"I've never considered this argument before..." - Destiny Debates Michael Jones
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ต.ค. 2019
- Destiny Debates Michael Jones on whether or not God exists.
Click▼
Date streamed: 10/07/2019
Follow Destiny
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/bigscreen
►DISCORD - discordapp.com/invite/destiny
►REDDIT - / destiny
►INSTAGRAM - / destiny
Follow Michael
►TH-cam - / inspiringphilosophy
►TWITTER - / inspiringphilos
Follow Modern-Day Debate
►TH-cam - / @moderndaydebate
►TWITTER - / moderndaydebate
Use Destiny's affiliate link to buy stuff! www.amazon.com/?tag=des000-20
Produced by Voddity
►Voddity - / voddity
►Edited by - / editormaddog
►Thumbnail by - / luhkees
Music:
►OUTRO: / cc6-mastered-3-conflict
![LISA - ROCKSTAR (Official Music Video) REACTION [SHE'S BACK!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QBxE30vavMQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Destiny's destiny got destroyed by InspiringPhilosophy's inspiring philosophy.
Looks more like they should switch names to prevent confusion.
The Christian God falsified Destiny in this debate.
TRUE LULW
Michael Jones is probably the most american name I've ever heard
who?
MIKE JONES!
@@ft4903 i was afraid no one would get it
Michael is an Irish name
@@masdf7053 2 8 1, 3 3 oh, 8 0 0 4...
Mike’s opening statement was like a really long and elaborate yugioh turn
That's pretty funny :)
Hilbert Space in defense position
Deadass
Tttttttttrrrrrrrruuuuuuuuuuu
Destiny was like “I’m seeing right through your cards Yugi boy!”
Funny memes aside (and they’re really funny)
Whilst Michael’s opening used many sophisticated terms, the argument wasn’t that difficult to understand , I feel like people just don’t want to engage with the arguments and thus just dismiss it as “word salad”
IP had a strong performance
When you go through terms that are highly complex at a high rate of speed, without explaining them, it's going to sound like word salad. The only way that it won't is to slowly explain the argument with simpler terms. Of course, a short timely debate doesn't allow for this.
IP did phenomenal
@@WarloyJenkins Well sounding like a word salad and being one is completely different.
A word salad is “a confused or unintelligible mixture of seemingly random words” the words however weren’t random as his argument had a logic to it.
Mike may have also assumed that Steve was familiar with the Vocabulary considering that he chose to debate this.
@@sjappiyah4071 I'm not saying his words don't have meaning. I'm on his side of the debate, but he was running through a lot of theories that are pretty high level and complex in his opening statement and he did it quite fast. All I'm saying is that when you move through high level complex information it will sound like word salad, especially when you go as fast as he did. It doesn't make the argument any less valid.
No, IP dresses up his ideology with complex theory in order to muddle the water and tell people to clean it up in order to prove it false.
IP believes there are no physical universes and everything is quite literal ideas make real inside the mind of god and we perceive it as real because we are inside of it.
In simpler terms, he is saying: *_"The Universes isn't physical therefore you can't use materialistic method (sciences) to prove it false"_* practically sneaking in his conclusion while discarding the most possible explanation.
Normally people would ask him to prove it or they toss his unprovable hypothesis into the trash can.
Here IP uses his rhetoric to simply ADD as much terminology as possible about different unprovable cherry-picked theories in physics and ignore those that contradicted it to say:
*_"You need to give me a better theory that is less parsimonious"_*
IP argument isn't true until proven false and You don't get to pass the burned of Proof to me and tell me I need to prove all of Physic.
Thanks for coming on, Steven! It's always a pleasure to have you! People really appreciated your thoughtfulness and authenticity in this discussion!
Oh its you!
Half of these comments are just "I dont understand it,its too complex therefore bad argument"
🤣🤣🤣fr
Michael Jones went through puberty in this debate
😭😭😭
Is that how long the opening took?
Voice shaming
Jesus.... Franklin.... Christ!
He has something wrong with his vocal cords, look at all the videos hes in his voice cracks ALOT
Destiny got read a PowerPoint in this debate.
That power point resembled the neural network of a brain. #GodConfirmed lolz
Why does this matter lol
Destiny got handed a bibliography that requires Linear Algebra and Differential Equations as prerequisites in this debate.
The underlying work needed to extrapolate his arguments from quantum field theory, entangelment, galaxy super structures and the black hole information paradox would each induvidually easily grant him the nobel prize in physics.
Using a combination of all these fields of physics to try and prove god is Athene levels of insane.
@@tryewa People who try to 'prove' God (something that is very clearly completely conjectural) will always have to use insane Athene type logic.
I don't know why it isn't blindingly obvious to these people that they don't have any idea whether God exists or not.. nor is the idea of God in any way a sensical idea.
Instead, they somehow think they can convince people they're aware of the existence of a made-up being via arguments that are ridiculously far from sound and / or valid.
Your profile pix gave me aids
@@maximthefox if you don't have a counter, just say.
@@SJ.J2 I'm unsure as to what you mean. If you're asking whether I have counters to this guys arguments for God, then I would say I don't have to give any personal counters. These arguments have already been dismissed countless times in the past by other people. This dude just gave a different version of the teleological argument by using various scientific theories as premises. The teleological argument has been countered more times than can be known at this point.
Destiny got beat up by his older brother in this debate
This meme passes inspection and will not be dragged out back and shot like the others
He does look like his opponent lol
Host: super enthusiastic intro, hyping up the debate to the max
Destiny: looks like he wants to die
I wanna die from listening to this
Pee Wee micheal Jones sounds like an anime scientist explaining how he invented time travel
@@clutchcal0578 as hominem
Rebecca Christiansen because he faced a Christian that knew why he is a Christian .
@@clutchcal0578 Not really, pretty sure he’s getting his degree in philosophy of science right now.
People in chat claiming he is wrong without stating why. Classic internet.
@@jackdack85 ?
Destiny didn't realize he was facing a level 100 boss...
Oh yeah, I’m a biochemist and studied much of this the last 20 years (I’m 39), what he said was consistent with the literature of Quantum physics… please explain where his flaws were since you made the claim, that means you can clearly see the holes…?
@@Jaryism 3 weeks later and he cannot lol
@@Big-Papa-SmurfNo, that’s not true.
@@Jaryismthe two different results from the double slit experiment come from an interaction not because a conscious agent is perceiving the light. Not sure how u being a biochemist is relevant here either.
@@Jaryismoh I guess you can sort of look at the brain? The academic consensus in neurology is that consciousness arises from naturalism and it’s perfectly possible to does so.
Destiny got simulated in this debate
Haha.
Destiny got quantum entangled in this debate.
Destiny got upgraded from debating his biological father to debating his identical twin in this debate.
lol
DESTINY GOT CHRISTENED IN THIS DEBATE
Destiny needed a degree in astrophysics in this debate.
@@AstroFerko look those liberal colleges are just indoctrination center
kay interesting how schools that teach critical thinking lead to more left wing thought. 🤔
@@hybridplane1402 Maybe in America... But you guys are a joke regardless.
@@AstroFerko Hey dude, do you have any cool stuff that I could get familiar with that'd tackle Jones' ideas? Destiny did a pretty poor job this time.
@@hybridplane1402 It's all most like the people running these institutions all have the same ideology and hire staff that reinforce it.
Nebraska Steven vs California Steven
Haruhel We need good ol’ ‘Braska Steve back BibleThump
@@jeremias-serus gone too soon..
Grateful for this shit whenever I need to clean the house, do homework, drive to work, etc
Right
@@Zetsuuga clean and driving yeah, but homework? wtf
I think this debate is above and beyond your IQ so that is why you are mocking it
@@torontoash45 he wasn't mocking it you degenerate fuck.
Yea these are amazing as background for mindless tasks
This is actually really interesting. I hope you two do a follow-up once you look at this more in-depth on your own.
Destiny got welcomed to the dark side in this debate.
Shout out to IP for his patience and really doing a great job respectfully presenting his evidence and case, this is refreshing... I honestly think if you're just not a strong supporter of creationism or GOd you can still appreciate the evidence Mike put into this, I think he's made a strong case for the "possibility" of the universe emerging from a mind while staying scientifically consistent. Something I haven't really seen... honestly, any creationist do. And he had Destiny even completely stumped, that's impressive 'cause hes seen through so many holes in many debaters over the years, he saw a couple small ones but overall he really had nothing or no strong answers. Good discussion!
Bruh, his argument is extra complicated, I'll give him that. But it's not that different from saying "we could be living in the matrix'. In fact, he even goes a step further and states that we are living in a matrix, one created by a mind he calls 'god'. His arguments are far from scientifically consistent, it's applying a specific mental framework to the universe to get to his preferred conclusion.
Ancor3 Wow, you really missed the point here man
That would be the case if the evidence he presented were scientifically consistent. But it absolutely is not. The collapse of the wave function does not require a conscious observer. Nor does an emergent space-time resemble a mind- it’s just that the distribution of matter in the brain somewhat resembles that of the distribution of matter in the universe. The guy cherry picks quotes from scientists that fits his view and twists scientific theories to do the same. It’s Quantum Woo.
@@urebeatsgaming7285 The issue is that your argument is based on the typical meaning of the word “measurement” and what a measurement entails. It’s really a problem of science communication in general; conveying scientific truths in everyday language leads to a lot of misconceptions. The reality is that any sufficiently energetic INTERACTION can collapse a wave function into one of its eigenstates. There are an uncountable number of these interactions every second throughout the universe. In short, it’s interactions, not human measurement that collapse wave functions.
Sure, I can give you an example. A proton- proton interaction in the core of Alpha Centauri would collapse the respective wave functions. No conscious observer is required for that to occur. Physical laws care not for humans nor consciousness.
Sir do you have a defeater for the Christian god?
No god is dumb enough to create something as retarded as humanity. There, done.
@@Rezinstance everybody makes mistakes, buddy
@@harryb12993 he never said god was omnipotent though
@@Rezinstance Hello, Loser Department?
Can you sir falsify the Christian god ?
So guys, did Destiny finally falsified the christian god and began his ascension to a neoliberalist heaven?
nope
@@crishealingvtuber8626 destiny won right?
@@lucasevergarden6601 Also no? But I can't say IP is correct either because I'm not familiar with these arguments.
@@lucasevergarden6601 no
@@PabloSensei but destiny and Vaush win all the time? There was a lot of complex language so maybe you got confused on who actually won.
destiny emerged from his mind in this debate
We all got confused in this debate.
No sir
@@nicksteini Damn, you must be super-duper smart.
@@brennanbarber7469 don’t think so lol, get confused with most of desiny‘s other content…
but when it comes to God, insipiring philosophy is spot on
Why does destiny have two facecams?
One, main, is his expensive camera he uses for stream, second one is old camera (probably c920) that he had and were using for a while for stream before he bought better one after he moved to LA. That way he can record to his stream from better camera and still show up on different software (skype, discord) without the need to end his stream.
Vanity
Wow, that was refreshingly civil and nice to watch.
This should be called 'Destiny Debates an identical clone of himself, but the clone's shaved and had a hair cut'
Two Bits.
So Nebraska Steve
LMFAOOOO
@00:02:00
Clones confirmed
The chrsitian god falsified destiny in this debate
Destiny got voice cracked in this debate
Destiny got simulated by a parrot in this debate.
Tyrannicide this is one of the best ones
lol
Yea destiny got clapped 😂, but much respect to both guys.
Destiny needed a PhD in this debate
I’m an agnostic theist. I don’t like it when people try to use science to assert metaphysical realities. Philosophy specifically metaphysics does a much better job at explaining concepts of god.
I noticed for a supposed Christian he presented a very Neoplatonist argument. I’m kinda impressed, I thought Christian Platonists didn’t exist anymore. Despite my appeal that science doesn’t explain metaphysical phenomena, I’m rooting for Jones to change my mind.
Science supports his philosophical argument, for what I understand.
Destiny is wrong about pizza in the debate
Genuinely speaking, he's by far the most sane theologist I've ever heard, and i admire and respect his approach and explanation of his logic, along with his friendly and understanding demeanour, that's by far the rarest trait in theology apologists
I mean, have you seen an atheist debater? They aren't exactly glowing with radiance. I don't think being an asshole is super common among apologists. If we were to compare Christian debaters and atheist debaters on who takes on a more friendly, humble approach, the winner is obvious.
being 'sane' is a pretty low bar tbh. The arguments he makes are very bad and suffer from poor research and unjustified leaps of logic.
For instance, his 'digital physics' argument completely misrepresents virtually all the current physics, and the physicists working today.
IP is different man, W for the faith. He handled this very well
Wow destiny got so destroyed in this debate
Absolutely
His argument sounds like Berkeleys Idealism but with extra steps.
EXACTLY what a clown
The theist and non theist version of the same person 😂
Destiny could not express how epic this debate was in this debate.
Awesome debate. Didn't understand any of it
Lol
1:59 Holy shit, the resemblance is uncanny.
1:50
"They have not let their successes go to their heads"
lol ok buddy
ho there, buddy! How would you behave if you were a Titan of Debate?
Epic debate btw
When the moderator asked about how to pronounce gif, Michael's reaction of, "it's such a stupid argument," reminded me of how Destiny would normally react, and instead Destiny just straight up ignored it. I appreciate the apathy on this one.
IP crushed him, Destinys fans wanted him to be right so bad even though he got killed 😂
God of gaps xD
@@RumpyxD No, God of logic. 🧠🧠
IP : You’re broadening what it means to be a simulation!
Also IP : I’m using the term simulation rather colloquially here...
Yeah because his understanding of a simulation is entirely colloquial. Even the scientists who propose the holographic universe theory as it relates to black holes has nothing to say about the universe having to emerge from an underlying mind or simulation. They also don't believe in God. Its basically the kalam cosmological arguement updated with the holographic universe theory rather than just using the big bang theory. It's utter nonsense that no respectable scientists believes and no Christian uses to justify their belief.
@@JohnDoe-sp3dc prove it...debate
why they both look the same lmao
@@Counter-Intuitive cringe
Finally another topic than communisim and housing
I really enjoyed this debate
I think it's also been argued that even if a "Supernatural" event occurred, it no longer becomes a "Supernatural" event... since we could study and observe, and therefore it becomes, natural... Albeit, without our complete understanding, immediately, at least.
Anytime something new was proven and we didn't understand it, we don't just say "oh that was magic/supernatural" we would assume there was something we still need to understand yet to explain it... that's how science works.
@@gyroandhisballs we have something like that. It's called a black hole. and it's natural not super natural.
@@urebeatsgaming7285 yes, black holes defy the laws of physics as we know them. This means that our laws of physics are incomplete. it doesn't mean that they're supernatural, we just don't understand them fully.
there are many things we do not yet understand, that doesn't make them supernatural. you're making a logical fallacy.
@@urebeatsgaming7285 general relativity is a great predictor and works well. it's a working theory. however it's still incomplete.
The supernatural and natural terms are so broad and arbitrary. At this point, they're meaningless.
@@MasterMooper I guess then when we fail to make our point we can always redefine terms, or better yet do away with definitions altogether.
Supernatural is effected by something beyond nature/our physical universe...by definition, if there was a moment the universe did not exist, whatever would cause it would be supernatural, beyond/outside the natural...unless you're willing to argue that it caused itself which is self-contradictory.
Destiny lost because he didn't know how to counter his opponent's argument. Which was that the universe is created from a Mind-thus a first thought or God. God as a definition is very loose and is mostly represented as the creator of what we know as the Universe. It's not even accurate to know if god is a being but rather a mind of physical laws. Since it is a theory and to deny the possibility of a singular thought which can itself be represented as the big bang it's hard to disprove this argument that a being that can be considered godlike (but not actually a god in our religious view). Or maybe I have no idea what i'm talking about
U don’t.
I also don't appreciate his implication with his statement "I wish I was athiest so I could I just go play the stock market"... Implying that the existence of a non-interventionist god effects morality somehow.
Why? Thou shalt not play stock market? How would you possibly know what a god would want - you'd have to believe as opposed to know, and that doesn't prove that you're more moral than someone else... it just proves you have a tool that can manipulate societies by claiming you know more than you really do about something you cant.
Even the existence of a vague entity that is host to a simulation we live in doesn't somehow prove that there is a "best"
right and wrong decision making system in the world... at least not anymore then in a situation where our universe is real, and just happened (which is literally saying the same, but leaving "how" the universe came to be to a different answer).
In fact: I'd argue if you view the world as hosted simulation, instead of just functionally believing it as "real" because it shouldn't matter if it's simulated or not, you would be more likely to think - "hey man, it's a simulation, our choices matter less because we're illusion man". Which is potentially more morally dangerous then not thinking that.
@@travisjones4689 financial speculation (playing the stock market) falls under gambling/usury to autistic christians that get morals from the bible
Whether God exists or not definitely has implications on the nature of morality ontologically, I don't know many philosophers who'd contend with that. But I get what you mean, being atheist doesn't imply having any particular set of moral values.
Destiny is a moral anti-realist because he's an Atheist and he's actually honest in the implications that has on his philosophy.
Destiny got his axioms questioned in this debate
Lol I love in the beginning how James is saying both debators are superb and have mean game, and then Destiny just gets completely obliterated.
Although I think those were some Deepak Chopra level physics-gymnastics at some points, at least this person was interested in actually engaging with the things destiny said. Pleasant conversation.
it's only gymnastics when it's the other side right?
@@SJ.J2 no, but as other comments have said. This person is basically using quantum mechanics, physics, and other roots of science to explain the existence of a God. Which comes to say that he's taken (probably he doesn't understand the points itself) the studies and he uses them for his advantage. Again, he's using hypothesis that use quantum mechanics to explain the existence of a God. Quantum mechanics.
@@SJ.J2 no it's gymnastics when we are throwing out conclusions that sound like they are supported by cutting edge studies and then you look up what those physicist say and it really doesn't support any such conclusions, he only made it sound like it by selecting the soundbites that suit his narrative.
@@mannysikario I fail to see how that is gymnastics but alright.
@@supsap6545 I understand him using data and hypotheses to support his own conclusions but I disagree with any claim of him performing gymnastics. What you have accused him of is at most cherry-picking.
14:30 Right off the bat, Destiny takes the wrong approach. The burden is on Michael to demonstrate that a simulation can ONLY exist in a computer or a mind. Destiny is under no requirement to provide an alternative possibility to refute the premise.
diigima I think he was too busy being distracted by all the big brain ideas being thrown at him at once
@@myspacebarbrokenevermindif9892 if I was Destiny I would’ve definitely prepared by watching his clone’s videos. Michael Jones tends to prepare very throughly by watching the videos of the person he’s gonna debate and many of his videos are the exact ideas he talks about here. I don’t agree with him but I find his content interesting
Actually no, the burden was on Destiny to prove that a simulation can exist in things other than a mind or a computer.
@@mathewjose4753 No, P1 states: "A simulation can ONLY exist in a mind or computer." "Only" implies necessitation. Destiny correctly asks him how he determined P1 to be true. Michael is making a claim. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If I tell you that gold is buried under my house, it's not up to you to prove me wrong, its up to me to prove that what I'm telling is actually the case. This is burden of proof 101. Instead of answering the question, Michael immediately deflects by asking Destiny if he can think of a differently possibility. This is a fallacious response. Whether or not Destiny can think of an alternative possibility to P1 has no bearing on P1s truth value.
@@naomi-nada You are mistaking two different cases here. One thing is to claim a posit and another is to claim dichotomy. If you claim a posit (as it was in your example, or for instance if I claim that a is b) the burden of proof is on me. But if I claim a dichotomy (as it is in the original case, and not in your example, or for instance of I claim that a can be only b or c or d) the burden of the disproof is on the opposite side. That's how science and philosophy works at least. And the reason here is in efficiency. We can not base our methodologies on the basis that there might exist something. That's why we should not take a posit statement at a face value without proof. That's why we should not take a posit statement that something exists outside of dichotomy at a face value without proof. In other words, if one person comes up with a dichotomy parts of which are true in themselves, it's probable that its a true dichotomy if we can not come with another case outside of that dichotomy. Let me give you another example: The modern anatomy gives us a full list of all the organs that are in the human. It would not be quite effective to claim that this anatomy is not probably correct because there might exist organs that we don't know of. The effective way is to claim this system probable because no one can come up with anything else. The dichotomic statement works in the similar sense.
He looks like he is 25+ but sounds like he is 13, wtf
Yeah that's just destiny, you get used to it after a while.
@@ComradeQuagsire nice meme
"Things group together like nerve clusters therefore it comes from a brain" uh dude, that's just how gravity works.
I feel like the people shitting on Mike's opening statements would be incapable of dissecting it the way Destiny did. It seems like its just "big word scary so argument made of big word bad"
Well it is a complete joke. It's the kalam cosmological arguement full stop. Just because he referenced the holographic universe theory doesn't make him correct or intelligent especially when he couldn't even explain the theory or even a single term, simulation, to save his life.
@@JohnDoe-sp3dc it's not he doesn't present the premises
@@JohnDoe-sp3dc It is no where near the kalam bro💀💀
Lets see how long brain's gonna be in recovery mode after this one
I think destiny got super lost there because
His main argument is:
"the universe is emergent
Emergent things can only come from a computer or a mind
Therefore a mind is behind the universe."
Understanding of science is only nessecary for the first premise but the second premise is pretty unfounded. Because by the definition of emergent the holographic principle was using the way he was describing it was that there is more fundamental data underlying it. This is also the case for momentum. Momentum is an emergent or derived property of mass and velocity. Things don't have a momentum they have a mass and a differential of position with respect to time which taken together give you a made up property called momentum. This makes momentum emergent by his usage and I am never going to just blindly accept a premise that implies that momentum must come from a mind or computer simply because it is emergent momentum can be fully explaned in a physical universe without a mind.
Lately destiny looks like he doesn't shower
Why shower with water if you can shower in knowledge
Destiny falsified the myth of voices dropping after puberty in this debate
Destiny was parsimonious in this debate
😂
Destiny tasted, felt and smelt this debate
It was over for Destiny as soon as he started drinking soylent on stream lmao
Link to the Michael's channel in the description is wrong.
Destiny got baptized in this debate
I'm glad to see destiny debating idealism. Hopefully a non Christian idealistic will step up in the future
i think we have just witnessed a dude demonstrating that naturally emergent neural networks can go completely crazy.
15:01
The_Whole_Horse: its like a permanent voice crack
When will we get a Destiny debates Mitch Jones
This dude is basically to QM what creationists are to evolution. "Nooman" btw lmao.
Low IQ SAO fan spotted
@@fahrenheit9646 Thanks for your hilarious reply.
what the fuck is that link that is supposed to be to Michaels youtube channel?
I really wanna go on Destiny to debate on some highly abstract cosmic mindbenders.
God I love James he's always so happy
I think it's a good attitude to really try to understand what the other is saying
It's honestly too early for me to understand what's going on. Which is strange since it's 3pm.
Adstiny. Time to open the video in safari 👍🏽
"Simulations can only appear in a computer or in a mind."
OK I don't know how exactly he's defining simulation but how did he reach this conclusion?
Even if those are the only two things we can think of, I can declare a whole bunch of unanswered questions as only answerable by things we know of or have examples of. That doesn't make it so or mean you can restrict your opposition to only those two choices. The opposition is always right to say "I don't know what else a simulation can appear in, but I wont assume it's only the things we know about".
Destiny's epistemology and logic are rusty as of late.
no reason you can't discuss the options you do know about.
Aka argument from ignorance fallacy
@Anime TiddyFan this is late but Mike said to destiny that if what he saying was a false dichotomy he only needed to give an example of where else a simulation could occur. If scientist search the whole earth and say we only observe polar bears on the North Pole that’s fact until someone find them else where on the planet. Now if you make a positive claim about polar bears living somewhere outside of the North Pole you have to find evidence of that. That’s what Destiny was saying when he posited that a simulation could occur outside a computer or a mind. That’s a positive claims that he need evidence for.
This is not a true comparison. If someone says "polar bears only exist in the northern hemisphere naturally", we can describe what would need to be the case in order to prove otherwise, for example if we searched the Amazon and found a small group of polar bears and we tested their genes and found that they are indeed polar bears that must have migrated there in the past. Like wise if someone said "there is no floating tea pot orbiting Mars", we could send a probe with sensitive detectors and if we came across a floating tea pot then that would disprove the claim.
If you cant even describe what would need to be the case in order for a statement to have a counter example then it's not just as valid to believe that there is a counter example.
Thank you Destiny, watching your content offers me a good role model in several ways. Consistency in your thoughts and beliefs aids me my own life, motivating me live a life with more consistency avoiding cognitive dissonance. Again, thank you destiny
The Probabilistic Cosmological Argument can't be refuted by saying there could be universes we can't imagine because the numbers show us most of the possibilities, and we can model them, are so extremely unorganizable such as no particles being able to approach eachother.
Michael's channel is Inspiring Philosophy but the link to him in the description just goes to "Inspirin," maybe because copy-paste.
Destiny is in this debate.
Everything has to be emergent if you only consider the underlying processes.
That's what he's saying, everything is emergent from consciousness.
He's wrong though. Gravity, for example, is proven to be non-emergent, except in some special circumstances.
Did IP ever provide a justification for his first premise ("Digital Physics Argument" - Simulations can only exist in a computer or in a mind)? Other than him just saying, "Can you think of another possibility?"
It's a kind of logical disjunction. If you wanted to break it down further you could say:
1) Simulations are the product of either a mind or a computer.
2) The universe is a simulation.
3) The universe is not the product of a computer.
4) Therefore, the universe is the product of a mind.
If there were legitimate options being ignored in premise 1 then the argument would contain the fallacy of bifurcation, but if you want to throw that flag then you might want to elaborate what that possibility is - otherwise you are just appealing to incredulity.
Destiny read spinoza when?
sounded to me like his argument on similarities between brains and the the universe boiled down to "hey, we can describe these with hilbert spaces!"
which means absolutely nothing.
Quantum Mechanics is fucking hard to understand, and it annoys me that people manipulate that to confuse and trick people.
@@sploofmcsterra4786 What did he say that was incorrect?
I like that Micheal guy. I am an atheist and the only way someone could make me a theist is with logical arguments like he tried to make.
Sadly i didnt really understand the main argument of him, it seemed kind of constructed in a way of just mashing different observation together and then drawing the conclusion that some type of god exists.
Also if there is a god, im 99,9999% sure that its not the christian god or any other god of a religion. I think there is way too much bullshit in the bible for example.
Tbf, the topic of the debate is just whether a god exists or not... not if the god in question is the Christian God.
@@ljph5647 I didnt say anything else, did i?
Yeah. You didn’t. Just wanted to comment on what you said lol.
Well then if it didnt convince You that a God exist then why comment it on TH-cam if You know that God dosent exist then??? Logic???
Then what was the point of watching the whole debate if You know it's not going to convince You just saying as a Christian myself looks like Your the one with unsecured beliefs here dude
🤨🤨🤨
@@jesusirizarryrodriguez835 That isn't what he said lol
why are the mic's so garbage all the time. keep cutting out in every debate
Wow, Destiny hair isn’t blue.. weird, that he was born that way.
Clearly, Micheal destroyed Destiny.
fr
May You find the Lord Jesus Christ !
I don't understand why destiny gave up any ground with the digital physics argument. Each of the first 3 premises are huge logical leaps
26:26 nebulous structures are present 'in rocks'. Not literally rocks, but the structures can develop from thermodynamics/kinetics of polymer blendes. It is likely that galaxies, nuerons, ant colonies and aforementioned polymer structures that the nebulous/nuerological 'information' stuff is a result of principles of geometry and other maths.