It’s simple to show determinism make truth impossible P1. Referents are neither true or false P2. Under physical determinism evaluations/propositions are referents. C. Evaluations/propositions are neither true or false
@@mikebrigandi_ under your world view (i assume, correct me if i'm wrong) everything is material including propositions. A proposition is merely a physical event under physicalism. So in the same way an actual rock is a referent for the word "rock" so to is a proposition a referent to the word "proposition".
Presupp - if it wasn't for my God you wouldn't know what a cow is!!!!!!😅😅😅😅 Presupp - My God has revealed himself to everyone and the unbeliever is in denial😅😅😅😅!!!!
@@davefrage125 A referent is never identical to a proposition in my view. All things, referents and propositions, are physical but that doesn't mean that referents are in the same category as propositions there's always a distinction. I.e A referent is just a physical object or state, but a proposition is structured information representing truth value about said referent, I could take a computational or information theory position on truth value under physicalism. So the original argument is a red herring since it seems to inject the random claim that propositions are identical to referents in category and is irrelevant to the compabitlity between determinism and knowledge.
Pre-stupidssionalism is literally just begging the question. And when you point out that their argument is circular, they fully admit it but then say it’s a “different type of argument” and can therefore be allowed to be circular but no one else argument can be or that argument is illogical. It’s literally the annoying friend you had in elementary school who hogged the game controller because it’s his house then demanded he gets the controller at your house because he’s the guest. Stupid and annoying
I have found most theists who adopt presup haven't delved too deeply into theolology or the arguments and are sloppy thinkers, they do it because they think it is an easy win in debates and because many people have trouble dealing with presup it works. The presups goal is to shut the conversation down not to convert or evangalise.
i dont know much about presupp but heres a few thoughts: 1. i dont think presupps presuppose god is required for knowledge. rather they presuppose the existence of God within their beliefs such that they can say they have knowledge 2. 0:54 they do not have to be talking about logical contradictions, rather metaphysical ones, where only the metaphysics of God could allow us to have knowledge or say we have knowledge. 3. 2:45 to say you do not need universals, you would probably want to give an account which satisfies the questioning of the theist, i.e., some nominalist account which accounts for why all things seemingly follow 'logic' 4. 8:08 i think this is one of the strongest arguments against theist presupp, which you could flip on them by having your own atheist presupp. ive had a presupp say that this circularity is 'virtuous' and so is not damning, but you could do the exact same thing as an atheist presupp.
I always thought that since you needed to know p1 (the knowledge-god conditional/biconditional) to be convinced of the argument, they'd have to justify that knowing either with God or without God, if you do the former it seems to be question-begging; if you do the latter then it's false, self-defeating.
Since ChatGPT is incapable of belief in god as the necessary foundation for all logic and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't grounding it's responses in a belief in god. Do presups think that nothing ChatGPT says can be true?
You're wrong though, the laws of Logic are observations yes, observations of understanding the truth of logic itself, which is a constant. Yes, Logic is used for thought processes, and seeking truth. But this is reflected in the reality we all SHARE through the adherence of reality itself to the principles of Logic and reason. Essentially our logic is a mirror of the TRUE logical principles of reality, and it is easy to see. When you recognize this, and understand it takes us Cognitive abilities to achieve feats such as logical thought and the ability to make reasonable choices based on our awareness of our current environment, you can start to see how all things formed in a particular way for a particular reason.
Knowledge assumes an arbiter or truth, or else you would never KNOW whether or not you have knowledge. Said Arbiter of Truth must be infallible by definition, the only being that fills these qualifications is God. I’m sure you already know this and have been in denial since the JimBob debate but hey if coping is a hobby you want to dedicate the rest of your life to go for it.
this is trivially wrong, i tend to hold to a correspondence theory of truth in which there is truth is merely descriptive, I'm open to deflationary theory as well which simply says truth statement are purely linguistic. whatever the case, there are clearly models of truth that don't require a "god" thing
@ I refuse to believe you are actually this stupid, if two people make a contradictory descriptions of events that they believe correspond to reality, who decides who’s correct? It can’t be consensus because a group of fallible people are equally fallible as one fallible person. I believe you know this to be the case but your heart has been hardened to the point of foolishness for the sake of building a wall around your incoherent worldview. You don’t disbelieve in God, you hate him.
@@serpenttrampler well depending on what kind of truth you are talking about, for example if your talking about an empirical claim then the supporting data would be analyzed and credence level would increase or decrease depending on the supporting data. if your talking about an analytical claim, then it would be axiomatically analyzed within its formal framework. Not sure why you insist an arbiter beyond ourselves must exist
@@serpenttrampler you only think someone has to 'decide' who is correct, because you think Truth is something someone can freely chose. That is subjectivism, not objectivism. An Objective Truth MUST be independent of minds. You are a pos-modernist, sir, you want to be the hero in the battle of imaginary good versus imaginary evil. You are rejecting the self-evident truth of our shared naturalistic atheistic reality, that has been revealed to all of sound mind, through both natural and special revelation, in an undeniable way.
Logos is the essence of being human and logos is only possible due to the uniformity of nature. Obviously the invariant cause must indeed possess "nous".
@@plex3035 we can easily reject your first 2 premises and your conclusion is rendered meaningless. Logic isn’t an essence anymore then speaking Spanish is an essence. Logic is merely a language. And it’s unclear what you mean by “uniformity of nature” let alone that logic is only possible because of it. Then you gratuitously assume a cause and that it must possess logic.
@@mikebrigandi_ what quality did you use to reject my premise? LOGOS! So keep rambling with your self refuting mumbo-jumbo...atheism is without defense it's just sarcasm and jive
@@plex3035 I reject the theological notion of “logos.” If by logos you mean logic, I don’t see what your point is. We use logic, but it’s not some kind of essential entity in nature. I think it’s merely a linguistic framework constructed by human minds.
It’s simple to show determinism make truth impossible
P1. Referents are neither true or false
P2. Under physical determinism evaluations/propositions are referents.
C. Evaluations/propositions are neither true or false
Thats a red herring, propositions arent referents and that has nothing to do with determinism
@@mikebrigandi_ under your world view (i assume, correct me if i'm wrong) everything is material including propositions. A proposition is merely a physical event under physicalism. So in the same way an actual rock is a referent for the word "rock" so to is a proposition a referent to the word "proposition".
Presupp - if it wasn't for my God you wouldn't know what a cow is!!!!!!😅😅😅😅
Presupp - My God has revealed himself to everyone and the unbeliever is in denial😅😅😅😅!!!!
@@davefrage125 A referent is never identical to a proposition in my view. All things, referents and propositions, are physical but that doesn't mean that referents are in the same category as propositions there's always a distinction. I.e A referent is just a physical object or state, but a proposition is structured information representing truth value about said referent, I could take a computational or information theory position on truth value under physicalism. So the original argument is a red herring since it seems to inject the random claim that propositions are identical to referents in category and is irrelevant to the compabitlity between determinism and knowledge.
Pre-stupidssionalism is literally just begging the question. And when you point out that their argument is circular, they fully admit it but then say it’s a “different type of argument” and can therefore be allowed to be circular but no one else argument can be or that argument is illogical.
It’s literally the annoying friend you had in elementary school who hogged the game controller because it’s his house then demanded he gets the controller at your house because he’s the guest. Stupid and annoying
I have found most theists who adopt presup haven't delved too deeply into theolology or the arguments and are sloppy thinkers, they do it because they think it is an easy win in debates and because many people have trouble dealing with presup it works. The presups goal is to shut the conversation down not to convert or evangalise.
well said
I’m going to have a field day with this video 😂
I still am incredulous on how TAG is so prevalent in apologetics
its just an easy way to confuse philosophically illiterate atheists and make them look bad, so the theist can claim a quick W
@ agreed
Great vid mike
i dont know much about presupp but heres a few thoughts:
1. i dont think presupps presuppose god is required for knowledge. rather they presuppose the existence of God within their beliefs such that they can say they have knowledge
2. 0:54 they do not have to be talking about logical contradictions, rather metaphysical ones, where only the metaphysics of God could allow us to have knowledge or say we have knowledge.
3. 2:45 to say you do not need universals, you would probably want to give an account which satisfies the questioning of the theist, i.e., some nominalist account which accounts for why all things seemingly follow 'logic'
4. 8:08 i think this is one of the strongest arguments against theist presupp, which you could flip on them by having your own atheist presupp. ive had a presupp say that this circularity is 'virtuous' and so is not damning, but you could do the exact same thing as an atheist presupp.
Consider me illuminated, great video Mike :)
I always thought that since you needed to know p1 (the knowledge-god conditional/biconditional) to be convinced of the argument, they'd have to justify that knowing either with God or without God, if you do the former it seems to be question-begging; if you do the latter then it's false, self-defeating.
Since ChatGPT is incapable of belief in god as the necessary foundation for all logic and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't grounding it's responses in a belief in god. Do presups think that nothing ChatGPT says can be true?
You're wrong though, the laws of Logic are observations yes, observations of understanding the truth of logic itself, which is a constant.
Yes, Logic is used for thought processes, and seeking truth.
But this is reflected in the reality we all SHARE through the adherence of reality itself to the principles of Logic and reason.
Essentially our logic is a mirror of the TRUE logical principles of reality, and it is easy to see.
When you recognize this, and understand it takes us Cognitive abilities to achieve feats such as logical thought and the ability to make reasonable choices based on our awareness of our current environment, you can start to see how all things formed in a particular way for a particular reason.
I’m going to have so much fun with this video 😂😂😂
logic is a mirror of the true logic? not sure I understand what that means. a simple fictionalist approach seems more parsimonious
@mikebrigandi_ I said our logic, I was talking about our ability to think logically. The laws we "create" are actually discoveries not inventions.
Knowledge assumes an arbiter or truth, or else you would never KNOW whether or not you have knowledge. Said Arbiter of Truth must be infallible by definition, the only being that fills these qualifications is God. I’m sure you already know this and have been in denial since the JimBob debate but hey if coping is a hobby you want to dedicate the rest of your life to go for it.
🤡
this is trivially wrong, i tend to hold to a correspondence theory of truth in which there is truth is merely descriptive, I'm open to deflationary theory as well which simply says truth statement are purely linguistic. whatever the case, there are clearly models of truth that don't require a "god" thing
@ I refuse to believe you are actually this stupid, if two people make a contradictory descriptions of events that they believe correspond to reality, who decides who’s correct? It can’t be consensus because a group of fallible people are equally fallible as one fallible person. I believe you know this to be the case but your heart has been hardened to the point of foolishness for the sake of building a wall around your incoherent worldview. You don’t disbelieve in God, you hate him.
@@serpenttrampler well depending on what kind of truth you are talking about, for example if your talking about an empirical claim then the supporting data would be analyzed and credence level would increase or decrease depending on the supporting data. if your talking about an analytical claim, then it would be axiomatically analyzed within its formal framework. Not sure why you insist an arbiter beyond ourselves must exist
@@serpenttrampler you only think someone has to 'decide' who is correct, because you think Truth is something someone can freely chose. That is subjectivism, not objectivism. An Objective Truth MUST be independent of minds. You are a pos-modernist, sir, you want to be the hero in the battle of imaginary good versus imaginary evil. You are rejecting the self-evident truth of our shared naturalistic atheistic reality, that has been revealed to all of sound mind, through both natural and special revelation, in an undeniable way.
Logos is the essence of being human and logos is only possible due to the uniformity of nature. Obviously the invariant cause must indeed possess "nous".
Why theist worldview can't justify uniformity of nature, since god can at any time change the laws of nature
@@plex3035 we can easily reject your first 2 premises and your conclusion is rendered meaningless. Logic isn’t an essence anymore then speaking Spanish is an essence. Logic is merely a language. And it’s unclear what you mean by “uniformity of nature” let alone that logic is only possible because of it. Then you gratuitously assume a cause and that it must possess logic.
@@mikebrigandi_ what quality did you use to reject my premise? LOGOS! So keep rambling with your self refuting mumbo-jumbo...atheism is without defense it's just sarcasm and jive
@@plex3035 I reject the theological notion of “logos.” If by logos you mean logic, I don’t see what your point is. We use logic, but it’s not some kind of essential entity in nature. I think it’s merely a linguistic framework constructed by human minds.