St. Anselm defined God as "the greatest conceivable being" and argues that if one can conceive of such a being, then it must exist in reality, because existence is greater than non-existence.
@@rclrd1 which is the dumbest argument yet. “Greater” is a useless word. Nonexistence isn’t an attribute of something that can be compared to other attributes- it’s a declaration of falsehood. His god is also definitively inconceivable and unknowable by most Christian conceptions, and there are multiple different conceptions of a supreme being depending on who you ask so God couldn’t possibly be defined by all of them simultaneously. This is foundationally flawed on a few different levels, and you see that a lot from the words of saints. Why? Because people were too scared and uneducated to bother arguing with them back then.
@@rclrd1 We studied this Ontological Argument in one of my philosophy classes, rather in-depth. While that was close to 3 decades ago, I do remember there being a rather witty reply from a MONK (Gaunilo of Marmoutiers) who made a "Perfect Island" analogy/parody. I'd recommend people look it up, especially if they're the least bit persuaded by this bit of sophistry from Anselm: "Parodies of the Ontological Argument One problem with this argument is that it invites parody. Parallel arguments purporting to prove the existence of any perfect thing at all can be constructed. This objection was first raised by one of Anselm’s contemporaries, the monk Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, who constructed an ontological argument for the existence of the perfect island in his On Behalf of the Fool. The perfect island, this argument goes, is the island than which no greater can be conceived. Any island that does not exist, though, cannot be the island than which no greater can be conceived, for it could be conceived to exist which would be greater. Anyone who thinks that the perfect does not exist, then, is confused; the concept of the perfect island entails that there is such a thing. Similar arguments for the existence of the perfect baseball pitcher, or the perfect husband for the existence of any perfect thing at all can be constructed. If any of these arguments is sound, it seems, then they must all be sound. Clearly, though, these arguments are not all sound; the perfect baseball pitcher does not exist, and neither does the perfect husband. There is something wrong with the logic of these arguments. Each of these ontological arguments, though, uses the same logic. They must therefore all be unsound. The fact that there is no perfect island, and no perfect baseball pitcher, then, shows that the logic of the ontological argument for God’s existence is flawed."
We can pretend anything exists, there is nothing we cannot pretend does not exist. As Matt says, it is just absurd. Is such a claim not diametrically apposed to logic? We can claim bananas can talk, they just don't want to.
This guy has regularly failed with his sophistry and doesn't seem to have bothered to improve. He is obviously not listening and is just reading from his script.
@@jeffbrammer1082 =Isn't Sophistry the current state of republican 'Christian' congressman view= They rarely even rise to the level of Sophistry; most of them can't even spell it.
The pastor that gave this script to Jared is liable for the embarrassment that Jared should feel. This is the most painful caller you've ever had. Someone made this dude in ChatGPT.
He isn't a pastor. His name is Gary Milne and he runs his own little cult of angry, white men. Most of them likely habing blown up their own personal lives in the same way their master did. Although you'd likely be more familiar with him by the nom de guerre Darth Dawkins.
You are aware that Jared thought he won that argument, right? And he's going to boast to everyone he knows that he stumped Matt Dilahunty. And since few if any of those people will watch or listen to the show, they'll all assume Jared is right that he won and scared Matt away. Of course, they'll believe that even if they do watch the show, because they're Theists and need to believe that the evil Atheist has been slain, because no one is more frightening to a believer than a non-believer. I think most Christians would gladly join hands with Muslims, Jews and Hindus against Atheists, because of the saying "enemy of my enemy is my friend" and at least those other religions believe in a god.
@@AGodlessLife oh I totally understand that Jared thinks he won. The great thing about all of those religions is that they cry about atheist but they're all killing each other instead.
I keep seeing the phrase ‘Darth Dawkins’.. but don’t understand what it means. Surely it’s not a slight on Richard Dawkins is it..? I love Richard Dawkins & his calm way of discussing Evolution & Atheism, etc.
@@glennhall8665 Darth Dawkins is a guy named Gary Milne, he's a presup apologist (read=person who argues from incredulity and never backs up ANY claims) on Discord. He's an arrogant troll who is convinced he can't be wrong because his magical, invisible friend told him so. Presup apologetics is complete garbage, it's made 2 claims from the start, that their worldview is correct and no one else's worldview can be, yet they won't even attempt to justify either claim.
Except they’re too dumb to realize they’re not clever. It’s the same as flat-earthers using “science” to prove the earth is flat, while completely misunderstanding and misapplying their bizarre notion of what science is.
This arrogant caller is filled with assertions and gets angry when the hosts don’t fall for it. He gets his ugliness from Darth Dawkins. You throw a wrench with a question that’s not in his script and he gets nasty 😂
The moment he threw out "intelligibility" in the first few seconds I knew he'd be a Gary Milne disciple. He's probably hated by his family like his prophet Gary. I refuse to let Gary hide behind the Darth Dawkins moniker. The man and his abusive history should be public knowledge because he belongs in prison rather than on the internet.
@@leastworstgamer Unfortunately, they do have an answer for that one. They can say that God magically produced so much water that not only did it cover all the mountains of the world, but it was also good for drinking. There was so much water they could even pee and poop in it. Anything is possible in the magical world of a superstitious mind. Ask them how Noah fed all of those animals and they have answers for that one as well. It's crazy.
Just remember: he’s not really trying to convince you, he’s trying to shut you up or piss you off so he can claim to have won the argument. This is the only play in the presup playbook.
This is what bugs me the most with the pre-suppository peeps. They are extremely arrogant, petty, and dishonest. What happened to your Christian values? Jesus said turn the cheek not be an asshole. (then again Jesus said he wasn't here for peace but for war....but who cares what he says anymore, the dude was made up from a bunch of different dudes and none of the collective makes any sense) Anywhos I'm having a great day and life now that I'm free of this crap.
The caller doesn't understand that something being logically valid does not make it sound. Assigning God with abilities X, Y, and Z and then proving how it is logically valid that God can have those abilities does not make it true that God has those abilities. This was what Jared was unable to grasp because he was so pompously arrogant he couldn't even understand what the conversation was about.
@@Esteban45696 Valid but unsound argument: -If astrology is true, our lives are determined by the stars. -Astrology is true. -Therefore our lives are determined by the stars. It's of a valid structure (Modus Ponens, if X then Y, X, therefore Y) however premise 2 is not an established fact, so simply assuming it is makes the argument unsound as that premise is not backed up by actual facts. Valid and sound argument: -If mammals have warm blood, they can metabolize food and regulate their body temperature. -Mammals have warm blood. -Therefore they can metabolize food and regulate their body temperature. The premises are true and backed up by facts, the structure is also valid. This makes the argument both valid and sound. A valid argument may not be sound, but a sound argument MUST be valid.
@@Esteban45696 Nah. More like: People have feathers. Tom is a person. Therefore, Tom has feathers. This is a valid but not sound argument, since the conclusion follows from the premises, but the premises are not all true. The argument in the video is more or less: An omnipotent being can grant infallible knowledge. The triune God is an omnipotent being. Therefore, the triune God can grant infallible knowledge. And this is a rather unhelpful argument to make if you can't demonstrate that both of the premises are true, or that an omnipotent being exists( or can exist), or that infallible knowledge exists, or that the triune god exists.
I liked his first thrust that if you don't accept the claim of yahweh (to keep it simple), you're inherently saying he's not necessary." Then they got off track. He ended up asserting that yahweh can grant perfect knowledge 'because I say so and there's no contradiction entailed' without affirming what the conditions are that can even be contradicted in the 1st place, which was disappointing. I'd have to call this a good debate, even though the caller failed, because there were some interesting ideas thrown around and I like when Matt deals with someone skilled in logic. It gets boring constantly hearing people like my grandmom with repeat questions
Jared, I really hope you read this. I’ve met several people like you in my life and it’s honestly really sad. You sound articulate enough to have the capability of understanding how arrogant you are being and where your “arguments” fall flat. If you were put into a college classroom with that line of logic, you’d get laughed out of the room. The biggest disservice you could do yourself is to keep telling yourself that anything you presented qualifies as a coherent or meaningful argument.
"Could a unicorn drop his horn for me to pick it up?" "Yes, I see no contradiction in that" This random guy: "Alright, then unicorns exist. Have a nice day"
HA, are you serious?! Unicorns don’t exist, so obviously that’s way different. Honestly, there’s a contradiction in the word “unicorn” if we’re being real -that guy, probably.
@@johnd1047I once had a rabidly religious guy tell me dragons, unicorns and other mythological creatures existed before the flood, but they were evil and god don’t let them on the ark. The guy was 40 something years old. It’s just unreal what people string together.
@@AclockworkPurple my…oh…my😭😭😭ironically, he was actually more consistent than average theists. If you uncritically take the Bible as fact, you have to believe in all those and all other spiritual scams today, but it’s all the “devil”. The epistemic pretzels they have to wrap themselves in to lie to the world and self, sad.
Yep. Gary Milne seems to manufacture them in a lab somewhere. . . Well no. That's a lie. Gary is just an uneducated, unemployed janitor who should be in jail for what he did to his wife and kida for yeara before they fled from him. Now he just spews his rage and vitriol onto the internet.
In 2nd grade there was always that kid who constantly changed the rules mid game to fit his current situation. This conversation is that kid who just got taller but grew in no other way.
Jared keeps whining that he's "explained this # times, now," but the fact is that he keeps having the same three things explained to him more times than he thinks he's explaining other things. By his own ruleset, he is losing and by a lot.
Presuppositionalism is the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling LALALALALALALALALA I can't hear you LALALA I'm right my OMNIBOY is real HAHAHA I win and now Darth will notice and love me and I won't feel so empty and pathetic inside anymore woo hoo!!!
Why does Jared keep presuming the triune Christian god instead of Leith, Destroyer Of Triune Gods? Apologetics is the sorriest field of philosophy, and presuppositionalism is the sorriest form of apologetics.
The simple existence of apologetics for any given god proposition is more than enough evidence to disprove that god character's existence, or at least it's ability/desire to keep its "creation" confused, stupid and at each others' throats.
he is a darth follower, i have heard his voice on discord. he is a great creator of circular reasoning and straw man creation. he is as bad a circular sye. his assertion is his evidence
Cthulhu exists because he is defined as being extant, and having the ability to eat gods and take on their powers. Cthulhu has eaten god, and therefore exists without contradiction.
Which suggests that the most parsimonious definition of God is "that without which nothing is possible". Which is very different from the various (and often contradictory) descriptions found in the Bible.
@@NovaSaber I'm pretty sure this is an ontological argument and that "the ontological argument" isn't a single argument, but a class of arguments. I think any metaphysical presuppositional argument is an ontological argument.
If I define my invisible sky daddy as necessary for existence then my sky daddy must be real because we experience existing. Wow well done. A perfect example of how to define something in to existence 😂😂😂
after 5 seconds of listening to him talk, i knew he was a presup. perhaps they're common. i'm not familiar with darth dawkins, although i've seen atheists discuss him. suprisingly i haven't seen any atheist takedown videos of this darth guy.
@@jimmythebold589 You ought to watch the Shannon Q vs Darth Dawkins debate. She figured out his spiel almost immediately, and then figured out his motives, and spent the rest of the time dissecting his asinine arguments.
modal logic (made up possibilities and probabilities) and arbitrary presuppositions are the last resort of desperate bible believers when they realize they can not prove anything about their belief in magic.
Good point. I find it laughable that in their attempts to prove the reality of 'god' all they're using is sophistry, rhetoric and philosophical musings. To me, it is like the last scrapings of apologetics.
That was me at one point,the desperate bible believer. But at some point you have to stop fighting when your the one that's making no sense. How could we possibly know the maker of all reality when we understand so little about so little.
@@totalspoof8344 i understand. i was also indoctrinated into the 'orthodox' flavor of the judaic heresy of christianity. adopting the israelite tribal mythology as reality is absurd just as jumping to the conclusion that the universe was 'created' by a will (male with a penis no less) because ancient tribes thought so.
I lost it when he asked what "impossible" means. hahaha The amount of condescension, arrogance, and assumed "smartness" is pretty rich when they have to go to places like not knowing what the word/concept "impossible" means.
His argument is defeated because you substitute another god, gods or non-supernatural agent with the same characteristics, and reach his identical assertion.
Problem is, they don’t argue, they just presuppose that they are right, so nothing can ever defeat that from their point of view. A different god isn’t in line with their presupposition, so it is necessarily false. It can only ever be their god because that is the starting point.
Matt gave this guy too much credit in trying to have an intelligent conversation with him. He should have just used the Tinkerbell analogy and called it a day.
This guy doesn't know what a truth table is if he thinks he can prove a god with one. Ironically enough, I had this very same argument regarding Leibniz with a philosophy professor of mine. It was a lot faster than this one because he eventually admitted that he had to define "god" that way or else the argument collapses.
@matthewphilip1977 it doesn't matter the humor comes from us knowing how much Matt knows of it and how ridiculous asking him that question sounds to us when we have knowledge of how much he knows of it.
How do you know what the characteristics of god are? "I define it as the thing with the characteristics I say it has." Ew, how did all this pigeon crap get on my chessboard?
@matthewphilip1977 Take notice of how often you use the word "would" in your responses. Appealing to possibility is a weak reed to stand on if you're trying to make a substantive argument. Within that context, any assertion becomes viable; all that's necessary is to define the context for its examination without regard for its actual evidentiary value. I know that we've landed on the moon, split the atom, etc. because it's based on bucket loads of evidence that been repeatedly examined and confirmed.
It's just intellectual masturbation. These guys want to appear to be smart, so they use convoluted arguments that people don't want to engage in, then they claim a win.
@@richtraube2241 And demands that everyone else should also enjoy the smell of his farts. And insists that it is illogical to not enjoy the smell of his farts
No, they aren't. I have yet to meet a Flat Earther who believes the Earth is flat simply because the idea of a flat Earth is not self-contradictory. They give arguments. Bad ones, sure, but they give arguments. Presups don't even do that. They just insist that they're right.
This caller has the same vibe as hyper-arrogant flat earthers and sovereign citizens. He has scripted responses to given questions, but doesn't understand how each response is logically inconsistent with each other. "Are you saying that if you can't demonstrate something is impossible, then it's possible?" Absolutely not. "If you can't find a contradiction in something, then it's possible?" Emphatically Yes! Lmao
It seems that they are attracted to the idea of holding special knowledge, known to only a special few and including them in an exclusive club. You can't convince them they're wrong, because that would require them leaving their special select club. It's self reinforcing, when there is any push back on their assertions, they flail and respond personal attacks or uncomfortable laughter.
Standard unimpressive modal logic presup stuff, but the part that will make me lose sleep tonight is how smugly proud of himself he was for how well he thinks he did. It’s mind boggling and disturbing to me
These kinds of presuppositional arguments are so exceedingly silly. They can be defeated with a simple question: "How many gods are there?" And the answer will inevitably be ONE (although the caller is arguing for a triune god, so perhaps the answer is both ONE and THREE simulaneously!). Thus, your god is ontologically dependent on the number ONE. You cannot have ONE god without ONE. And since numbers depend on logic, it follows by transitivity that god must also necesarily require logic as a basis. QED. Thus logic and reason are more fundamental than your god, so let's just cut out the middle man. The entire argument fails in a really stupid manner. But what else is new?
I'm going to probably use a variant of this from now on. That's a very good point if they are willing to grant numbers relying on logical concepts. So you might have to at least agree on that front first
@@RPGgrenade I've found that nearly all apologetic arguments fundamentally assume there is only ONE of something. It's usually wrapped up in specific words like "the" or "a", but once you see it you can never unsee it. "THE creator of the universe" - Implying there can't be multiple creators? Prove it. "Everything that comes into existence has A cause" - Everything has precisely ONE cause? Nope. "Design implies A designer" - Have you forgotten about the concept of teamwork? "THE foundation of logic and reason" - There's only one? Prove it. Seriously, it's everywhere, and if you challenge that, the apologist is utterly flustered.
@@tan_x_dx I meant in the sense of them accepting that numbers come from logical underpinnings, and not, say, directly from god, and maybe they think logic comes from numbers or whatever. Just saying it's possible it can be rejected for dumb reasons like that. If you've established they agree with you on that concept, you have them stuck and they'd have to admit to faulty reasoning or look foolish.
Every time one of them tries that lame “Design implies a designer.” nonsense, I explain basic logic to them. Design doesn’t imply anything until you prove design exists.😈
Highly recommend watching Secular Rarity and Armin Navabi's interaction with this guy on their last AE episode too. They had interacted with him before but the last call was chef's kiss on handling his condescending word salad.
"Matt"Not to sound to extreme but Your videos and podcasts saved my life dude,I have Borderline personality disorder, the worst mental condition to live with and iv lived a suicidal life and made many attempts.This man made Belief system was literally killing me,but you tought me basic critical thinking skills and now im loving and appreciating my new atheist life...Thank you🙏🙏🙏
Christians hate to say I don't know. vs Christians hate to say "I don't know". Be careful there. Those are 2 different sentences with totally different meaning. And believers LOVE quote mines and trolling.
Wait, wait. Jared is not Christian. Hold on. He demonstrated no virtuous kindness. Yeah. OK. Right. Um. To be clear. Modal logic. No contradiction. Wait. Basic modal logic. When writing a story the author(s) can have the characters do whatever the author(s) decides. When there are plot inconsistencies...Apologists do not apologize.
The part they miss is that if you want your logical arguments to apply to reality, you need to have at least some premises related to reality, and demonstrate that they are true. You can't define or argue real material things into existence.
It's like he didn't even understand his own argument. He really thinks he wasn't just saying, "if I can prove it's possible for my definition of god to do what I believe it can do, that means it's more probable and technically 100% true.
Caller: Thinks he's thinking SO much faster and farther than everyone else. Also caller: Prefaces every blurt with "wait, wait, hold on". Not interjecting while matt spoke. Matt left many reply gaps. Uncharacteristically many. Caller was literally commanding us to change our "speed". Over and over and over. Imagine sharing the road with another driver doing that.
Jared wasn't just asserting the necessity of a grounding for reason, he was asserting a specific grounding for reason, and was so up himself in terms of how clever he thought he was being that he completely failed to even explain what his argument actually was. As far as I could tell it was based around the following: It is customary to take the language of modal logic to be that obtained by adding one-place operators ‘□’ for necessity and ‘◇’ for possibility to the language of classical propositional or predicate logic. Necessity and possibility are interdefinable in the presence of negation: A is a necessity iff it is not possible for not A to be true A is possible iff it is not a necessity for not A to be true where iff = if and only if. While these are self-evidently the case, and define necessity and possibility in line with the common meaning of those words, other axioms need to be added to get to actual modal logics, including S5 that Matt mentioned. It is not a trivial matter to just add axioms, since by definition they are essentially presuppositions, so *even if* modal logic led to the conclusion that god was actually a necessity - it doesn't - the reasonableness of that conclusion would still be based on the reasonableness of the additional axioms. The modern development of modal logic has been criticized on several grounds, and some philosophers have expressed scepticism about the intelligibility of the notion of necessity that it is supposed to describe. S5 is a very expressive system, allowing for many logical deductions about possibilities and necessities. This can be useful for formalising complex philosophical reasoning, but it can also lead to counterintuitive results depending on your initial assumptions. In particular, the extra axiom that underpins S5 (Global Barcan Formula) states that any true statement is necessarily true in every possible world. This is particularly controversial as it implies a kind of absolute truth independent of specific possibilities, and, in this particular case, this is where Jared smuggles god into his argument without actually demonstrating anything about it: he seems to be trying to argue from characteristics that he asserts that this god *must* have that god exists in every possible world and therefore exists in this one. It's nice when you can say "this thing exists because I have defined it to exist", it avoids the need for all that inconvenient evidence stuff.
You should be a host on the show dude, that is a masterclass of an explanation. Admittedly all this convoluted presup nonsense goes over my head but now I understand. Thank you
Maybe I’m stupid, but why can’t this argument be applied to any fictional being? Thanos or Cthulhu or Thoth? Even if the logic works out, how does it get you anywhere near the truth of its actual existence?
Jared suffers from believing he is clever. I know a kid (twenties) that talks exactly like this, no matter how clearly you define his statement he laughs at you and says you got it wrong, it's a BS tactic.
He’s too egotistical to understand that they are asking him questions to build a structured argument using his responses. I love that Matt said, “You’re going to have to do the work in front of us.” Yeah, dude. You don’t get to just assert your goofy little word games as unimpeachable. He literally doesn’t understand his own argument, because he’s reading from a script.
I’ve said it million times already. Presuppositionalism is the lowest form of argumentation. It’s the equivalent of saying “I’m right, you’re wrong…NaNaNaNaNa”
Jared is talking out of his arse. He cannot, or will not, see the difference between his position - that a very specific god *IS* necessary - and Matt's position - that he is not convinced that *any* god exists. Jared first has to demonstrate that god is in fact necessary, not just presuppose it and expect everyone else to accept his presupposition. Then and only then could it follow that not being convinced that a god existed becomes irrational, but *only if* the necessity extends beyond creating the universe but also applies to persisting after that point. Even then, it doesn't establish the christian god - Jared would need to demonstrate that not only is _a_ god necessary but that only the christian god fits the bill. He was nowhere near even beginning to do this. And never will be, since it seems inconceivable that there could be any argument other than direct physical proof that could link a causation that is outwith space and time to a specific set of characteristics inside space and time, given that such an argument could also apply to almost any other random set of characteristics for such a thing. Not only is any god hypothesis _unfalsifiable_ in this sense, all god hypotheses are also _indistinguishable_ from each other. Personally, I choose Roland.
Jared seems to have just learned about truth tables and to be really eager to show off. Also, angry Matt may be cathartic, but calm Matt in the face of abject smug stupidity is a great model for these conversations.
Yes, his extremely bad presuppositional argument could be used to poorly attempt to justify the existence of any god, triune or not. What really gets me is how he thought he was really doing a good job. That the gentlemen he was speaking to were just stupid and didn't get his brilliant logical trap that he had set for them. Except, Matt had absolutely figured it out where he was going, and he just didn't want to admit it. I would actually be truly delighted if someone came up with a cogent logical unfalsifiable Argument for the existence of God that would be fascinating! I would like to have my worldview expanded by something new and exciting like that, but it has yet to happen.
Yep. And therein lies the problem with most religious arguments. You can insert pretty much anything else into the argument and it works perfectly fine.
So basically “my definition of god includes the statement that he needs to exist for you to know anything. You claim to know things, therefor god exists.”
"Hang on, hang on... I just read 'Modal Logic for Dummies' and ergo according to my calculations vis a vis this logic chart I just wrote up in purple crayon, I should have you over a barrel... This can't be right..."
What sucks is this dude thinks he just blasted yall and won and will be even more of a jackass because of the false feeling if superiority the more he thought he had a point the more manic he got
"Listen, i just got an A in my intro to philosophy class, so i know way more than you, matt dillihunty who gets paid to do this across the country for 20 years." people crack me up
Smug Presup: "Can my infallible god give me infallible knowledge? OF COURSE HE CAN LOLOLOLOLOOLlll!!!!!1111" Matt: "how would you know?" Presup? "I TOLD YOU THREE TIMES LOLOLOLOLOLOLLL!!L!!1111!"
Jared uses Harry Potter logic. If you put Harry Potter on a truth table and use the stories as reference for his abilities and powers, it is plausible that he exists. Under Jared's idea wizards exists from the Hogwarts universe.
Being from Kentucky such as I am, I can only assume he's at one of the seminaries and is learning apologetics. Trying to create ways to preach to people who are less intelligent who won't question anything a preacher says.
The question after "Can your triune God DO the logically impossible?" and receiving the answer "no" should be "Can your triune God itself BE logically impossible?" because the triune God is an inherent logical contradiction.
15:30 I listened to this guy's explanation 5 times and that is ABSOLUTELY what he means by that. It just really sucks to have it laid out in plain language because it sounds just as dumb as it is. It also sounds dumb to philosophers, they are just well versed in the language of how he is explaining it. No amount of truth tables will get you out of it Jared, you literally said it's possible if it doesn't entail a logical contradiction because you defined it that way. As Matt frickin BRILLIANTLY pointed out, a contradiction would only show its IMpossible. It literally can't get you to any conclusion regarding possibility unless you literally change how logic works. Which is all he is trying to do. This is painfully stupid.
This is way more simple the.ln this got. Anytime you talk to a presup. Just ask the “Does your god give all humans the same abilities to be intelligible?” So under your world view I have the ability to be intelligible. Cool In My world view I have the ability to be intelligible. So now we both agree that we both have the ability to be intelligible so we can move along to why I’m not convinced and you no longer need to ask how I know things.
Ah, he was running that favorite script of Darth Dawkins: "Lemme try and try and shake the foundations of these unbelievers and stealthily assert my god as true, period."
"If this thing that I've defined exists it would exist as I've defined it" is one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard.
In the same vein, the only infallible knowledge this “being” ever seems to impart is whether it exists or not and what pisses it off.
It's the only argument they have left , lol
The “no shit” answers are the funniest
Yet it forms the basis of most religions
This is just another idiot who, after their first day in Philosophy, never came back, figuring "Hell, this is easy, I already know this shit!"
“He’s real.”
“How do you know?”
“Being real is just one of his characteristics, DUH.”
...and suddenly, just like that, a gazillion imaginary friends popped back into 'reality' (whatever the hell that word means anymore).
St. Anselm defined God as "the greatest conceivable being" and argues that if one can conceive of such a being, then it must exist in reality, because existence is greater than non-existence.
@@rclrd1 which is the dumbest argument yet. “Greater” is a useless word. Nonexistence isn’t an attribute of something that can be compared to other attributes- it’s a declaration of falsehood. His god is also definitively inconceivable and unknowable by most Christian conceptions, and there are multiple different conceptions of a supreme being depending on who you ask so God couldn’t possibly be defined by all of them simultaneously.
This is foundationally flawed on a few different levels, and you see that a lot from the words of saints. Why? Because people were too scared and uneducated to bother arguing with them back then.
@@rclrd1
We studied this Ontological Argument in one of my philosophy classes, rather in-depth. While that was close to 3 decades ago, I do remember there being a rather witty reply from a MONK (Gaunilo of Marmoutiers) who made a "Perfect Island" analogy/parody. I'd recommend people look it up, especially if they're the least bit persuaded by this bit of sophistry from Anselm:
"Parodies of the Ontological Argument
One problem with this argument is that it invites parody. Parallel arguments purporting to prove the existence of any perfect thing at all can be constructed.
This objection was first raised by one of Anselm’s contemporaries, the monk Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, who constructed an ontological argument for the existence of the perfect island in his On Behalf of the Fool.
The perfect island, this argument goes, is the island than which no greater can be conceived. Any island that does not exist, though, cannot be the island than which no greater can be conceived, for it could be conceived to exist which would be greater. Anyone who thinks that the perfect does not exist, then, is confused; the concept of the perfect island entails that there is such a thing.
Similar arguments for the existence of the perfect baseball pitcher, or the perfect husband for the existence of any perfect thing at all can be constructed. If any of these arguments is sound, it seems, then they must all be sound.
Clearly, though, these arguments are not all sound; the perfect baseball pitcher does not exist, and neither does the perfect husband. There is something wrong with the logic of these arguments. Each of these ontological arguments, though, uses the same logic. They must therefore all be unsound.
The fact that there is no perfect island, and no perfect baseball pitcher, then, shows that the logic of the ontological argument for God’s existence is flawed."
We can pretend anything exists, there is nothing we cannot pretend does not exist.
As Matt says, it is just absurd.
Is such a claim not diametrically apposed to logic?
We can claim bananas can talk, they just don't want to.
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”
Charles Bukowski
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity." Yeats
Dunning-Kruger Effect to the max.
This is the essence of the Dunning-Kruger effect .
The less you know, the more you think you’re right.
The intelligent doubt because of their intelligence, the stupid have confidence because of their ignorance.
@@DeludedOne
Nice words.
This guy has regularly failed with his sophistry and doesn't seem to have bothered to improve. He is obviously not listening and is just reading from his script.
Isn't Sophistry the current state of republican 'Christian' congressman view
Because it’s designed to not improve. It’s the same stupid nonsense that Darth Dawkins used before he got banned everywhere.
that sounds like one of those theists, doesn't it ?
@@jeffbrammer1082
=Isn't Sophistry the current state of republican 'Christian' congressman view=
They rarely even rise to the level of Sophistry; most of them can't even spell it.
@@romankvapil9184who wants to bet that Darth Dawkins thinks he got banned everywhere because he must be onto something? Memememe
"Why won't you just assume that my god is real!? If you do then it's VERY easy to see how I'm right!"
😂😂😂
Well said.
😂😂
😂😂😂 this one took me out, it's so perfectly laid out
It's fucking wild the amount of shit we have to grant these dorks for the sake of conversation just to get to these dumb arguments
The pastor that gave this script to Jared is liable for the embarrassment that Jared should feel. This is the most painful caller you've ever had. Someone made this dude in ChatGPT.
I know who this caller is (and you may know also), so I agree with you 100%!
He isn't a pastor. His name is Gary Milne and he runs his own little cult of angry, white men. Most of them likely habing blown up their own personal lives in the same way their master did. Although you'd likely be more familiar with him by the nom de guerre Darth Dawkins.
They are all incapable of embarrassment.
You are aware that Jared thought he won that argument, right? And he's going to boast to everyone he knows that he stumped Matt Dilahunty. And since few if any of those people will watch or listen to the show, they'll all assume Jared is right that he won and scared Matt away.
Of course, they'll believe that even if they do watch the show, because they're Theists and need to believe that the evil Atheist has been slain, because no one is more frightening to a believer than a non-believer.
I think most Christians would gladly join hands with Muslims, Jews and Hindus against Atheists, because of the saying "enemy of my enemy is my friend" and at least those other religions believe in a god.
@@AGodlessLife oh I totally understand that Jared thinks he won. The great thing about all of those religions is that they cry about atheist but they're all killing each other instead.
These Darth Dawkins minions are so frustrating. They think they're being clever while being so gloriously ignorant.
I keep seeing the phrase ‘Darth Dawkins’.. but don’t understand what it means. Surely it’s not a slight on Richard Dawkins is it..? I love Richard Dawkins & his calm way of discussing Evolution & Atheism, etc.
@@glennhall8665 He's one of the "famous" Presuppositionalist on youtube, you can check out his debates here. The name is a mocking of Richard Dawkins.
@@glennhall8665 no, darth dawkins is an internet personality apologist who sends dorks to these shows with bad scripts.
@@glennhall8665 Darth Dawkins is a guy named Gary Milne, he's a presup apologist (read=person who argues from incredulity and never backs up ANY claims) on Discord. He's an arrogant troll who is convinced he can't be wrong because his magical, invisible friend told him so.
Presup apologetics is complete garbage, it's made 2 claims from the start, that their worldview is correct and no one else's worldview can be, yet they won't even attempt to justify either claim.
Except they’re too dumb to realize they’re not clever. It’s the same as flat-earthers using “science” to prove the earth is flat, while completely misunderstanding and misapplying their bizarre notion of what science is.
This arrogant caller is filled with assertions and gets angry when the hosts don’t fall for it. He gets his ugliness from Darth Dawkins. You throw a wrench with a question that’s not in his script and he gets nasty 😂
The moment he threw out "intelligibility" in the first few seconds I knew he'd be a Gary Milne disciple. He's probably hated by his family like his prophet Gary. I refuse to let Gary hide behind the Darth Dawkins moniker. The man and his abusive history should be public knowledge because he belongs in prison rather than on the internet.
Exactly this
Nervous laughter and non sequiturs - how proud your parents must be 😂
Sadly, that is what a narcissist would do.
‘How dare you not recognize my superior brain by asking a question that shows how my reasoning is flawed.’
Because Matt's not arrogant at all
The arrogance of an adult who believes a 600 year old man built a giant wooden boat to save two of every animal from a global flood.
My favorite question to the Noah myth is how they stored clean water for millions of animals on a wooden boat for 150 days?
@@leastworstgamerMagic🤦♂️
@@leastworstgamerit was raining.
@@leastworstgamer Unfortunately, they do have an answer for that one. They can say that God magically produced so much water that not only did it cover all the mountains of the world, but it was also good for drinking. There was so much water they could even pee and poop in it. Anything is possible in the magical world of a superstitious mind. Ask them how Noah fed all of those animals and they have answers for that one as well. It's crazy.
And built it in seven days.
He was extremely annoying.
Well most Gary Milne cultists are.
Is annoying.
Presups are....
Agree💯💯💯💯💯
Remains annoying
Just remember: he’s not really trying to convince you, he’s trying to shut you up or piss you off so he can claim to have won the argument. This is the only play in the presup playbook.
Yeah, he's as dishonest as most theists that call into this show. They're so disgusting
Exactly.
I'm so glad Matt didn't play into it!
This is what bugs me the most with the pre-suppository peeps. They are extremely arrogant, petty, and dishonest. What happened to your Christian values? Jesus said turn the cheek not be an asshole. (then again Jesus said he wasn't here for peace but for war....but who cares what he says anymore, the dude was made up from a bunch of different dudes and none of the collective makes any sense) Anywhos I'm having a great day and life now that I'm free of this crap.
Who, Matt?
The caller doesn't understand that something being logically valid does not make it sound. Assigning God with abilities X, Y, and Z and then proving how it is logically valid that God can have those abilities does not make it true that God has those abilities. This was what Jared was unable to grasp because he was so pompously arrogant he couldn't even understand what the conversation was about.
Yep, nailed it.
Would an example of this be something like
* People have parents
* Tom is a person
* Tom has parents
= Tom's patents are John and Sue
@@Esteban45696 Valid but unsound argument:
-If astrology is true, our lives are determined by the stars.
-Astrology is true.
-Therefore our lives are determined by the stars.
It's of a valid structure (Modus Ponens, if X then Y, X, therefore Y) however premise 2 is not an established fact, so simply assuming it is makes the argument unsound as that premise is not backed up by actual facts.
Valid and sound argument:
-If mammals have warm blood, they can metabolize food and regulate their body temperature.
-Mammals have warm blood.
-Therefore they can metabolize food and regulate their body temperature.
The premises are true and backed up by facts, the structure is also valid. This makes the argument both valid and sound. A valid argument may not be sound, but a sound argument MUST be valid.
@@Esteban45696 Nah. More like:
People have feathers.
Tom is a person.
Therefore, Tom has feathers.
This is a valid but not sound argument, since the conclusion follows from the premises, but the premises are not all true.
The argument in the video is more or less:
An omnipotent being can grant infallible knowledge.
The triune God is an omnipotent being.
Therefore, the triune God can grant infallible knowledge.
And this is a rather unhelpful argument to make if you can't demonstrate that both of the premises are true, or that an omnipotent being exists( or can exist), or that infallible knowledge exists, or that the triune god exists.
I liked his first thrust that if you don't accept the claim of yahweh (to keep it simple), you're inherently saying he's not necessary." Then they got off track. He ended up asserting that yahweh can grant perfect knowledge 'because I say so and there's no contradiction entailed' without affirming what the conditions are that can even be contradicted in the 1st place, which was disappointing.
I'd have to call this a good debate, even though the caller failed, because there were some interesting ideas thrown around and I like when Matt deals with someone skilled in logic. It gets boring constantly hearing people like my grandmom with repeat questions
Jared, I really hope you read this. I’ve met several people like you in my life and it’s honestly really sad. You sound articulate enough to have the capability of understanding how arrogant you are being and where your “arguments” fall flat. If you were put into a college classroom with that line of logic, you’d get laughed out of the room. The biggest disservice you could do yourself is to keep telling yourself that anything you presented qualifies as a coherent or meaningful argument.
He’s not reading this. He’s only interested in gotchas.
"Could a unicorn drop his horn for me to pick it up?"
"Yes, I see no contradiction in that"
This random guy: "Alright, then unicorns exist. Have a nice day"
HA, are you serious?! Unicorns don’t exist, so obviously that’s way different. Honestly, there’s a contradiction in the word “unicorn” if we’re being real
-that guy, probably.
@@johnd1047I once had a rabidly religious guy tell me dragons, unicorns and other mythological creatures existed before the flood, but they were evil and god don’t let them on the ark.
The guy was 40 something years old.
It’s just unreal what people string together.
@@AclockworkPurple my…oh…my😭😭😭ironically, he was actually more consistent than average theists. If you uncritically take the Bible as fact, you have to believe in all those and all other spiritual scams today, but it’s all the “devil”. The epistemic pretzels they have to wrap themselves in to lie to the world and self, sad.
@@johnd1047 Yep.
The Darth Dawkins script is being used a lot lately.
Well Gary Milne has formed his own little cult with himself at the center. It shouldn't be shocking his disciples go out and proselytize. . . poorly.
Who is this guy Darth Dawkins? There's only one Dawkins as far as I'm concerned and he s an English gentleman..
@@vegass04 Also Angelo Dawkins, an athlete of some fame (but not at darts.)
Smugness plus ignorance= Darth Dawkins disciple.
Yep. Gary Milne seems to manufacture them in a lab somewhere. . . Well no. That's a lie. Gary is just an uneducated, unemployed janitor who should be in jail for what he did to his wife and kida for yeara before they fled from him. Now he just spews his rage and vitriol onto the internet.
Smugnorance?
In 2nd grade there was always that kid who constantly changed the rules mid game to fit his current situation.
This conversation is that kid who just got taller but grew in no other way.
To be fair we don't know for a fact that he got taller. He may assert he has gotten taller but until he can bring some proof... ;)
I disagree...
He definitely got fatter, too.
Jared keeps whining that he's "explained this # times, now," but the fact is that he keeps having the same three things explained to him more times than he thinks he's explaining other things.
By his own ruleset, he is losing and by a lot.
Like most religious apologists, Jared keeps explaining when he should be proving his claims.🤤
Presuppositionalism is the philosophical equivalent of Calvin Ball.
Presuppositionalism is the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling LALALALALALALALALA I can't hear you LALALA I'm right my OMNIBOY is real HAHAHA I win and now Darth will notice and love me and I won't feel so empty and pathetic inside anymore woo hoo!!!
Why does Jared keep presuming the triune Christian god instead of Leith, Destroyer Of Triune Gods? Apologetics is the sorriest field of philosophy, and presuppositionalism is the sorriest form of apologetics.
Because he is a heretic, all praise leith
That's the most confusing part for me. I think he just hopes that big words will either intimidate or confuse the people listening
Agreed. Apologetics is only regarded as a valid field in "Christian" clown colleges.
The simple existence of apologetics for any given god proposition is more than enough evidence to disprove that god character's existence, or at least it's ability/desire to keep its "creation" confused, stupid and at each others' throats.
If this guy's not a troll he's an outstanding example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
This sounds almost exactly like the argument that darth dawkins used
he is a darth follower, i have heard his voice on discord. he is a great creator of circular reasoning and straw man creation. he is as bad a circular sye. his assertion is his evidence
It is.
The moment he threw out rhe word "intelligibility" I knew this was going to be a childish whinefest from a Gary Milne fluffer.
Because it is.
"Gary Milne fluffer" 😂😂😂😂
God is necessary because without it, nothing is possible. That's the whole nonsensical argument.
Cthulhu exists because he is defined as being extant, and having the ability to eat gods and take on their powers.
Cthulhu has eaten god, and therefore exists without contradiction.
In other words, just another stupid word game trying to define stuff into existence.
It's honestly even more arrogant than the ontological argument.
@@kentonbaird1723 Truly this caller has proven the existence of Cthulhu
Which suggests that the most parsimonious definition of God is "that without which nothing is possible". Which is very different from the various (and often contradictory) descriptions found in the Bible.
@@NovaSaber I'm pretty sure this is an ontological argument and that "the ontological argument" isn't a single argument, but a class of arguments. I think any metaphysical presuppositional argument is an ontological argument.
If I define my invisible sky daddy as necessary for existence then my sky daddy must be real because we experience existing.
Wow well done. A perfect example of how to define something in to existence 😂😂😂
Argument from Look at the Mees.
(I exist. Therefore Jehovah)
The usual presup garbage. Gets old
they really think these arguments are good
after 5 seconds of listening to him talk, i knew he was a presup. perhaps they're common. i'm not familiar with darth dawkins, although i've seen atheists discuss him. suprisingly i haven't seen any atheist takedown videos of this darth guy.
@@jimmythebold589 You ought to watch the Shannon Q vs Darth Dawkins debate. She figured out his spiel almost immediately, and then figured out his motives, and spent the rest of the time dissecting his asinine arguments.
modal logic (made up possibilities and probabilities) and arbitrary presuppositions are the last resort of desperate bible believers when they realize they can not prove anything about their belief in magic.
Good point. I find it laughable that in their attempts to prove the reality of 'god' all they're using is sophistry, rhetoric and philosophical musings. To me, it is like the last scrapings of apologetics.
💯
That was me at one point,the desperate bible believer. But at some point you have to stop fighting when your the one that's making no sense. How could we possibly know the maker of all reality when we understand so little about so little.
@@totalspoof8344 i understand. i was also indoctrinated into the 'orthodox' flavor of the judaic heresy of christianity. adopting the israelite tribal mythology as reality is absurd just as jumping to the conclusion that the universe was 'created' by a will (male with a penis no less) because ancient tribes thought so.
I lost it when he asked what "impossible" means. hahaha The amount of condescension, arrogance, and assumed "smartness" is pretty rich when they have to go to places like not knowing what the word/concept "impossible" means.
Next, he argues if you can't show God isn't impossible, it is possible. If possible, it must be true because my definition of God says so.
This guy's mother probably threw a block party when he finally moved out.
She may have enabled him.
What makes you think he’s moved out?
Just like the existence of his god, we have no reason to believe that
Haha! Indeed.
No fkn way he doesn't live at home
His argument is defeated because you substitute another god, gods or non-supernatural agent with the same characteristics, and reach his identical assertion.
Problem is, they don’t argue, they just presuppose that they are right, so nothing can ever defeat that from their point of view. A different god isn’t in line with their presupposition, so it is necessarily false. It can only ever be their god because that is the starting point.
Yep. You can make the argument that Satan exists, or 10 gods exist, all using the same logic. Doesn't make them real.
Matt gave this guy too much credit in trying to have an intelligent conversation with him. He should have just used the Tinkerbell analogy and called it a day.
His opening statement announced he was full of it and full of himself.
This guy doesn't know what a truth table is if he thinks he can prove a god with one.
Ironically enough, I had this very same argument regarding Leibniz with a philosophy professor of mine. It was a lot faster than this one because he eventually admitted that he had to define "god" that way or else the argument collapses.
"I don't know if you know much about modal logic."
I genuinely lold
Definite spit take moment 😂
@matthewphilip1977 given the number of discussions Matt has had about modal logic, it's like asking a fish of they're familiar with water.
@matthewphilip1977 it doesn't matter the humor comes from us knowing how much Matt knows of it and how ridiculous asking him that question sounds to us when we have knowledge of how much he knows of it.
@matthewphilip1977 The caller has called repeatedly under different names, so, presumably.
"Claiming to be agnostic"
😂😂😂😂😂
These goofball callers are ridiculous.
When will apologists learn that you can't just define things into existence
Who wants YWH or any Sky Fairy. They are ALL EVIL PSYCHOS
Or word game people into believing in their god?
How do you know what the characteristics of god are?
"I define it as the thing with the characteristics I say it has."
Ew, how did all this pigeon crap get on my chessboard?
Defining God into existence as a last resort.
@matthewphilip1977 Yes, millennia ago, people had all kinds of gods, with all different characteristics. We call that mythology.
@matthewphilip1977 As would removing sin without the need for genocide.
@matthewphilip1977 It's reasonable because we have so much more knowledge and information than the people who wrote that story.
@matthewphilip1977 Take notice of how often you use the word "would" in your responses. Appealing to possibility is a weak reed to stand on if you're trying to make a substantive argument. Within that context, any assertion becomes viable; all that's necessary is to define the context for its examination without regard for its actual evidentiary value.
I know that we've landed on the moon, split the atom, etc. because it's based on bucket loads of evidence that been repeatedly examined and confirmed.
Wow, Jared's delusions make him quite arrogant.
He’s insufferable.
This entire conversation seems to be reducible to "I learned about modal logic and really want my assertions to go unquestioned."
If my god exists, he can do anything. I just proved it exists. You don't understand logic.
Saved you from listening to this drivel.
This guy just likes to smell his own farts 🤣
Everyone secretly does don't they?
It's just intellectual masturbation. These guys want to appear to be smart, so they use convoluted arguments that people don't want to engage in, then they claim a win.
But this guy does it in public, over and over again.
@@richtraube2241 And demands that everyone else should also enjoy the smell of his farts. And insists that it is illogical to not enjoy the smell of his farts
@@pointbreak8646 Hell on! Maybe white boys.
Jared thinks he's so smart but he doesn't even understand his own argument.
He was arrogant too. Ugh
Matt was incredibly patient.
Presuppers are the philosophical equivalent of flat earthers.
No, they aren't.
I have yet to meet a Flat Earther who believes the Earth is flat simply because the idea of a flat Earth is not self-contradictory.
They give arguments. Bad ones, sure, but they give arguments.
Presups don't even do that. They just insist that they're right.
You drill down a layer or two - and callers nonsense reveals it self
The nonsense was right there on the surface with this one!
This caller has the same vibe as hyper-arrogant flat earthers and sovereign citizens. He has scripted responses to given questions, but doesn't understand how each response is logically inconsistent with each other. "Are you saying that if you can't demonstrate something is impossible, then it's possible?" Absolutely not. "If you can't find a contradiction in something, then it's possible?" Emphatically Yes! Lmao
It seems that they are attracted to the idea of holding special knowledge, known to only a special few and including them in an exclusive club. You can't convince them they're wrong, because that would require them leaving their special select club. It's self reinforcing, when there is any push back on their assertions, they flail and respond personal attacks or uncomfortable laughter.
The confidence/arrogance of their ignorance never ceases to amaze me.
Matt: ten minutes of explaining why he's not agnostic about this dudes God.
"Oh I got you! You're agnostic!"
Dude is fresh off of reddit
Standard unimpressive modal logic presup stuff, but the part that will make me lose sleep tonight is how smugly proud of himself he was for how well he thinks he did. It’s mind boggling and disturbing to me
Typical presup/darth dawkins' minion attitude.
He thinks he's beating "the final boss," blissfully unaware that he's not even playing the same game.
Love it when matt keeps his calm and is resonably humble. Makes me think of when axp used to be good. Good clip. Thanks!
These kinds of presuppositional arguments are so exceedingly silly. They can be defeated with a simple question:
"How many gods are there?"
And the answer will inevitably be ONE (although the caller is arguing for a triune god, so perhaps the answer is both ONE and THREE simulaneously!).
Thus, your god is ontologically dependent on the number ONE.
You cannot have ONE god without ONE.
And since numbers depend on logic, it follows by transitivity that god must also necesarily require logic as a basis. QED.
Thus logic and reason are more fundamental than your god, so let's just cut out the middle man.
The entire argument fails in a really stupid manner. But what else is new?
I'm going to probably use a variant of this from now on.
That's a very good point if they are willing to grant numbers relying on logical concepts. So you might have to at least agree on that front first
@@RPGgrenade I've found that nearly all apologetic arguments fundamentally assume there is only ONE of something. It's usually wrapped up in specific words like "the" or "a", but once you see it you can never unsee it.
"THE creator of the universe" - Implying there can't be multiple creators? Prove it.
"Everything that comes into existence has A cause" - Everything has precisely ONE cause? Nope.
"Design implies A designer" - Have you forgotten about the concept of teamwork?
"THE foundation of logic and reason" - There's only one? Prove it.
Seriously, it's everywhere, and if you challenge that, the apologist is utterly flustered.
@@tan_x_dx I meant in the sense of them accepting that numbers come from logical underpinnings, and not, say, directly from god, and maybe they think logic comes from numbers or whatever.
Just saying it's possible it can be rejected for dumb reasons like that. If you've established they agree with you on that concept, you have them stuck and they'd have to admit to faulty reasoning or look foolish.
@@RPGgrenade It's irrelevant as to what a number is.
You cannot have ONE god without ONE. So where did this ONE come from?
Every time one of them tries that lame “Design implies a designer.” nonsense, I explain basic logic to them. Design doesn’t imply anything until you prove design exists.😈
Highly recommend watching Secular Rarity and Armin Navabi's interaction with this guy on their last AE episode too. They had interacted with him before but the last call was chef's kiss on handling his condescending word salad.
They shut him down immediately, if I remember it right
.
Do you have a link. I love Secular Rarity.
"Matt"Not to sound to extreme but Your videos and podcasts saved my life dude,I have Borderline personality disorder, the worst mental condition to live with and iv lived a suicidal life and made many attempts.This man made
Belief system was literally killing me,but you tought me basic critical thinking skills and now im loving and appreciating my new atheist life...Thank you🙏🙏🙏
Awesome! Great to hear you're doing so much better and enjoying the good things life has to offer.
Listening to these videos has helped me navigate the b/s I deal w/ at work.
Christian's hate to say I don't know.
Many children do. They don’t like not getting everything they want, like answers to all their questions.
Christians hate to say I don't know.
vs
Christians hate to say "I don't know".
Be careful there. Those are 2 different sentences with totally different meaning. And believers LOVE quote mines and trolling.
Atheist is not a claim that there is no evidence for a god it is just saying that no one has presented evidence!
This poor man. Apparently there is an empty bed awaiting in the local hospital. So sad.
Did this caller just create a new peak on the dunning-kreuger scale?
He is his own mountain of stupidity.
Wait, wait. Jared is not Christian. Hold on. He demonstrated no virtuous kindness. Yeah. OK. Right. Um. To be clear. Modal logic. No contradiction. Wait. Basic modal logic.
When writing a story the author(s) can have the characters do whatever the author(s) decides. When there are plot inconsistencies...Apologists do not apologize.
Thank you, you nailed Jared’s annoying conversational tics
Logic bros are so annoying. It's just circles and circles and they never admit that their logic is deeply flawed.
The part they miss is that if you want your logical arguments to apply to reality, you need to have at least some premises related to reality, and demonstrate that they are true. You can't define or argue real material things into existence.
Ignorant arrogance is one of the worst Apologistic traits.
Triune was said so much it doesn’t even sound like a real word anymore.
Scuba... scuuuuba scuba scuba
Apparently.
It's like he didn't even understand his own argument. He really thinks he wasn't just saying, "if I can prove it's possible for my definition of god to do what I believe it can do, that means it's more probable and technically 100% true.
Caller: Thinks he's thinking SO much faster and farther than everyone else.
Also caller: Prefaces every blurt with "wait, wait, hold on".
Not interjecting while matt spoke. Matt left many reply gaps. Uncharacteristically many.
Caller was literally commanding us to change our "speed". Over and over and over.
Imagine sharing the road with another driver doing that.
Jared wasn't just asserting the necessity of a grounding for reason, he was asserting a specific grounding for reason, and was so up himself in terms of how clever he thought he was being that he completely failed to even explain what his argument actually was. As far as I could tell it was based around the following:
It is customary to take the language of modal logic to be that obtained by adding one-place operators ‘□’ for necessity and ‘◇’ for possibility to the language of classical propositional or predicate logic. Necessity and possibility are interdefinable in the presence of negation:
A is a necessity iff it is not possible for not A to be true
A is possible iff it is not a necessity for not A to be true
where iff = if and only if.
While these are self-evidently the case, and define necessity and possibility in line with the common meaning of those words, other axioms need to be added to get to actual modal logics, including S5 that Matt mentioned. It is not a trivial matter to just add axioms, since by definition they are essentially presuppositions, so *even if* modal logic led to the conclusion that god was actually a necessity - it doesn't - the reasonableness of that conclusion would still be based on the reasonableness of the additional axioms.
The modern development of modal logic has been criticized on several grounds, and some philosophers have expressed scepticism about the intelligibility of the notion of necessity that it is supposed to describe. S5 is a very expressive system, allowing for many logical deductions about possibilities and necessities. This can be useful for formalising complex philosophical reasoning, but it can also lead to counterintuitive results depending on your initial assumptions.
In particular, the extra axiom that underpins S5 (Global Barcan Formula) states that any true statement is necessarily true in every possible world. This is particularly controversial as it implies a kind of absolute truth independent of specific possibilities, and, in this particular case, this is where Jared smuggles god into his argument without actually demonstrating anything about it: he seems to be trying to argue from characteristics that he asserts that this god *must* have that god exists in every possible world and therefore exists in this one.
It's nice when you can say "this thing exists because I have defined it to exist", it avoids the need for all that inconvenient evidence stuff.
You should be a host on the show dude, that is a masterclass of an explanation. Admittedly all this convoluted presup nonsense goes over my head but now I understand. Thank you
.
Matt's patience lasted longer than mine would have. I do not suffer fools easily or for a very long duration.
It was painful.
You could insert 'bigfoot' every time this caller says 'christian god' and it wouldn't alter one thing about his argument.
😮 when you think convoluting a subject matter is a debate
Maybe I’m stupid, but why can’t this argument be applied to any fictional being? Thanos or Cthulhu or Thoth?
Even if the logic works out, how does it get you anywhere near the truth of its actual existence?
Exactly! Thats precisely the question the called was dodging the entire time with his presuppositional circular logic.
Jared suffers from believing he is clever. I know a kid (twenties) that talks exactly like this, no matter how clearly you define his statement he laughs at you and says you got it wrong, it's a BS tactic.
If we assume my God exists & does what I say it does, that proves God exists & does what I say it does. That's his second useless argument.
I wish you were this patient with every caller Matt. That guy deserved your rage, and instead you absolutely nailed it and didn’t get pissed.
Cuz Matt got humbled and owned. He only gets mad at people he thinks he's smarter than
He’s too egotistical to understand that they are asking him questions to build a structured argument using his responses. I love that Matt said, “You’re going to have to do the work in front of us.” Yeah, dude. You don’t get to just assert your goofy little word games as unimpeachable. He literally doesn’t understand his own argument, because he’s reading from a script.
Could Spiderman give me a swing made of webs? Yes. And Spiderman got access to the Enigma Force which made him omnipotent, therefore he must exist.
I’ve said it million times already. Presuppositionalism is the lowest form of argumentation. It’s the equivalent of saying “I’m right, you’re wrong…NaNaNaNaNa”
Jared is talking out of his arse. He cannot, or will not, see the difference between his position - that a very specific god *IS* necessary - and Matt's position - that he is not convinced that *any* god exists.
Jared first has to demonstrate that god is in fact necessary, not just presuppose it and expect everyone else to accept his presupposition. Then and only then could it follow that not being convinced that a god existed becomes irrational, but *only if* the necessity extends beyond creating the universe but also applies to persisting after that point. Even then, it doesn't establish the christian god - Jared would need to demonstrate that not only is _a_ god necessary but that only the christian god fits the bill.
He was nowhere near even beginning to do this. And never will be, since it seems inconceivable that there could be any argument other than direct physical proof that could link a causation that is outwith space and time to a specific set of characteristics inside space and time, given that such an argument could also apply to almost any other random set of characteristics for such a thing. Not only is any god hypothesis _unfalsifiable_ in this sense, all god hypotheses are also _indistinguishable_ from each other.
Personally, I choose Roland.
Jared seems to have just learned about truth tables and to be really eager to show off.
Also, angry Matt may be cathartic, but calm Matt in the face of abject smug stupidity is a great model for these conversations.
Jared: "wait, hahaha" . Most dishonest caller yet
I think we found the case study of Dunning-Kruger
Couldn't you just apply all that he has said to any religion as well?
Yes, his extremely bad presuppositional argument could be used to poorly attempt to justify the existence of any god, triune or not. What really gets me is how he thought he was really doing a good job. That the gentlemen he was speaking to were just stupid and didn't get his brilliant logical trap that he had set for them. Except, Matt had absolutely figured it out where he was going, and he just didn't want to admit it. I would actually be truly delighted if someone came up with a cogent logical unfalsifiable Argument for the existence of God that would be fascinating! I would like to have my worldview expanded by something new and exciting like that, but it has yet to happen.
You can apply it to a flaming unicorn....🤣🤣🤣
@@pyroblast3000 it exists. It's called Rapidash.
@@ttthecat Yeah he left that convo thinking he is a genius.
Yep. And therein lies the problem with most religious arguments. You can insert pretty much anything else into the argument and it works perfectly fine.
So basically “my definition of god includes the statement that he needs to exist for you to know anything.
You claim to know things, therefor god exists.”
"Hang on, hang on... I just read 'Modal Logic for Dummies' and ergo according to my calculations vis a vis this logic chart I just wrote up in purple crayon, I should have you over a barrel... This can't be right..."
So, he just DEFINED god into existence? Wow, such a new low.
"New low"? Christketeers have been trying to define their Bronze Age tyrant into existence since the early medieval period, if not earlier.
Christians have been diving to new lows every day since their cult began.
What sucks is this dude thinks he just blasted yall and won and will be even more of a jackass because of the false feeling if superiority the more he thought he had a point the more manic he got
Let him think that. Let him take his "victory" back to the circle of sad sacks that care and let them get a tiny bit of goodness in their tragic life.
"They told me you're the end boss."
Yes he is my friend, and it seems you've failed to level up enough to challenge him.
Trying to apply logical certainties to a magical mythical being is about as useful as fitting a spare tire to a fishing boat.
Guy sounds like a db in love with his own voice.
"Listen, i just got an A in my intro to philosophy class, so i know way more than you, matt dillihunty who gets paid to do this across the country for 20 years." people crack me up
I've explained my irrational position several times now. You're just not listening! 🤓
When Jared demonstrates that his God or God's exist, until then he has no argument!
Smug Presup: "Can my infallible god give me infallible knowledge? OF COURSE HE CAN LOLOLOLOLOOLlll!!!!!1111"
Matt: "how would you know?"
Presup? "I TOLD YOU THREE TIMES LOLOLOLOLOLOLLL!!L!!1111!"
Jared uses Harry Potter logic. If you put Harry Potter on a truth table and use the stories as reference for his abilities and powers, it is plausible that he exists. Under Jared's idea wizards exists from the Hogwarts universe.
When I was a kid I played Dungeons and Dragons and defined a wizard who could cast spells, therefore that being exists.
What was his name? I might have run across him at a Council meeting.
@@wizardsuth Fick the Ticous. Nominated Most powerful wizard of 1984, but didn’t win. Now that I think of it, the election may have been rigged.
Thanks
Being from Kentucky such as I am, I can only assume he's at one of the seminaries and is learning apologetics. Trying to create ways to preach to people who are less intelligent who won't question anything a preacher says.
The question after "Can your triune God DO the logically impossible?" and receiving the answer "no" should be "Can your triune God itself BE logically impossible?" because the triune God is an inherent logical contradiction.
Good ol' presup nonsense...
I appreciate that he immediately got to his point.
Do these people think you can word play people into believing in Christ?
Yes..and it works for a lot of people.
15:30 I listened to this guy's explanation 5 times and that is ABSOLUTELY what he means by that. It just really sucks to have it laid out in plain language because it sounds just as dumb as it is. It also sounds dumb to philosophers, they are just well versed in the language of how he is explaining it. No amount of truth tables will get you out of it Jared, you literally said it's possible if it doesn't entail a logical contradiction because you defined it that way. As Matt frickin BRILLIANTLY pointed out, a contradiction would only show its IMpossible. It literally can't get you to any conclusion regarding possibility unless you literally change how logic works. Which is all he is trying to do. This is painfully stupid.
Theists REALLY hate the concept of the answer "I Dont Know"😅😅😅😅
This guy is absurd🤨🤨
This guy was something, good for keeping it togehter, you two.
This is way more simple the.ln this got. Anytime you talk to a presup. Just ask the
“Does your god give all humans the same abilities to be intelligible?” So under your world view I have the ability to be intelligible. Cool
In My world view I have the ability to be intelligible.
So now we both agree that we both have the ability to be intelligible so we can move along to why I’m not convinced and you no longer need to ask how I know things.
Ah, he was running that favorite script of Darth Dawkins: "Lemme try and try and shake the foundations of these unbelievers and stealthily assert my god as true, period."
It’s funny how these doofuses with their fixed scripts with big words can’t understand basic burdens of proof.