Presup in a nutshell: "You're honest enough to acknowledge not having a solution to the problem of hard solipsism, and I am dishonest enough to insist by fiat that I do. Therefore god." AKA sophistry.
Damn. That is a concise, accurate description of presuppositionalism. Well done. Two previous iterations used in the past are: "Since I'm right, you can't be." And.. "You're not allowed to disagree with me, unless you agree with me." Cheers.
Came here to say basically the same thing: at some point, they will have to challenge what they believe to be true with evidence. Hypothetically, one could be in a simulation and believe in a deity. Now what?
@porkramen It's funny, but also a little scary. How can you try to confirm that you're not insane? Objective, demonstrable evidence. Otherwise, it's all circular. A 7th grader can understand this, but they cling to it, thinking it's the antidote for all their worries.
I just believe that leprechauns are the rational grounding for the existence of the color green. Without Leprechauns, you can't prove your senses are reliably seeing the color green. Only I know that I truly see green, because I have leprechauns to ground my perceptions.
@@uncleanunicorn4571 I mean i dont think that counter would work, you are just making their argument for them and just renaming god (objective source) to leprechauns (objective source). The focus is on whether we need an objective foundation or not, not whether u wanna call it god or leprechauns
10 min in. I've never had to stop a planet Peterson video. But this dude just broke me. Way to go Professor P. I'm proud of you for not flipping the fuck out.
I love watching debates with presuppositionalists because if you let them talk long enough they’ll think they’ve gotten checkmate when they’re actually just laying their fallacies bare. Their entire argument is essentially just a special pleading fallacy. They’ll claim that you can’t know anything outside yourself and then claim that they can know that god exists outside of themselves.
... and that the god is either not subject to logic in which case God can be not-God or He is, in which case there IS something more fundamental. It's so silly.
I've been following your TikToks and your lives for awhile. I totally get it when you say you're tired of the philosophy bros. This one really exemplifies that. He broke me. Hahahah. I just couldn't deal with him after a few minutes of his inane setup. Good on you for just keeping cool and going through his hoops knowing where he was going the whole time.
I just believe that leprechauns are the rational grounding for the existence of the color green. Without L eprechauns, you can't prove your senses are reliably seeing the color green. Only I know that I truly see green, because I have leprechauns to ground my perceptions.
I just believe that leprechauns are the rational grounding for the existence of the color green. Without Leprechauns, you can't prove your senses are reliably seeing the color green. Only I know that I truly see green, because I have leprechauns to ground my perceptions.
I mean religious people base their life and potential afterlife on it of course they are passionate. I’m more wondering about how any atheist can be passionate about proving them wrong, I mean you guys claim it’s all just science fiction, well than why are people making whole channels about refuting it? I mean I wouldn’t even try to convince someone who wholeheartedly believes that Star Wars is real, but somehow (a bunch of) atheists care enough…almost if there is more to it
@@TheOneAndOnlyJinglebi "How any atheist" How any rational person you mean. The reason I personally am so passionate about pushing back against irrational beliefs, is because of the harm they do. We aren't trying to convince anyone, you are the ones trying to convince others. We are simply not being convinced by the things that have convinced you, because we actually took the time to learn about standards of evidence.
@@WhoThisMonkey no rational person gets triggered and does an entire TH-cam channel to refute people who think that Star Wars is real 😂 rational my 🍑 Yes we are trying to convince people of the truth, but you try to convince people as well but I have no clue for what. I have the standards of evidence, I can go deeply into the illogical and straight up stu pid conclusions you have to take by rejecting a creator, also what kind of harm are you talking about? We are just a bunch of cells, no different to a rock, our feelings and emotions are also just a matter of chemical processes in our brain aren’t they? Again I could go deeper into the necessary conclusions of atheism, one of which is determinism which basically tells you that I have absolutely zero control over what I do, so why trying to judge me and pointing that out when I have no control over it? An atheist talking about harm has to be the funniest thing ever, your ideology is pretty new historically and yet you fill all the ranks of tyrants who walked this earth, Mao,pol pot, StaIin… if atheism does anything it’s causing more harm.
@@WhoThisMonkey no rational person gets triggered and does an entire TH-cam channel to refute people who think that Star Wars is real 😂 rational my 🍑 Yes we are trying to convince people of the truth, but you try to convince people as well but I have no clue for what. I have the standards of evidence, I can go deeply into the illogical and straight up stu pid conclusions you have to take by rejecting a creator, also what kind of harm are you talking about? We are just a bunch of cells, no different to a rock, our feelings and emotions are also just a matter of chemical processes in our brain aren’t they? Again I could go deeper into the necessary conclusions of atheism, one of which is determinism which basically tells you that I have absolutely zero control over what I do, so why trying to judge me and pointing that out when I have no control over it?
@@WhoThisMonkeyAn atheist talking about harm has to be the funniest thing ever, your ideology is pretty new historically and yet you fill all the ranks of tyrants who walked this earth, Mao,pol pot, StaIin… if atheism does anything it’s causing more harm.
His reaction at the end was extremely telling. Admitting that you don't like not having an answer to hard solipsism is saying the quiet part of presup apologetics out loud.
@@stefanhuber7357 Is this statement "grounded in our observable universe", whatever you think that means? "It doesn't require additional assumptions" is itself an additional assumption.
The presup script is designed to keep the presup talking at the person until they have a psychotic episode borne out of frustration, then claim victory
Ok, how do you know that a logical being that grounds reality is telling you things, rather than you are just imagining that one is? See, we can do this too.
The really big problem with this appeal to the laws of logic is that the laws of logic do not seem to be universal, and in fact we're needing to develop new variations of them to deal with the outputs of modern physics. For example, it is possible for observers in different relativistic frames to conclude both P and not P, depending upon their frame. And this suggests that the laws of logic are in fact relative and not objective.
You misunderstand basic relativity and logic still remains objective, discovered, and still 100% right all the time; that includes modern physics (you would know that if you understood the basics, let alone advanced)
There are two views on whether the laws of logic Some say its not objective but dependent on the existence of an intelligent being And some say its not dependant but objective truths about the universe. Even mathematics is based on these laws .
My position would be that laws - such as the laws of physics or the laws of logic - are descriptions of reality and how reality operates. If humans didn't exist, then we have every reason to believe that reality would continue to operate in the same way, but there wouldn't be any humans around to describe it and therefore, definitionally, descriptive laws would cease to exist.
The laws of logic are axioms. You have to assume them to try to disprove them or use them. The laws of logic and reality are presuppositions everyone must assume as real, but that's as far as you need to go without evidence.
In order for me to accept this presup’s belief in god, I have to first accept that reality exists, that he exists, and that his presupposition is accurate. Wow, that’s a lot to presuppose. I’ll just stick with believing that I exist.
“A mountain is a mountain not a river. A mountain can not be a river” I guess this guy have never heard of a volcano… a literal river of mountain… Logic is a language. Language is useful not correct. I also think square circles and married bachelor can exist. Grammatical paradoxes are not impossible, just context specific and require overly pedantic explanations to be accurate.
If existing, how would a god truly know that he exist and are not just another component of the simulation? I do not see how a deity is a way out of hard solipsism.
It just so incredible that theist don’t understand that claiming they can know reality is what it is because they believe in their imaginary friend, is not the same as actually knowing what reality is.
We define what words mean by using them. And similar words dont need to mean the same thing. In dutch the ocean is Zee and a lake is Meer. In german, they use the same words, but they mean absolutely the opposite. Language and words are funny that way.
"i hate to be able not to answer a question" and THAT is what it all boils down to. People so uncomfortable of not having answers so they go with whatever satisfies their insecurities. Presup cannot get you to any specific theology...it can only get you to deism. Which is why they argue in such broad terms. They argue in broad terms and it falls apart with hyptheticals...which is why presuppers use the "world view body double" tactic as a defense because presup cannot handle hypotheticals. It needs to remain as broad as possible so the opponent has to agree with them at some point down the script.
He is a simple fool who thinks his belief is better without understanding any opposing views. You destroyed his reasoning that is based on nothing but belief.
There is no answer to hard solipsism. The presups just use god to get around that problem. The problem with using a god is that you're just injecting a bigger mystery or problem that we cannot prove because a god first must be demonstrated to exist and then you have to demonstrate it created reality. Good luck... 😆
2:40 Hahahahaha! 18:55 HAHAHAHHA. He has special powers. Wow, this guy thinks he's smart but he doesn't even understand basic logic. Haha he revealed the truth at the end and then ran. He said it's because he hates to be someone who can't explain something.
Nobody, not even presuppers can give a foundation for the laws of logic. That's why they're called presuppositions. The theist must presuppose them too, as he reasons his way to his god conclusion, or beg the question. But we don't need a further presupposition of god because presuppositions by definition don't need further foundations. We've already got the presupposed laws of logic, which we know exist, so let's keep our presuppositions to a minimum and not add a god to them.
What do Beings from Mars call "cats?" If humanity vanishes tomorrow, what we call cats can b called "narwalls" to Martians. So "cats" become "narwalls." What we call things doesn't make that Thing that name, just how we identify it
4 easy words for the pressuper "AND NEITHER CAN YOU..." The pressuper pretends he has solved Hume's problem of induction when in reality he is merely CLAIMING that he did.
"I hate to be the kind of person that can't answer a question." So... you just throw "God did it" around any time you don't know an answer? Yeah, you're the logical one, bro.
You should have just kept asking him HOW DO YOU KNOW? to everything he said, until he said ‘I don’t’, and then celebrated like you’d won How do you KNOW God exists? How do you KNOW your belief is real? How do you KNOW you aren’t just dreaming right now? How do you KNOW logical laws exist? How do you KNOW your brain isn’t deceiving you? Apparently, he thinks that only he can do that.
I love when they just repeat themselves until you ask their explanation... And then they commit the fallacy they said you were doing. Lol theists are funny when they try to logic.
You still allowed him to shift the burden of proof. You asked him to demonstrate his claim & he started asking you questions like where do the laws of logic come from. Not sure why you fall into their trap repeatedly
I mean he isn’t ENTIRELY wrong that if you say something doesn’t exist Vs claiming you have no reason to believe it, there is some burden there. But otherwise solid argument
No there’s no evidence of miracles and there’s no way to say there’s no evidence of miracles that’s why proving negative claims is really difficult/impossible so the burden of proof is on him to show an example of a miracle that has no other explanation besides supernatural
This fool's brain is what's broken. He literally thinks he can just assert what is valid and reject whatever he wants via some imagined authority he in no way posesses. The arrogance of Dunning-Krueger and religious mind bending. And his claimed "grounding" is pure imagination he simply claims makes sense and has proof. When of course there is none.
Hopefully, in the last year Peterson you've learned more about the burden of proof. The doofus was right: "the supernatural doesn't exist" is a positive claim and therefore carries a burden. However, the WRONG thing the doofus did was ascribe that position to you. You said "I don't believe in the supernatural", which is not the same as "the supernatural doesn't exist." To better explain. If someone says, miracles happen, and you say "I don't believe you", that's not a positive claim and the person who says miracles happen has the burden. You were both wrong on that, but you still had the right idea. The burden was on him.
"I hate being the kind of person that doesn't have an answer." Because your ego is so fragile that to be anything less than right would destroy your weak little mind.
Presup in a nutshell:
"You're honest enough to acknowledge not having a solution to the problem of hard solipsism, and I am dishonest enough to insist by fiat that I do. Therefore god."
AKA sophistry.
Damn. That is a concise, accurate description of presuppositionalism. Well done.
Two previous iterations used in the past are:
"Since I'm right, you can't be."
And..
"You're not allowed to disagree with me, unless you agree with me."
Cheers.
Strawman
@@АпологетикаБазинского
If it is a strawman, provide a steel man.
Don't just say "strawman uh yuh."
As soon as presupps ask why skeptics should trust their senses, they lose because they can no longer trust their own intuitions about skywizards.
Came here to say basically the same thing: at some point, they will have to challenge what they believe to be true with evidence. Hypothetically, one could be in a simulation and believe in a deity. Now what?
@@lovesjersey they want to pretend their intuitions are accurate when it makes them feel nice. It's hilarious.
@porkramen
It's funny, but also a little scary.
How can you try to confirm that you're not insane? Objective, demonstrable evidence. Otherwise, it's all circular. A 7th grader can understand this, but they cling to it, thinking it's the antidote for all their worries.
They claim they have ‘sensus divinitatus.’
This guy sounds like Ross from friends
"How do you know? No. No. Hold on. Hold on. No. Hold on."
Yeah... like the guy is going to teach US something. That's what a walking talking narcissistic personality disorder he is...
Literally… the most exhausting guest ever
And every single presuppositional Argument boils down to hard solipsism
I just believe that leprechauns are the rational grounding for the existence of the color green. Without Leprechauns, you can't prove your senses are reliably seeing the color green. Only I know that I truly see green, because I have leprechauns to ground my perceptions.
@@uncleanunicorn4571 I mean i dont think that counter would work, you are just making their argument for them and just renaming god (objective source) to leprechauns (objective source). The focus is on whether we need an objective foundation or not, not whether u wanna call it god or leprechauns
What? Show me a presup who's a solipsist. Are you really this stupid
Solopsism: you read too much philosophy and had a existential crisis, so a coping mechanism in the form of a magical space wizard is necessary.
Not at all.
However, atheistic materialism and even idealism pretty much leads to solipsism. Presuppositionalism just points it out.
This guest’s speech pattern reminds me of being stuck on the phone with comcast customer service
Listening to him was very frustrating. Good job keeping your cool with that guy.
This guy = "Nuh uhh! You didnt hit me! I was wearing body armor! My dad said I win and this is my dads house!" 😂😂😂
This is a false equivalence, because we know he had/has a dad.
“You haven’t answered my question” actually means “you haven’t answered my question in a way that fits my presupp flowchart.”
Lmao when guy went full joker mode and thought he had a big break through
10 min in. I've never had to stop a planet Peterson video. But this dude just broke me. Way to go Professor P. I'm proud of you for not flipping the fuck out.
Omg this guy never grew up from the “why” phase from when he was a child…. You are incredibly patient Planet P !
Listening to theist nonsense is a workout in itself.
“HoW dO yOu kNoW?!”
I love watching debates with presuppositionalists because if you let them talk long enough they’ll think they’ve gotten checkmate when they’re actually just laying their fallacies bare.
Their entire argument is essentially just a special pleading fallacy. They’ll claim that you can’t know anything outside yourself and then claim that they can know that god exists outside of themselves.
... and that the god is either not subject to logic in which case God can be not-God or He is, in which case there IS something more fundamental.
It's so silly.
We need to boost Planet Peterson TH-cam. Keep making videos abd good content. The world needs more of these discussions.
I've been following your TikToks and your lives for awhile. I totally get it when you say you're tired of the philosophy bros. This one really exemplifies that. He broke me. Hahahah. I just couldn't deal with him after a few minutes of his inane setup. Good on you for just keeping cool and going through his hoops knowing where he was going the whole time.
I just believe that leprechauns are the rational grounding for the existence of the color green. Without L eprechauns, you can't prove your senses are reliably seeing the color green. Only I know that I truly see green, because I have leprechauns to ground my perceptions.
*Rational person*
"demonstrate your god exists."
*Presup*
"Hur dur, demonstrate reality exists."
I just believe that leprechauns are the rational grounding for the existence of the color green. Without Leprechauns, you can't prove your senses are reliably seeing the color green. Only I know that I truly see green, because I have leprechauns to ground my perceptions.
I feel my brain melting omg ☠️
These people are so passionate about their crazy beliefs
I mean religious people base their life and potential afterlife on it of course they are passionate. I’m more wondering about how any atheist can be passionate about proving them wrong, I mean you guys claim it’s all just science fiction, well than why are people making whole channels about refuting it? I mean I wouldn’t even try to convince someone who wholeheartedly believes that Star Wars is real, but somehow (a bunch of) atheists care enough…almost if there is more to it
@@TheOneAndOnlyJinglebi
"How any atheist"
How any rational person you mean.
The reason I personally am so passionate about pushing back against irrational beliefs, is because of the harm they do.
We aren't trying to convince anyone, you are the ones trying to convince others.
We are simply not being convinced by the things that have convinced you, because we actually took the time to learn about standards of evidence.
@@WhoThisMonkey no rational person gets triggered and does an entire TH-cam channel to refute people who think that Star Wars is real 😂 rational my 🍑
Yes we are trying to convince people of the truth, but you try to convince people as well but I have no clue for what. I have the standards of evidence, I can go deeply into the illogical and straight up stu pid conclusions you have to take by rejecting a creator, also what kind of harm are you talking about? We are just a bunch of cells, no different to a rock, our feelings and emotions are also just a matter of chemical processes in our brain aren’t they? Again I could go deeper into the necessary conclusions of atheism, one of which is determinism which basically tells you that I have absolutely zero control over what I do, so why trying to judge me and pointing that out when I have no control over it?
An atheist talking about harm has to be the funniest thing ever, your ideology is pretty new historically and yet you fill all the ranks of tyrants who walked this earth, Mao,pol pot, StaIin… if atheism does anything it’s causing more harm.
@@WhoThisMonkey no rational person gets triggered and does an entire TH-cam channel to refute people who think that Star Wars is real 😂 rational my 🍑
Yes we are trying to convince people of the truth, but you try to convince people as well but I have no clue for what. I have the standards of evidence, I can go deeply into the illogical and straight up stu pid conclusions you have to take by rejecting a creator, also what kind of harm are you talking about? We are just a bunch of cells, no different to a rock, our feelings and emotions are also just a matter of chemical processes in our brain aren’t they? Again I could go deeper into the necessary conclusions of atheism, one of which is determinism which basically tells you that I have absolutely zero control over what I do, so why trying to judge me and pointing that out when I have no control over it?
@@WhoThisMonkeyAn atheist talking about harm has to be the funniest thing ever, your ideology is pretty new historically and yet you fill all the ranks of tyrants who walked this earth, Mao,pol pot, StaIin… if atheism does anything it’s causing more harm.
His reaction at the end was extremely telling. Admitting that you don't like not having an answer to hard solipsism is saying the quiet part of presup apologetics out loud.
"calm down it's going to be alright" he screamed
“I think, therefore I am” Is our grounding for all the presups out there. This grounding is sufficient in a consistent universe
You know that this is a weak grounding
This doesn't follow.
It’s grounding in our observable universe. It doesn’t require additional assumptions.
@@stefanhuber7357 Is this statement "grounded in our observable universe", whatever you think that means? "It doesn't require additional assumptions" is itself an additional assumption.
Cool how David schwimmer called in like that
“Thoughts aren’t real.
Yeah they are.
Can you prove that?”
(x100)
The presup script is designed to keep the presup talking at the person until they have a psychotic episode borne out of frustration, then claim victory
Aw bless, he was so excited when he thought Eric had said the magic phrase.
'Explain to me the non-existence of the supernatural.' Well, he's got us there.
Bro his final response was literally “because I don’t like the alternative” that is his whole grounding for reality, what a fucking joke 😂😂😂
I loved when the dude yelled "GOTCHA" 😂
How do I trust my eyes? When I run through a dark room full of obstacles I hurt myself, but when I run through the same room well lit I don't.
The presup method: ask a question. Get an answer. Ignore the answer. Ask the same question. Repeat.
Great episode🤘🏼
This guy would give Nathan Oakley a run for his money.
He doesnt get it. Its way over him
Ok, how do you know that a logical being that grounds reality is telling you things, rather than you are just imagining that one is? See, we can do this too.
8:42 The guy who says God is real and saying they need proof magic is real. If I would not have heard it I would not have believed it.
He grounds his beliefs in something he believes... making it a circular argument.
Presups are such fartsmellers.
How many times can this man tell you to hold on
The really big problem with this appeal to the laws of logic is that the laws of logic do not seem to be universal, and in fact we're needing to develop new variations of them to deal with the outputs of modern physics.
For example, it is possible for observers in different relativistic frames to conclude both P and not P, depending upon their frame. And this suggests that the laws of logic are in fact relative and not objective.
You misunderstand basic relativity and logic still remains objective, discovered, and still 100% right all the time; that includes modern physics (you would know that if you understood the basics, let alone advanced)
Gravity is the same throughout other planets. It’s just that the gravitational constant varies depending on the planetary body
There are two views on whether the laws of logic
Some say its not objective but dependent on the existence of an intelligent being
And some say its not dependant but objective truths about the universe.
Even mathematics is based on these laws .
Logic is *discovered*, we just invented words to describe it.....
Still, presuppositionalists are irrational and should not be taken seriously.
The dude ran away as soon as he realised he admittrd his position was based on an argument from ignorance.
Laws of logic are just descriptions of reality.
bold of you to end on parsimonious knowing that i have no idea what that means
My position would be that laws - such as the laws of physics or the laws of logic - are descriptions of reality and how reality operates. If humans didn't exist, then we have every reason to believe that reality would continue to operate in the same way, but there wouldn't be any humans around to describe it and therefore, definitionally, descriptive laws would cease to exist.
The laws of logic are axioms. You have to assume them to try to disprove them or use them. The laws of logic and reality are presuppositions everyone must assume as real, but that's as far as you need to go without evidence.
This is a claim without evidence, therefore you must reject it by your own logic.
In order for me to accept this presup’s belief in god, I have to first accept that reality exists, that he exists, and that his presupposition is accurate. Wow, that’s a lot to presuppose. I’ll just stick with believing that I exist.
"How can you trust your senses?" he says, literally by moving his tongue and pushing his diaphragm in coordination...
I just found a logic in the back yard. I'll bring it over...
“A mountain is a mountain not a river. A mountain can not be a river” I guess this guy have never heard of a volcano… a literal river of mountain… Logic is a language. Language is useful not correct. I also think square circles and married bachelor can exist. Grammatical paradoxes are not impossible, just context specific and require overly pedantic explanations to be accurate.
HOW DO YOU KNOW!?
If existing, how would a god truly know that he exist and are not just another component of the simulation? I do not see how a deity is a way out of hard solipsism.
It just so incredible that theist don’t understand that claiming they can know reality is what it is because they believe in their imaginary friend, is not the same as actually knowing what reality is.
We define what words mean by using them. And similar words dont need to mean the same thing.
In dutch the ocean is Zee and a lake is Meer.
In german, they use the same words, but they mean absolutely the opposite.
Language and words are funny that way.
"i hate to be able not to answer a question" and THAT is what it all boils down to. People so uncomfortable of not having answers so they go with whatever satisfies their insecurities.
Presup cannot get you to any specific theology...it can only get you to deism. Which is why they argue in such broad terms. They argue in broad terms and it falls apart with hyptheticals...which is why presuppers use the "world view body double" tactic as a defense because presup cannot handle hypotheticals. It needs to remain as broad as possible so the opponent has to agree with them at some point down the script.
"I don't know" is still an answer.
A mountain is not a river is not the law of contradiction in any way.
He is a simple fool who thinks his belief is better without understanding any opposing views. You destroyed his reasoning that is based on nothing but belief.
Speak for yourself.
Ross from Friends should probably just stick to paleontology.
laws of logic are discovered in the same sense as other physical laws are discovered - natural laws just a description of how our universe is
“I don’t want to admit I can’t answer the question, so I’m assuming I have an answer.” Presups are morons.
There is no answer to hard solipsism. The presups just use god to get around that problem.
The problem with using a god is that you're just injecting a bigger mystery or problem that we cannot prove because a god first must be demonstrated to exist and then you have to demonstrate it created reality.
Good luck... 😆
Going a step further; there is nothing a God could do to prove to itself or others that it isnt also living in a simulation, dream etc.
How is it a "bigger mystery" and why does that matter? Can the size of "mysteries" be scientifically measured now?
@@trollingpancake167if reality/solipsism is the small problem, then whatever created reality would seem likely to be the larger mystery.
Its like he had his first week of intro to logic and feels like he can destroy atheism now.
Smartest person in Ohio
Must be the pet food.
Presuppositionalists can fly like Peter Pan by tugging on their own scalp.
2:40 Hahahahaha!
18:55 HAHAHAHHA. He has special powers.
Wow, this guy thinks he's smart but he doesn't even understand basic logic.
Haha he revealed the truth at the end and then ran. He said it's because he hates to be someone who can't explain something.
The religious guys argument is saying our thoughts and words are prescriptive instead of descriptive. Thats where his whole foundation falls apart.
Hold on.
These arguments are like being taken hostage by a homeless person.
A is a Batchelor
B is a Unmarried Man
A=A true
But
A=B also true
presups always end up with, if you can't solve the problem of hard solipsism, that means god.
Bro lives and dies on logic, but then espouses abductive reasoning, which is the weakest type of logical reasoning.
Mountains have rivers though 🤷♂️
Nobody, not even presuppers can give a foundation for the laws of logic. That's why they're called presuppositions. The theist must presuppose them too, as he reasons his way to his god conclusion, or beg the question. But we don't need a further presupposition of god because presuppositions by definition don't need further foundations. We've already got the presupposed laws of logic, which we know exist, so let's keep our presuppositions to a minimum and not add a god to them.
Why should they be "kept at a minimum"?, and why do you "need" to "need"?
Our minds Evolved, they ARE reliable because we have survived millions of generations!!
That doesn't follow.
@trollingpancake167
Only if you're stupid!! Go study Evolutionary genetics in college!!
What do Beings from Mars call "cats?" If humanity vanishes tomorrow, what we call cats can b called "narwalls" to Martians. So "cats" become "narwalls." What we call things doesn't make that Thing that name, just how we identify it
4 easy words for the pressuper "AND NEITHER CAN YOU..."
The pressuper pretends he has solved Hume's problem of induction when in reality he is merely CLAIMING that he did.
😡 Dude is SOOO!!! heated that you totally dismantled his bs worldview 😅
Logic is *discovered*, we just invented words to describe it.....
Still, presuppositionalists are irrational and should not be taken seriously.
"I hate to be the kind of person that can't answer a question." So... you just throw "God did it" around any time you don't know an answer? Yeah, you're the logical one, bro.
This guy just heard presup arguments a few months ago and now thinks he is the smartest boy. 😂.
Absolutely insufferable.
so, the whole presuppositional "argument" is an appeal to consequences fallacy...
You should have just kept asking him HOW DO YOU KNOW? to everything he said, until he said ‘I don’t’, and then celebrated like you’d won
How do you KNOW God exists?
How do you KNOW your belief is real?
How do you KNOW you aren’t just dreaming right now?
How do you KNOW logical laws exist?
How do you KNOW your brain isn’t deceiving you?
Apparently, he thinks that only he can do that.
Isn't god supposed to be a mind?
Putting a hat on a hat doesn't make one more dressed.
I love when they just repeat themselves until you ask their explanation... And then they commit the fallacy they said you were doing. Lol theists are funny when they try to logic.
You still allowed him to shift the burden of proof. You asked him to demonstrate his claim & he started asking you questions like where do the laws of logic come from. Not sure why you fall into their trap repeatedly
Oh! I proved to us that lord KRSNa is the ground for everything. Now what? Will he convert now?
Reducing to hard solipsism is pointless because it doesn't get you anywhere in the discussion but to sound like a debate bro.
Bless him, he’s trying so hard, but literally every sentence out of his mouth contains something incorrect. His epistemology is just so flawed.
I mean he isn’t ENTIRELY wrong that if you say something doesn’t exist Vs claiming you have no reason to believe it, there is some burden there. But otherwise solid argument
No there’s no evidence of miracles and there’s no way to say there’s no evidence of miracles that’s why proving negative claims is really difficult/impossible so the burden of proof is on him to show an example of a miracle that has no other explanation besides supernatural
It's so hilarious to me that this presupp guy actually thinks his arguments are good. It's so non-sensical!
This fool's brain is what's broken. He literally thinks he can just assert what is valid and reject whatever he wants via some imagined authority he in no way posesses. The arrogance of Dunning-Krueger and religious mind bending. And his claimed "grounding" is pure imagination he simply claims makes sense and has proof. When of course there is none.
Hopefully, in the last year Peterson you've learned more about the burden of proof. The doofus was right: "the supernatural doesn't exist" is a positive claim and therefore carries a burden. However, the WRONG thing the doofus did was ascribe that position to you. You said "I don't believe in the supernatural", which is not the same as "the supernatural doesn't exist."
To better explain. If someone says, miracles happen, and you say "I don't believe you", that's not a positive claim and the person who says miracles happen has the burden.
You were both wrong on that, but you still had the right idea. The burden was on him.
You should have asked this foolosopher how he copes with subatomic world where laws of logic aren't applicable... his god is out of there?
"I hate being the kind of person that doesn't have an answer." Because your ego is so fragile that to be anything less than right would destroy your weak little mind.
"Mr. Peterson", are you actually the Finnish C-list celebrity Juhani Koskinen? Do you not want to be associated with your real name here?
How does he know and trust that there really is a "god?" Your not giving him the answers that he wants...😆
Hey presups. We don't care if reality is a lie. We still have to interact using our senses. I'm sorry yours are faulty.