show.
► freethoughtblog...
TH-cam comments are at present disabled in our channel, to the displeasure of some. However, each video has a prominent link to the associated open thread that appears on our blog. In the past we've tried opening up the channel to comments, but we found that a very high number of episodes wound up being flooded with a combination of spam, long winded apologists, and various obscene or misogynistic comments directed at various hosts by people with an axe to grind. This seems to be the nature of TH-cam comment sections, in our experience.
We do moderate the blog, the same way that we moderate chat during the show, as well as comments on our Facebook group. For comment sections that are "officially" associated with our show (and, to a much lesser extent, channels that may give the unintended appearance of being official), we prefer not to play host to straight up ad hominem attacks and bigotry. As a general policy we do not block commenters simply on the basis of disagreement with our point of view. However, we do prefer discussion environments that don't actively chase off more reasonable contributors.
-------
The most up to date Atheist Experience videos can be found by visiting atheist-experie...
You can read more about this show on the Atheist Experience blog:
► freethoughtblog...
WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?
The Atheist Experience is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
VISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITES
► www.atheist-com... (The Atheist Community of Austin)
► www.atheist-exp... (The Atheist Experience TV Show)
More shows and video clips can be found in the archive:
► www.atheist-exp...
DVDs of the Atheist Experience can be purchased via:
► www.atheist-com...
NOTES
TheAtheistExperience is the official channel of The Atheist Experience. "The Atheist Experience" is a trademark of the ACA.
Opening Theme:
Shelley Segal "Saved" www.shelleysega...
Limited use license by Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2011 Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2017 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
The caller seems like he's trying set up a "gotcha" & is getting frustrated because they aren't playing along.
It’s like every other argument presented on this show.
Jose Gutierrez
I don’t get how does asking for accurate descriptions counts as being defensive?
I mean if I asked you “Do you believe in clublaghfr?” Would you first ask me “What is that?”, or would you just immediately say “No!”?
@@JoseGutierrez-tz1ky The C argument was properly dismissed right off the bat as verbal masturbation. It is a fancy sounding but childish wank. It was thrown at me before and I simply said, replace God with anything and say it again. He refused. I then replaced it with peanut butter and he said, you simply changed the definition of peanut butter and created an isolated definition which agrees with itself. I replied "Tadah".
Its ALWAYS painful to hear it, because only people who don't know anything about philosophy use it. On the internet, it has become almost a form of a test to throw that out there and see who catches it. If the person agrees with it, they don't have the knowledge level to have a serious argument or put forth a formal idea and can thus be ignored as they have not graduated yet to warrant time and energy in response. This is why most honest and serious apologists who do have an understanding of philosophy don't use it and discourage pastors and others from doing so.
My personal motto is if you repeat anything William Lane Craig is saying, you've already been shown wrong. He is just Kent Hovind but a better speaker, but just an incoherent.
And I see it as the other way round of your other way round: they have to deal with nonsensical arguments made by callers using that typical 1-way argument B.S which gets very old very fast. It doesn't end until the call's hung up. Show us someone who can debate with hundreds of these types of people without getting defensive and I'll then agree that they're too defensive.
@@JoseGutierrez-tz1ky Honestly, how can you be so dense! The call screener tipped them off and they decided to play along! Really, listen first next time.
“I’m speaking in philosophical terms, obviously”
Pretentious little troll
Observation
Hypothesis
Testing
Theory
This guy is regularly on the show... His voice is incredibly recognizable. Why is he lying about his name/ identity/ location? Is his god okay about lying?
More baffling the call screeners don't recognize this...either that or he's just that good at tricking people
As for the moral thing, plenty of religious ideologues will skew facts, God apparently doesn't care as long as you're trying to promote its existence
i literally just finished another clip with this kid, except it was with Matt and his name was "Andrew"
it's fine to lie for god as long as you repent later on... basically you could even be a mass murderer, just repent & you're good.
@@cajunking5987 just search "Canadian catholic" he's a conniving little shit
Gotta lie to preach
I've lived so far (85yrs) a long and very interesting life with, as far as I can see, no god(s) in sight, never missed it's/their absence...and think any would only clutter it all up.
I hope you're living well!
Well said John!
Damn, I hope I live to 85 yrs old.
Love you John
i've only made it to 65 but as i'm in perfect health and advances in tech are coming along nicely i expect to be here at the end of time. no god for me either, and after chatting about "personal experiences" i've had many close shaves (a car crash, a knife at my throat, sufficient) and never once thought "god saved me, i will believe" never even entered my head. also, so many people have been "saved by a miracle" it appears to be commonplace.
This one hurt my brain. Caller seems to think he's a lot smarter than he actually is
Michael,
They all do.
As they say: a little "knowledge" is a dangerous thing...
The Dunning/Kruger Effect by definition.........
@@johnd.shultz7423 Very ! ..............
I agree. But I thought the hosts did a poor job of articulating their objections on this occasion. Logical arguments and proofs can't show existence. For that you need evidence. They could have made that clearer. Of focused on his “If the premises are true” but then explained that it’s only those premises that matter. If the caller has evidence for premises that show a God exists or likely exists then give that evidence; no need for a logical argument.
If I want to prove to someone that trees exist I don’t form premises and draw a theoretical conclusion. I just point them to a tree.
Tracie is one of the best. I've found her to be more patient & a better listener than some of the other hosts on the show
I like her and Matt.
That is precisely what makes a poor host. The show is entertaining because you get to watch theist getting pummeled, not coddled. The point is to punish morons not befriend them
@@markklippenberg7364 disagree
@@markklippenberg7364explanation helps us seek the truth. Condemnation just makes us look like arrogant assholes who can’t explain something as simplistic as evidence
She is hot too
Damn, the hosts really weren't having any of his shit. For once, HE was the one getting frustrated and that's an absolute delight.
They should ban this kid, he keeps calling under different names and always presents the ontological argument, that's a complete waste of everyone's time. Doesn't help that his voice is pretty annoying.
I'm pretty new to this show. Can you please guide me to more shows with this guy?
Just punch in "atheist experience andrew", first five or so hits should all be him.
@@SnareRushJunkie thanks. I should have been able to figure that out but i didn't...☺
@@heavymeddle28 There are dozens here on youtube- just check out The Atheist Experience
His choice of words and how they follow each other IS ANNOYING .............
I kept expecting this poor kid to break down in tears and start sobbing. Tracie and Phil really put his ass through a meat grinder!
Good.
He’s a frequent caller and pretends to be other people. He was getting frustrated that they wouldn’t play his game.
@@joemiller7082 But I gave a coherent argument with NO WAY to test the premises!! LOL
rumour has it he's still in the wardrobe
I gotta stop watching these videos, I just get so worked up at the ignorance of the callers...
It get’s my blood pressure so high! Some people are so stupid
It could also be an effective 'training exercise':
Watch them several times, (consecutively), until you eliminate ANY cringe or reaction
(3x or more should do it)
Result: you can now CALMLY converse with ANY person on this planet... :-)
for a weird reason I can sympathize with all 4 opinions in this thread! I would only add the two Jimmies (Karr and Jeffries) in that list.
Same here , we know we are right yet we must acknowledge their point of view or be labelled intolerant. We must always be right or else their logical fallacies are the truth.
If all religious zealots would just stfu and die this planet would suddenly become a habitable world.
I know how you feel, mate.
Adam took about one philosophy class and now he's a genius. A very stable genius.
He is what I would call a jenius
He's been listening to William Lane Craig who is full of logical fallacies and tries to prove supernaturalism/unnaturalism with naturalism.
Yeah, this caller is deeply invested in the form of his argument but not the soundness of the premises within it. An argument can be logically valid and also meaningless.
@@dogearflopper7011 He also adopts a very coy, smug, yet surly tone.
A logical argument is not evidence. How can he not see this
Oh, I bet he sees it. He just doesn’t care. He just wants to get them to admit they believe in something. Anything, including a nonsensical hypothetical that he doesn’t even care about.
And this is how darth argues aswell. He defines a god therefore he exists and according to darth you can’t question him because you are a human capable of being wrong while simultaneously dismissing himself as a human
This guy's voice is enough to make people commit murder just to make it stop.
It's the whiney, smug sanctimony, followed by shrill squealing when foiled.
True.
Agreed. Urge to punch rising!
Caller: "are you denying logic." That's HILARIOUS!
And ironic lol
lol, tracey, "lets just assume youve given us a logical arguement"
A true master of the word salad👏🏽
Using his own weird philosophical proposal as evidence.. what a loon
WIKI
The scientific method involves careful observation coupled with rigorous scepticism, because cognitive assumptions can distort the interpretation of the observation. Scientific inquiry includes creating a hypothesis through inductive reasoning, testing it through experiments and statistical analysis, and adjusting or discarding the hypothesis based on the results.
I think this kid sat through about a week of Philosophy 101 his first year of college and decided to make a phone call.
Hmm.. Adam, Andrew, Alex, Brad. I love the multiple personalities of this guy.
Logic isn't evidence, that's why Science replaced Philosophy.
@Brian Monks
ALL the thumbs up! Theists have a terrible time trying to understand that arguments are not evidence.
I feel at home here.
I do understand formal logic, but colloquial usage is what bugs me.
If two people with similar personalities gel together then it is *like dissolves like, no rocket science here* but if opposite personalities gel together then it becomes *opposites attract, that's a no-brainer*
Excellent summation
@@annk.8750 I’m skeptical he’s even a theist. He’s just a debate participant. He simply wants to say “gotcha” and I wouldn’t even be surprised if he tries to debate people on other call in shows on other topics.
Evidence can be placed into logical arguments.. an argument with a valid structure leading to a conclusion is about logic, and whether or not the premises are true is where evidence comes in.. so what you said is just incredibly ignorant
the callers never understand the concept of evidence
Evidence can be used to support a premise, and the premises are used in a logical argument to prove a conclusion.
He thinks logical arguments are somehow evidence in and of themselves, but they aren't, because the topic of theology gets into a nebulous concept. If we were defending notions like goodness or beauty, maybe we could get somewhere, but God is defined in a way that doesn't even come close to being rational or cogent. And even if one could grant some limited concept of God, that doesn't mean one has to believe in it as reality, only as a mild possibility depending on a very particular iteration of the world.
And even if there was agreement on a god existing, the world would not universally agree as to whether it deserves worship, that's a whole other step
@@erikrohr4396 Arguments establish validity, Soundness REQUIRES evidence! So Arguments CANNOT be Evidence.
Yes,the all important main part of the puzzle they never have and ignore completely....
I think they DO, they're just angry that they have no evidence.
Poor Adam... His little mind can't wrap his head around these concepts and actually understand them past the BS website he is getting his info from.
He does sound like he is reading from a script. He keeps using the word "platonic." You might say platonic love. But his use of platonic is nonsense.
@@JohnMorris-ge6hq There is more to Plato than platonic love. I think the caller is thinking of Plato's theory of ideas, see e.g. Plato's Cave.
eboskie1
So true to the point that this immature person is way out of his depth and becoming tedious
Johan Bergman
If Plato is anything to go on
Then credibility is out the window
what he missed entirely, and what all believers miss entirely is that even if there is a god - well - nothing, if god doesn't interact with us we can assume that his plan is playing out and we can carry on like he's not there. as they said, if you can't confirm his existence, then, nothing, it's a pointless exercise. "and then what"
This guy’s seen too much from the Ray Comfort school of questioning
The Ray Cumfart school of bullshit.
I would say if you always misrepresent who you are, Adam from WV, Andrew from Rhode Island, Josh from Buffalo, you have established why no one should listen to anything you have to say.
is like talking to a brick wall, this kid
PS: This happens when you debate someone with the only objective of winning. He is not searching for the truth, but just trying to prove his cognitive dissonance.
I love this! I love watching them asking to define the terms. I felt like I was watching two people who had never heard of spirits, or gods etc. This is how we should be, we should act like we don't know what the person is talking about and get him or her to define their terms.
That Way They Realize They Don't Have Any Idea What Are They Talking About XD
Agreed, let him hear for himself the crazy coming from his mouth.
Impossible Cop I do that all the time, lol....
"act like"?
Until they define their terms, we have no good reason to figure we DO know what they're talking about.
And pretending we have no idea what they mean by spiritualism? Go ahead. Define spirituality in meaningful real world terms.
Other than guessing the answer will probably include "energy", "quantum", and 5 other buzzwords..
I think the atheists were being obtuse.
That was hilarious. Love how you handled this call. Well done
The dude has been so shocked that they accepted it for the sake of the argument that he did not know what the next step was 😂 REASON .. 😂😂😂
The dude was shocked because he was not allowed to present his argument, and was baffled as to why a show based on logic and reason would not allow him to present his purported logical argument.
@@chuckm1961 nah. He knows why. He knows and they know that what he’s presenting doesn’t make any sense. He doesn’t care about any of it. He cares about getting them to admit they believe in god, whatever he wants to make that mean. What he’s describing in this call is meaningless. And he never, no matter how many times he calls in and who he talks to, seems to get that they are looking for actual evidence for a specific god, not the vague idea that a manufactured by this clown type of god. He so desperate to just say “gotcha,” that he goes to extreme lengths to create a situation that is so ludicrous they should have hung up on the spot, one minute in.
Can we all start a petition to get this guy banned from ever being called on again.
But it was so much fun listening to him get frustrated when faced by logic
Omg im so sick of hearing this person call in. He constantly tries trapping everyone on the show with bs. He just wants to hear himself talk. They should block his calls.
Well, now that he's "destroyed" the show, maybe he'll never call back.
Fucking Andrew!
He follows the same slippery nebulous“logic” that William Lane Craig does by defining a God unto existence. He is only interested in “winning” his argument and not actually demonstrating proof to support his ridiculous claims.
If only the theist callers could understand Kalam has been presented 1,372 times on AXP.... they are OVER it.....
All by this one kid.
This is hilarious! Getting him to understand is like nailing jello to the wall.
This guy sounds like McLovin.
😂💦 exactly
3:36 Immaterial substance? Can these two words even be placed side by side in a sentence?
As much as extremely cold, boiling hot water can "be placed side by side in a sentence".
@@johnklumpp7901 Yeah, but you wouldn't use them in a sentence that is describing something which actually exists.
my gosh... this guy has like an infinite cycle in his brain... like circular logic, but forever... i love it when he shows up... also there should just be a playlist of this guy :D
Aristotle used logic to come to the conclusion that a heaver object will fall faster than a lighter object. Logic is logic so he must have been correct --- except he was wrong...
A heavier object will fall faster than a lighter object if they are falling in a fluid. It's only in a vacuum that the weight is not related to the free fall velocity. So actually, Aristotle was right.
It's always good to go beyond the first course in physics and explore the intricacies of the real world. Incidentally, temperature, shape of the object, and surface characteristics play a role, as do about two dozen other variables.
Aristotle failed to use logic properly.
Aristotle was still wrong, he said a heaver object will fall faster than a lighter object. Period. Full stop. He did not mention any other variable. So his generalization using logic was wrong.
@Julian
I don't know if he said that due to logic or if he just based that on intuition. But what he did not have was the empirical evidence, and his incorrect assumptions prevented him from actually doing the experiment. Logic isn't sufficient to explain reality; that's why we need science.
preacher berry is wrong. a denser object will fall faster in a fluid not a heavier object.
My brain melted after the first 5 minutes of this call
People used to think the earth was flat was the most reasonable conclusion. Until they tested it and proved that it wasn't.
God is defined by listing his attributes. We choose those attributes. We didn't discover them, because God is not available for examination. We can't describe God. Anything we discover can be described, but because we haven't discovered God, we cannot describe him.
Is there a vinaigrette with that word salad?
@@tedgrant2 You must have a very poor imagination if you think we can only describe things we've discovered.
@@SwangBley
You have an interesting point. So let's test that idea to see if it flies.
I have bought a Christmas present for a friend.
As far as you are concerned, it has not been discovered.
Describe the present.
So then this "God" is simply an imaginary concept. Not really much different to Popeye or Micky Mouse?
Additionally, Popeye and Micky Mouse can both be described so they must be more real than this god.
@@johnklumpp7901
God, Popeye and Mickey Mouse were designed.
We want Popeye to win and get the girl.
We want God to save us .
It's all about what we want.
THis guy is a guy who calls every time. And every time makes a real idiot of himself.
Why do they keep talking to these callers?
Because it's entertaining for many of us
i love when someone calls in spouting nonsense and then is upset that the host is the fool lol
Same guy, same question. Same clueless tool.
I wish Matt had taken this call. He'd eat this guy for lunch and use his bones as a toothpick.
Tucked Up Facts! This guy has called in and talked to Matt before. Matt did rip him.
I much prefer their method. Okay grant him the conclusion and then ask for the next step. He is terrified because there has never been a next step. His entire purpose is to play the role of a smart person by throwing around ideas someone created 1500 years ago. Matts way indulges him. This way ends the farce before it can even properly begin which is why he has that terrified whine to his voice LoL.
He would have done a better job than these two did.
@@shihoblade Well considering the point of the show is to argue for an atheistic view, the moment the host says "ok I'm deists now", that's the conclusion of the argument. To say "Now what?" is a totally different conversation.
@@technomage6736 Sure thatd be true if they didnt just finish explaining a million times that without supporting evidence, you cant talk your religion into reality. Without a way to actually check the validity of your argument, even if they agree, everyone involved can still be wrong. To get past a pointless unproven or unverifiable argument they just granted him his conclusion to get to the real conversation i.e something that can actually be substantiated.
He has proven nothing so all he did was waste time.and obviously they arent actually deists, so what now?
One more time; Argument is NOT Evidence!
Why do these kiddie philosophers keep confusing "Arguments" with "Evidence"???????
I don't know either, it's frustrating. So often they use "Personal Evidence". That's not how it works, evidence has to be presentable to others, if it's only for yourself it can't be evidence. Just putting two word together doesn't lead to a concept that make sense. Strait curves are a paradox. /rant off
He mentioned soundness, acknowledged it is important and yet he proceeded to argue that only validity of arguments matters in terms of whether or not you accept the argument as true... If you cannot verify whether or not the premises are true, then you have no reason to just accept the argument merely because it is valid. I wish the hosts presented it that way.
The premises aren't even cogent usually, like some immaterial entity is just common sense to people
How the hell can he claim the conclusion be necessarily true even if the premises are unsound.
For anyone curious about what he meant about “Platonic Forms”, he was trying to reference Plato’s theory of the forms. He just did it in a really poor way.
You can see where the caller would want to go with it. Plato held these Forms to have a kind of independent existence.
If you go along with that, then ideas of many kinds might equally be said to have independent existence: heaven, gods, spirit, whatever you like. If we accept that √2 "exists" then arguably heaven "exists."
It's wishful thinking of the worst kind, really, in that it scrupulously avoids noticing that it is merely trying to wish something into existence.
10:32 "the conlcusion neccesarily follows"
That is correct. However, the conclusion is only true IF the premises can be demonstrated to be true. Which in case of the kalam cannot be done.
And even if we granted the Kalam, it means nothing in itself, which I think this caller fully admits, which baffles me as to why he would even bring it up when his argument is suggesting that the cause of the universe must have a mind, etc
I have such a problem with people thinking that because they can say a word like "timeless" that it somehow becomes a reasonable concept.
They think that math and thoughts don't exist in time and space. Thinking is an action in time and exists inside ones head. Math is a brain/mind action as the universe functions without humans measuring and counting it.
God is timeless, like the music of Seals & Croft
This kid comes from the "Ben Shapiro school" where you speak well (and fast) and that makes you correct, no matter what reality says.
The man on the left looks like a rich guy that owns a bunch companies and is usually the smartest guy in the room. Tracie on the other hand, though I don’t believe in gods, is simply divine. I love her brain. She is brilliant.
It puts the immaterial platonic spirits from another realm on its skin or its gets the hose again.
Was this kid talking about God or Dungeons & Dragons?
Nah, he was talking about Hermione and why she hated seeing the Cruciatus used on the spider. Honestly these callers are fking hilarious.
Loved his last line though.
yes.
In short, he’s got no evidence what do ever, so he’s resorting to word salad, flawed arguments and twisting peoples words to try (badly) to get round the fact that he knows he’s got nothing.
It felt like his angle was “if I can get them to agree that a tree had the qualities of a god if we define it as such, then I’ve contradicted their Atreeism., and that’s my gotcha”
"Since you believe in a god, ask your god to show theirself."
-They should of said that.
It took me three minutes of the first caller to put me to comment.
This guy is just trying to be as "well versed" in english as possible and he was just mumbling and throwing around half made sentences.
In my neck of the woods (I'm originally from South American) we have a say that goes : "It is not the same to be profound than being down", and this fellow just proved that point.
Even intelligent educated religious people have to come with the "reason" that their beliefs are a matter of faith and nothing any more concrete than that.
The way this discussion over religion is changing with every generation.
I'm sure I won't be around to witness what the next one will think about it (I'm 75) but I'm convinced that it will be considered a bump on our road to try to explain to ourselves nature in all its grandiosity.
Greetings from Toronto.
"It's an immaterial substance"....ok, like what?
Adam please get a proper education before calling in
That was simply delightful, soooo much not buying of BS, great work you two.
🌞 “The Sun god Ra is the only possible way the sun could move across the sky. . . therefore Ra must exist” 🌞
This is the same “logic” our caller is using.
With da strength of RA
I swear that some people are "if" blind.
They simply can not comprehend how "if" works.
10:27 - "I'm giving you 2 premises and a conclusion, the conclusion necessarily follows. Now the premises could be unsound, that's entirely possible".
First they'd only be unsound if you were using arguments AS the premises. If the premises are claims about a FACT of reality, then "soundness" isn't a thing.
The catch here is the premises have to be TRUE and NECESSARY to exclusively lead to your conclusion. WE DON'T ACCEPT YOUR PREMISES ARE TRUE, NOW PROVE IT. What, you can't? NEXT!!!!!
I think they should create an alternate definition for "apologetics" to mean "When a host of AXP apologizes to their audience for letting another caller make bad arguments wasting far more of their time than they deserved".
Adam, B for effort F- for logic and proof. Retake next term.
Adam is a time waster
He's just another ineffectual person trying to justify something that really isn't there
Wow, he sounded like he was going to cry for a while there. "If the premises are true it NECESSARILY FOLLOWS!!! WAAAAHHHH!!!! :''( :''''( :'''''(
BUT he even admitted that his premises are faulty yet tried to claim it “proved” his point thus showing he doesn’t actually understand how logic works.
Just when I thought last weeks caller was a lunatic .....Here comes Adam.
Oh, come on. Everyone knows what spirits are. I totally believe in spirits -- especially whiskey, but I also believe in tequila and rum.
Lol
Amen!
I prefer gin, but I definitely believe in spirits😁
I know that is mclovin
WORD SALAD!
Do you believe this thing? You know, this thing. The thing I'm talking about. This thing here, do you believe this thing, this thing right here, you know with all its thingy properties and thingy characteristics?
Come on! Stop being dense! You clearly know this thing I'm talking about... I'm describing it so well...
Adam got his philosophical degree from wish.
That dude just called in to say “I’m right, you’re wrong”.
Bless his dumb little heart. He is really vested in his need for some kind of platonic spirit. 😂. Poor thing.
Phil is very good
Phil was annoying as hell, sorry.
I like Phil. ...I kind of converse the same way...it's nice if they are ....mean as hell if they are punks 😂😂😂
Well, it's too annoying to watch this video a 2nd time, but say at 5:09, the caller is trying to provide a working definition of God, and as he's in the middle of listing what he thinks should be God's attributes, Phil jumps in with 'How do you know this?' , and even Tracy has to wave him off to let the caller finish his definition. They asked for a definition, so SHUT UP as the caller provides it. I'm pretty glad Phil doesn't seem to be a regular on this (or maybe he is, I don't watch many of these).
@@orchidwave2574 Tracie didn't wave him off , she was calming him. And your damned right I wouldn't let someone sneak past me a bring to whom a series off definitions that are things that remove that being from the material and cannot be given context as they are non attributes...
The caller had no points, his argument was I'm right, you're wrong, please covert.
Oh, it’s McLovin presenting the Kalam Argument again! What a particular voice! Haha
From your armchair, you can construct valid logical arguments all day long. But to determine whether those arguments are actually sound, you have to get out of your armchair look at the world.
“Now you’re a more reasonable person.”
Wonders never cease.
Caller: "If the two premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true as well!"
Hosts: "But what if we were wrong about the premises being true, or came to the wrong conclusion? That's why testing is important."
[caller has a mental breakdown]
Yeah that was my thought. He made a valid argument. But he still had to establish that his argument is SOUND by proving the premises are true.
And even then, his argument is the Kalam. Which concludes, if the premises are true, "The universe had sufficient cause". No god mentioned.
Is he trying another form of presuppositionalism?
Modal ontological argument or transcendentalism, potentially
@@ToHoldNothing it boils down to the usual, let's let the OneGod thru the back door.and he said it was the reframed Kalam argument, so, doesn't that make definition exact?
@@LucianCorrvinus How exact are we talking? I still lean to ignosticism and theological noncognitivism, because theologically, no one can seem to keep a solid concept of God around that isn't incoherent or contradictory.
I feel like a big part of his frustration was just that they were speaking past each other and using different language. If they had just said I don't care about that argument unless you can show the premises are true then I think they would have been on the same page.
Exactly this. The hosts did not let him present the argument or its premises. So when the hosts said lets assume we believe your argument, he was taking that as "We accept your premises, and believe the argument is sound" which is why he was frustrated when they then said the conclusion wouldn't follow. Pretty frustrating to hear the hosts completely miss this misunderstanding.
Adam is pretty full of himself. Like a stroppy teenager trapping you at the dinner table.
One tip I learned from Matt is to never accept a premise you don’t believe or understand. The commenters we’re doing this expertly until they gave up in frustration and allowed the kid to “win” at debate. “I don’t know” is the most powerful tool-“I don’t know what timelessness is. Do you?” And then poke holes into ideas of timelessness if they exist. By the time the caller wants to make their argument, the premises will either be strengthened or eliminated and the conclusion of course will change.
An 'immaterial substance' makes as much sense as a married bachelor.
HOLY LACK OF EVIDENCE batman (Adam-West)
Whenever somebody said they are "spiritual but not religious," I have to assume they are as confused as this guy.
I swear you should just block this caller.
Premise 1: My dog's name is Jupiter.
Premise 2: Jupiter is a planet.
Conclusion: My dog is a planet.
Two premises that are true do not necessarily result in a true conclusion.
I get the feeling he doesn’t actually believe this stuff, his laughter when they get frustrated with his apparent inability to get their point makes me think he’s a troll who just likes to waste their time.
He was laughing in disbelief....
Once again ...someone please slap the damn caller about 500 times...😶
Instantly recognised smug in Adam's tone. I think when he said "can I ask a question first?" it would have been perfect if they told him no. Never let them do that. They instantly derail so, in this case, for instance, the "evidence" claim will be marginalized.
Adam sounds what resin looks like
Talks about Platonic forms, can't explain what they are. A complete non-starter. Did anyone actually catch what his "premises and conclusion" were?
Poor boy.
He actually believed he accomplished something.
The caller clearly had a script he was stuck to and tried getting to a “gotcha” moment. But they weren’t playing along with his script and it threw him off.
If you have to ask a question to start a logical argument, you don't really have an argument
I love how people will call in with the Kalam Cosmological argument, or the Watchmaker analogy, or Design from Complexity, ect genuinely believing that they have discovered something revolutionary and indisputable that nobody has ever heard of a million times.
21.05 is the episode with the same caller making the same argument to Matt and John... and 21.20 is him calling with yet another name, talking to Matt, Tracie, and a guest.
Isn't it cute when caller looses his shit when they bon't buy his...'arguments.' 😂
Lol imagine not knowing the difference between an argument, and evidence.
Phil is pretty awesome as a host
Such a fevered little mind. And so snippy! Notes to hand, frustrated that it didn't play out like it did in his head. On more than one occasion he sounded like a kid wetting their pants at the dinner table before running to his room, shrieking.
I’m sure it played out quite differently in his head where he dazzled everyone with his sheer brilliance. He doesn’t even realise how useless and pointless his argument is and is simply word play where you attempt to define a God unto existence. I love how frustrated he gets because they refused to get wrapped up in his airy fairy philosophical musings. He doesn’t understand how logic works and comes across like a toddler who gets upset because no one sees things the way they do