3:30 to 3:53 - You said it's a logical fallacy, but what fallacy exactly does it commit? Straw men? Red herring? Affirming the consequent? Even if the claim is wrong, it doesn't appear to be a fallacy in the ordinary sense of the word (well, not in the ordinary sense used in logic). 7:40 to 8:24 - This, incidentally, is known as the straw man fallacy. The argument was not inferring God's existence from existence per se; it was inferring God's existence from moral knowledge. You may think this argument is unsound, but that was the argument. 10:42 to 10:47 - "What you were suggesting is that if there was no God we would beat our children" I didn't say anything like that anywhere in that thread. There's a difference between knowing that this invisible, nonphysical thing called moral wrongness exists and beating children. Even if I became an atheist, I would not do such a thing and prefer that humans not do such a thing. It's possible for moral nihilists (people who believe nothing is morally wrong) to be very nice people and have much the same preferences for human behavior as the moral realist. It's possible, for example, for a moral nihilist to be strongly opposed to child abuse as much as the moral realist; the moral nihilist just couldn't say it's _morally wrong,_ only that they _prefer_ people not do it. Nowhere in your video did you really address my justification for why it is that if God does not exist we do not have moral knowledge, but perhaps it's my fault for not going into sufficient detail (I tried doing so later on but those comments were deleted). I'll try again here, hoping that this comment won't also be deleted. If moral wrongness is non-natural and empirically undetectable, how do we know about it? In practice we rely on moral intuition. The theist could believe that God has moral knowledge and designed our cognitive faculties in such a way that when they’re functioning properly, we intuit certain elementary moral truths. Given atheism however, even if atheistic evolution resulted in us having true moral beliefs we wouldn’t know those beliefs to be true despite having intuitions of morality's existence. Why? Because barring the supernatural, nonphysical moral wrongness is causally inert, and our brains would give us the same intuition of moral wrongness existing regardless of whether moral wrongness existed, and this seems to undercut such intuition from properly justifying our belief in morality. We would thus not have moral knowledge. To illustrate with an analogy, suppose a cyborg knows she has a metal-detecting implant installed in her brain that’s designed so that when a widget is in her hand, the implant delivers a strong intuition that the widget contains metal if and only if it contains metal. Suppose however the metal-detecting implant later malfunctions such that it would deliver the intuition that the widget contains metal regardless of whether the widget contained metal. Then even if the widget in her hand did contain metal and she believed it contained metal on the basis of her intuition, her belief wouldn’t count as knowledge. Moreover, if she learned the metal-detecting implant would give her the intuition that the widget contains metal regardless of whether the widget contained metal, she would no longer have adequate grounds to believe the widget contains metal. Similarly, if we would have the same intuition of moral wrongness existing regardless of whether moral wrongness existed, we would not be properly justified in believing in moral wrongness on the basis of that intuition, and this is _exactly_ the problem that atheism has with moral knowledge. It seems then that if God does not exist, we do not have moral knowledge.
Nice entrance. I see I'm talking to cognitive dissonance. Your argument is absolutely non existent. I have said again and again, come up with something better. Your argument is on a par with rocks exist, therefore God exists. Watch this You said Moral knowledge proves God. I said no it doesn't. What next? It's done right there. No evidence emerged from your words. No matter how many times you repeat the same ones. It's a fallacy and you can't figure out why. So lets let that go. Brick walls are not good for banging ones head against. Lets go another direction. That "suppose if a cyborg knew it had metal detecting......." story and how that proves God sounds like a scream. It's not in my Bible though it kinda sounds like the Archangel Metatron from Jewish antiquity. Tell us that story, please. You're not the one to prove God.
Serious question. And for this, just look through your posts from the Skeptic channel where this started. Why do you use so many double negatives? It is a verbal practice, intentional or otherwise, meant to obscure or to baffle the follower type minds. It creates a state of non clarity to the average person. The least of them will be impressed and follow their impressions of the skillful piper. They are impressed, but do not understand. Yours sound like this. (The un-least of them will not be un-impressed and not cease to never follow the non-impressions of the un-skilled non-piper) Hmmm. Your large, inverted verbosity requires what amounts to very poor English skills, has dead ends and assumes the average person understands the words you're using. Or misusing. They don't track a smooth path in the mind. You blend genre's in an effort to make your knowledge seem bigger. Like readily interchanging supernatural and metaphysics. They do mean the same thing of course but are not readily shared terms among religions. What do you believe? Everything? You make an unsubstantiated claim, then establish a large stream of verbose confusion with double negatives and a word salad of psychological and metaphysical terms that are unfamiliar to most folks. And the only thing this amounted to after weeding the fluff was you saying "God exists, prove me wrong." Then, "You never proved me wrong." New at this? The only part of my comment that was unclear is when I mimicked your style. See that?
@@danielpaulson8838 _Your argument is absolutely non existent._ You've all but completely ignored the justification I gave for "If God does not exist, then moral knowledge does not exist" both in your video and in the above comment. The problem, again, is that we rely on moral intuition to know that moral wrongness exists but if atheism is true *we'd have the same intuition for moral wrongness existing regardless of whether moral wrongness existed,* and this undercuts such intuition from properly justifying our belief in moral wrongness. You haven't addressed this at all! I illustrated the problem with the scenario in which a cyborg has a faulty metal-detector implant, such that the implant would deliver the intuition that the widget contains metal regardless of whether the widget contained metal. Even if the widget did indeed contain metal, the cyborg's true belief would not be knowledge because she'd have the same metallic intuition even if the widget did not contain metal. The same principle holds for atheism and moral intuition. Perhaps it'll help if I frame it more formally. (4) If atheism is true, we'd have the same intuition of morality existing regardless of whether morality existed. (5) In the cyborg scenario (where the cyborg would have the same metallic intuition regardless of whether the widget contained metal), the cyborg’s intuition does not deliver knowledge for the metallic widget belief. (6) If the cyborg’s intuition does not deliver knowledge in the cyborg scenario, then if atheism is true moral intuition does not deliver knowledge for morality’s existence. (No relevant difference appears to exist in the "cyborg scenario" and the "atheism scenario", see premise (4)) (7) Therefore, if atheism is true, moral intuition does not deliver knowledge of morality’s existence. Which premise of this reasoning is false here?
@@danielpaulson8838 I'm puzzled why you don't engage with the justification for my claim that "If God does not exist, then moral knowledge does not exist." For example, you left out this part of your 20+ minute video: _Given atheism however, even if atheistic evolution resulted in us having true moral beliefs we wouldn’t know those beliefs to be true. Why? Because barring the supernatural, nonphysical moral wrongness is causally inert, and our brains would give us the same intuitions of moral wrongness existing regardless of whether moral wrongness existed, and this seems to undercut such intuition from properly justifying our belief in morality. We would thus not have moral knowledge._ Why did you omit this justification in your video for my claim when _in that same 20+ minute video_ you accused me of not justifying my claim? And why do you continue to not address my reasoning for why given God's nonexistence we do not have moral knowledge (again, the problem is that we rely on intuition to know that morality exists but if atheism is true we'd have the _same intuitions of morality's existence regardless of whether morality existed,_ thereby undercutting such intuition from properly justifying our belief in morality)? I thought the metal-detecting analogy would help, but you didn't address that argument either!
Boy I made this bed, didn't I. I can turn it into a further abject lesson if I want to. Lots of fodder has been added. But then I run the risk of getting too far off course of my content. Soap opera. Lesson learned. Talk to you soon, Bernie.
In hindsight posting this comment I feel like an asshole. Guess I was just frustrated with having not many people to talk to about this kind of thing. I did drown myself in books for a long while but never really found what I was looking for. Makes me feel like a bit of a hypocrite. Having Roman Catholicism forced on me at a young age and it not making sense to me really turned me off of the bible until I was in my late 20s, so I looked elsewhere. Now I can read it without it making my head spin as much. I think you're right about brain types playing a big role, and knowledge from experience. Sorry if I offended anyone.
3:30 to 3:53 - You said it's a logical fallacy, but what fallacy exactly does it commit? Straw men? Red herring? Affirming the consequent? Even if the claim is wrong, it doesn't appear to be a fallacy in the ordinary sense of the word (well, not in the ordinary sense used in logic).
7:40 to 8:24 - This, incidentally, is known as the straw man fallacy. The argument was not inferring God's existence from existence per se; it was inferring God's existence from moral knowledge. You may think this argument is unsound, but that was the argument.
10:42 to 10:47 - "What you were suggesting is that if there was no God we would beat our children" I didn't say anything like that anywhere in that thread. There's a difference between knowing that this invisible, nonphysical thing called moral wrongness exists and beating children. Even if I became an atheist, I would not do such a thing and prefer that humans not do such a thing. It's possible for moral nihilists (people who believe nothing is morally wrong) to be very nice people and have much the same preferences for human behavior as the moral realist. It's possible, for example, for a moral nihilist to be strongly opposed to child abuse as much as the moral realist; the moral nihilist just couldn't say it's _morally wrong,_ only that they _prefer_ people not do it.
Nowhere in your video did you really address my justification for why it is that if God does not exist we do not have moral knowledge, but perhaps it's my fault for not going into sufficient detail (I tried doing so later on but those comments were deleted). I'll try again here, hoping that this comment won't also be deleted. If moral wrongness is non-natural and empirically undetectable, how do we know about it? In practice we rely on moral intuition. The theist could believe that God has moral knowledge and designed our cognitive faculties in such a way that when they’re functioning properly, we intuit certain elementary moral truths.
Given atheism however, even if atheistic evolution resulted in us having true moral beliefs we wouldn’t know those beliefs to be true despite having intuitions of morality's existence. Why? Because barring the supernatural, nonphysical moral wrongness is causally inert, and our brains would give us the same intuition of moral wrongness existing regardless of whether moral wrongness existed, and this seems to undercut such intuition from properly justifying our belief in morality. We would thus not have moral knowledge.
To illustrate with an analogy, suppose a cyborg knows she has a metal-detecting implant installed in her brain that’s designed so that when a widget is in her hand, the implant delivers a strong intuition that the widget contains metal if and only if it contains metal. Suppose however the metal-detecting implant later malfunctions such that it would deliver the intuition that the widget contains metal regardless of whether the widget contained metal. Then even if the widget in her hand did contain metal and she believed it contained metal on the basis of her intuition, her belief wouldn’t count as knowledge. Moreover, if she learned the metal-detecting implant would give her the intuition that the widget contains metal regardless of whether the widget contained metal, she would no longer have adequate grounds to believe the widget contains metal. Similarly, if we would have the same intuition of moral wrongness existing regardless of whether moral wrongness existed, we would not be properly justified in believing in moral wrongness on the basis of that intuition, and this is _exactly_ the problem that atheism has with moral knowledge. It seems then that if God does not exist, we do not have moral knowledge.
Nice entrance. I see I'm talking to cognitive dissonance.
Your argument is absolutely non existent. I have said again and again, come up with something better. Your argument is on a par with rocks exist, therefore God exists.
Watch this
You said Moral knowledge proves God.
I said no it doesn't.
What next? It's done right there. No evidence emerged from your words. No matter how many times you repeat the same ones. It's a fallacy and you can't figure out why. So lets let that go. Brick walls are not good for banging ones head against. Lets go another direction.
That "suppose if a cyborg knew it had metal detecting......." story and how that proves God sounds like a scream. It's not in my Bible though it kinda sounds like the Archangel Metatron from Jewish antiquity.
Tell us that story, please. You're not the one to prove God.
Serious question. And for this, just look through your posts from the Skeptic channel where this started. Why do you use so many double negatives? It is a verbal practice, intentional or otherwise, meant to obscure or to baffle the follower type minds. It creates a state of non clarity to the average person. The least of them will be impressed and follow their impressions of the skillful piper. They are impressed, but do not understand. Yours sound like this. (The un-least of them will not be un-impressed and not cease to never follow the non-impressions of the un-skilled non-piper) Hmmm. Your large, inverted verbosity requires what amounts to very poor English skills, has dead ends and assumes the average person understands the words you're using. Or misusing. They don't track a smooth path in the mind. You blend genre's in an effort to make your knowledge seem bigger. Like readily interchanging supernatural and metaphysics. They do mean the same thing of course but are not readily shared terms among religions. What do you believe? Everything? You make an unsubstantiated claim, then establish a large stream of verbose confusion with double negatives and a word salad of psychological and metaphysical terms that are unfamiliar to most folks. And the only thing this amounted to after weeding the fluff was you saying "God exists, prove me wrong." Then, "You never proved me wrong." New at this?
The only part of my comment that was unclear is when I mimicked your style. See that?
@@danielpaulson8838
_Your argument is absolutely non existent._
You've all but completely ignored the justification I gave for "If God does not exist, then moral knowledge does not exist" both in your video and in the above comment. The problem, again, is that we rely on moral intuition to know that moral wrongness exists but if atheism is true *we'd have the same intuition for moral wrongness existing regardless of whether moral wrongness existed,* and this undercuts such intuition from properly justifying our belief in moral wrongness. You haven't addressed this at all!
I illustrated the problem with the scenario in which a cyborg has a faulty metal-detector implant, such that the implant would deliver the intuition that the widget contains metal regardless of whether the widget contained metal. Even if the widget did indeed contain metal, the cyborg's true belief would not be knowledge because she'd have the same metallic intuition even if the widget did not contain metal. The same principle holds for atheism and moral intuition.
Perhaps it'll help if I frame it more formally.
(4) If atheism is true, we'd have the same intuition of morality existing regardless of whether morality existed.
(5) In the cyborg scenario (where the cyborg would have the same metallic intuition regardless of whether the widget contained metal), the cyborg’s intuition does not deliver knowledge for the metallic widget belief.
(6) If the cyborg’s intuition does not deliver knowledge in the cyborg scenario, then if atheism is true moral intuition does not deliver knowledge for morality’s existence. (No relevant difference appears to exist in the "cyborg scenario" and the "atheism scenario", see premise (4))
(7) Therefore, if atheism is true, moral intuition does not deliver knowledge of morality’s existence.
Which premise of this reasoning is false here?
@@MaverickChristian OCD or ADHD?
@@danielpaulson8838
I'm puzzled why you don't engage with the justification for my claim that "If God does not exist, then moral knowledge does not exist." For example, you left out this part of your 20+ minute video:
_Given atheism however, even if atheistic evolution resulted in us having true moral beliefs we wouldn’t know those beliefs to be true. Why? Because barring the supernatural, nonphysical moral wrongness is causally inert, and our brains would give us the same intuitions of moral wrongness existing regardless of whether moral wrongness existed, and this seems to undercut such intuition from properly justifying our belief in morality. We would thus not have moral knowledge._
Why did you omit this justification in your video for my claim when _in that same 20+ minute video_ you accused me of not justifying my claim?
And why do you continue to not address my reasoning for why given God's nonexistence we do not have moral knowledge (again, the problem is that we rely on intuition to know that morality exists but if atheism is true we'd have the _same intuitions of morality's existence regardless of whether morality existed,_ thereby undercutting such intuition from properly justifying our belief in morality)?
I thought the metal-detecting analogy would help, but you didn't address that argument either!
I died in 2012
I can't PROVE what happened.
I CAN awnser the "mysteries" now... can you infer my TRUTH though that evidence?
@@opforwarrior What evidence. You only made an anecdotal claim.
@@opforwarrior And I wasn’t going to ask, knowing better, But what is the mystery you can answer now.
idk man, where everyon's NDE is different so I don't trust those.
🤣 empiricism is the worst, just drowning in books looking for data or some confirmation when the answer is right behind your door
Boy I made this bed, didn't I. I can turn it into a further abject lesson if I want to. Lots of fodder has been added. But then I run the risk of getting too far off course of my content. Soap opera. Lesson learned.
Talk to you soon, Bernie.
In hindsight posting this comment I feel like an asshole. Guess I was just frustrated with having not many people to talk to about this kind of thing. I did drown myself in books for a long while but never really found what I was looking for. Makes me feel like a bit of a hypocrite. Having Roman Catholicism forced on me at a young age and it not making sense to me really turned me off of the bible until I was in my late 20s, so I looked elsewhere. Now I can read it without it making my head spin as much. I think you're right about brain types playing a big role, and knowledge from experience. Sorry if I offended anyone.