“So your position is there is no gods. Okay”! Less than 1 minute in and DD is trying to tell Oz what his position is, just to suit his script. DD doesn’t listen at all. He just wants his plan to play out by the numbers.
Oz is definitely a stand up guy. I think the angriest I've seen him get is in a video with Floyd (another guy I have a lot of respect for) and Shamos. At one point I think he tells Shamos to "step off." The video is a classic at this point.
Not started watching yet. I predict that little darth will mute and run away like a prepubecent school girl when ozy ties him in knots and totally dishonestly misrepresent the conversation!
22:15 Sorry HogTie, this is where you messed up. This IS how humans work, but you forgot that Derp is not so much human, as a composite of everything despicable about Van Til, Bahnsen, and Bruggencate boiled down, crystalized, and smoked out of tinfoil. Human is a stretch, at best.
Could there be any more irony of dd claiming Ozy had a double standard? lol DD interrupts at almost every sentence then complains when Ozy interrupts to point out the blatant misrepresentation. None of this is surprising behavior for dd. IMO don’t talk to him when he has mod powers, he’s too abusive and evasive when he has that control.
These are the kind of conversations I would love to participate! What a pity that my time zone doesn’t allow for it. 🥺 It’s so good to listen to Hogtie again!
@@JerryPenna 😂 That’s fair. I will have to give you that one… he does loose his train of thought sometimes and leaves the idea hanging in the ether! Still prefer to listen to him talk to many of the ones that are very precise in what they are saying but struggle to do it charitably and civilly.
Gary demands respect for his age but shows no one any himself his how old are you is a digression used as a dismissal and is always a set up for an open ended insult , act your age etc.
Gary sole aim in any confrontation is to dominate disarm and crush his opponent , to blind them with rhetorical confabulations insults and claim a perique victory by default .
1:15:45 Pay attention to Ozy's answer because we all joked in chat about how Darth was just going to completely strawman Ozy in his after-the-kick monologue and I happened to notice today on a Darth Dawkins Debunked video that not only did he strawman Ozy, he lied completely about what Ozy's answer was. This is the video: th-cam.com/video/Tg0oQnEiUkU/w-d-xo.html
Gary is claiming metaphysics is the foundation of all that is physical his god metaphysically conjured all that is physical into being , he thinks he can metaphysically philosophically and thereby logical define his god into existence and that this claim is undeniable because you can not positively disprove it .
So the car was broken and now it’s working, the reason to why it’s working now is “because the mechanic”, according to Christians. Never mind it doesn’t explain how the concept of the mechanic explains what and how he did it, because he’s the mechanic!
I'd like to see someone use Darth's minimalist definition of God against him. He wants the atheist to demonstrate their rationality by providing a sound deductive argument against his proposed deistic God. It's Darth's position that you can't invoke a deistic God because it's not revelatory. He also says you can't be neutral towards God so regardless of whether the denial of his definition of God is rational or not, his own argument concludes that all other alternatives are irrational. At the very least you could expose the dishonesty of his question.
As soon as you attack his minimalist ultimate transcendent brain matter god he calls category error or other bullshit and blows right over it. He just plays metaphysical pigeon chess so he can pigeon preach and troll.
When you argue with Gary you are driving up a one way street one set of rules for you anther for him ,he lies he is disingenuous and has not an oz of intellectual integrity he is verbose that is to say he uses far too many words and unnsecersery nomenclature, it not just being long winded Ozy is not as is see it verbose his words carry value or meaning and contribute to content verbosity can make a request for the bath room into a speech. Just saying .
Darth is still with his "God does not exist because?..." bullshit question. That question is meant for someone who claims be able to create god and failed, not to someone who simply doubts the proposition. Old Derpy Donuts just doesn't get it. Well he probably does knowing what a great troll that malformed loaded disingenuous question is.
How did god do it? You need to drill down on this. WhT did he do? When? What tools did he use? Does he have a lab?helpers? Why did he do it? What exactly did he create? How does he keep records of what he created and what is coming in the future? What took him so long? Why such a short life span? Then go to heaven. Explain what where how heaven works. And hell… All this is target rich stuff for deists?
31:00 Came here to say this. No way could Darth actually give his "good reasons" to not believe in Bigfoot without breaking his own rules of what he allows/won't allow as "good reasons."
He has in the past and it was just special pleading. He says for big foot and Santa etc we can use "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" but not with God because is in its own special category. Then he says comparing God to big foot and Santa is an atheist cliche, I've heard it all before, I'm 60 years old, you should be embarrassed, I'll kick you! Now, God dose not exist because?
This was such a helpful breakdown! I just saw this video on TR's channel but your commentary was extra enlightening. My knowledge of philosophy is pretty weak so and I plan to watch some of Ozy's content. Thanks for putting this out there!
I picked it up in northwestern Saskatchewan. That's the same place I learned about "pulling shitters" and tried my best not to "hit the rhubarb." Drive safely, Buddy!
@@chadzsideg7710 YOU SAID GONCH!!! OMG!! Literally less than 20 minutes ago, I was talking with my wife about this comment thread, and she said, "I still can't believe you guys say 'gonch' instead of 'ginch' -- That's just weird." Chad, I haven't heard the word 'gonch' in years, and you posted that right after my wife was making fun of it. That's hilarious! Thanks for that.
I don't understand why so many people are debating with this guy, what's the point. Why you all treat him like he deserves all this attention? Nothing he's saying is not even intellectually challenging.
Pizza Pops are clearly more like empanadas than samosas. Also, we Americans probably wouldn't take too kindly to whatever baguette pronunciation of poutine that is. It would aggravate the masses to learn of another culture perverting the culinary boundaries of pudding.
2:03:42 Along these lines, he will also on occasion say something like, "You're about to piss me off," "this is why I get so pissed off," or "and people wonder why I get so pissed off," etc. No DD, not one person in the room cares whether or why - or feels threated by the fact that - you might or do get pissed off. This is narcissism, sure, but also a huge red flag of a potential abuser. IRL, we should care about people near him.
You made an interesting point there that I haven't considered, regarding his telling the room about getting pissed off. He's insinuating that we should care about him getting pissed. It's an implication that his emotions should be important to us, and that upsetting him, in particular, is something that everyone should avoid doing. Wow. Yeah, further evidence of his narcissism. Studying Darth from a psychological perspective is a pet project of mine. He's an insufferable person, but a fascinating case study. Cheers!
@Jefferson Spatchcock Hi! If one desired to speak with you, or Ozy or HogTie, what would be the best way? It seems you guys are knowledgeable and respectful
I’m not sure how active Ozy is currently, but he was on Clubhouse occasionally. HogTie is there too, but I don’t know how often. I just rejoined Clubhouse but I’m not on that much. I’m also in Discord or you can reach me by email.
@@JeffersonSpatchcock Thanks! I'm not very familiar with the community. I tried to install Clubhouse once but was unsuccessful. If you have a Discord, I would love to chat with you.
Only seems fair; Gary has spent 12+ years of his life crafting this argument, it deserves a few minutes of analysis. It’s a fascinating argument to unpack even if it is a monument to its creator’s madness.
@@Detson404 Rather than just a appealing to ridicule fallacy, which you commited with the madness comment, let's hear your non-fallacious objection to presup. I've been asking atheists for years for a non-fallacious objection to presup. Still have yet to hear what it is.
@@lightbeforethetunnel The argument isn’t wrong because Darth is nuts, the argument is the evidence that he IS nuts. Why do you keep asking for people to disprove presup? That’s an incoherent question. It’s like asking me to disprove Euclid’s First Postulate. Either you’re operating within the Christian worldview or you’re not.
@@Detson404 The purpose of presup is its a school of argumentation which provides argumentation which demonstrates, to the perspective of anyone of any worldview, why the Christian worldview is the only true worldview. That it's the only correct worldview to start with. The reason why I ask for your non-fallacious objection to presup is because of this: By responding with fallacies, you've demonstrated that you're emotionally motivated in the sense that you don't WANT presup to be correct. But since you can't coherent refute/invalidate presup, the only way you can create the illusion to yourself that it's not correct is by using logical fallacies. That's typically how people react when they're experiencing cognitive dissonance in response to argumentation they don't WANT to be true (but objectively is). It's a very common reaction.
@@lightbeforethetunnel It doesn’t matter what I want. Again, the core argument isn’t incorrect because Darth is nuts. He just happens to be nuts. It’s incoherent to ask for a disproof of presup because it’s a worldview. At best you could say that it’s not the most parsimonious explanation or that it’s maybe not properly basic.
There is only one God who exists as three distinct persons who are coequal and coeternal, God the Father, God the Son, and God The Holy Spirit. God loves us and wants a relationship with us. The bad news is that sin separates us from God. We have all sinned and broken God’s law, sins such as lying, stealing, anger, lust, pride, fornication, abortion, dishonoring our parents, and gossip. God is Holy and Just and because of this, God cannot let sin go unpunished, and that punishment is eternal hell. We can’t work our way into heaven and our good deeds can’t save us from our sin. The bible says all our righteous acts are like filthy rags. We need something more than our own righteousness. Our righteousness does not measure up to God’s standard of goodness. The Good news is that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. God sent his son Jesus to save his people from their sin. Jesus lived a perfect life and never sinned. He willingly went to the cross where God the Father took the wrath that was meant for his people and put it on Jesus. Jesus paid the price for their sin and died on the cross, and on the third day God raised him from the dead. Jesus overcame and defeated death. Now anyone who would put their trust in Jesus and repent of their sins, will have their sins forgiven and they too will overcome death and will receive eternal life. To repent means to turn away from sin, to change your mind about the sin you use to do. A change of mind will result in a change of action. Christians will struggle with sin and they won't be perfect, but they don’t embrace and live in sin. Jesus, who is God, is the standard of goodness and anyone who puts their trust in him will receive his righteousness. When it’s time to face God, God will welcome them in heaven because of Jesus’s righteousness. If you die today, will you face God with your righteousness or will you accept Jesus’s righteousness? Repent and believe today
If your goal is to convince non believers that Christianity is true, just stating confidently what you believe won't do it. You need to provide reasons why anyone should accept it as true and asking people to 'believe today' makes the false assumption that we can simply choose what to believe at the drop of a hat. I could no more choose to believe in the Christian God than I could just start believing that London is the Capital of France without sufficient justification to make either proposition believable.
@@philwhitehouse4290 Hi Phil. If one still doubts there is a lot of evidence, eye witness accounts, fulfilled prophecy, archaeological evidence, Scientific Evidence, extra-biblical historical evidence. Even non Christians scholars agree that Jesus is a historical person. I would suggest anyone skeptical to checkout Mike Winger evidence for the bible series on TH-cam. I hope this helps you.
In worldview debates, both sides have an equal burden to argue for why their worldview is true over the competing worldview. That seems to be the primary problem... you guys seem to think of your worldview as the "default worldview" which automatically becomes true if you subjectively determine the evidence/reasoning for a competing worldview isn't sufficient, which is appeal to ignorance fallacious reasoning in the fundamental way you guys approach these debates. There is no such thing as a "default worldview" which becomes true without any evidence/reasoning just because you complained, don't like, or don't understand the evidence/reasoning for a competing worldview. You need evidence/reasoning for your positive belief in the worldview you adhere to. Otherwise, you're violating your own standard for truth by believing things without evidence/reasoning.
Of course stipulating the ultimate ground of all being is a mind adds explanatory power. Minds have causal power. It explains the beginning of the universe. The Kalam supports that its an unembodied mind too. Look at the last trait which is logically deduced below. God is the best explanation of the beginning of the Universe. A)Whatever begins to exist has a cause. B)The universe began to exist. C)Therefore the universe has a cause. It can be logically deduced that cause must have the following traits: Spaceless - Because space came into being and did not exist until this cause brought it into existence, the cause cannot be spatial. It must be spaceless or non-spatial. You cannot be inside of something if you are that something’s cause. You cannot be inside of something if that something did not exist until you brought it into existence Timeless - Since time did not exist until the cause, the cause cannot be inside of time. It must be timeless. Immaterial - The cause’s non-spatiality entails immateriality. How so? Because material objects cannot exist unless space exists. Material objects have mass and ergo occupy spatial dimensions. If there is no space, matter cannot exist. This means that because the cause is non-spatial, it is therefore non-material. Unimaginably Powerful (if not omnipotent) - Anything able to create all matter, energy, space, and time out of absolutely nothing must be extremely powerful, if not omnipotent. Supernatural - “Nature” and “The universe” are synonyms. Nature did not begin to exist until this cause caused it to. Therefore, a natural cause (a cause coming, by definition, from nature) cannot be responsible for the origin of nature. To say otherwise would be to spout incoherence. You’d basically be saying “Nature caused nature to come into being.” Uncaused - Given that the cause of the universe is timeless, the cause cannot itself have a beginning. To have a beginning to one’s existence entails a before and after relationship. There’s a time before one existed and a time after one came into existence. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. Since the cause existed sans time, the cause, therefore, cannot have a beginning. It’s beginningless. Personal - This is an entailment of the cause’s immateriality. There are two types of things recognized by philosophers that are immaterial: abstract objects (such as numbers, sets, or other mathematical entities) or unembodied minds. Philosophers realize that abstract objects if they exist, they exist as non-physical entities. However, abstract objects cannot produce any effects. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number 3 isn’t going to be producing any effects anytime soon. Given that abstract objects are causally impotent, it, therefore, follows that an unembodied mind is the cause of the universe’ beginning All these traits that are logically deduced for the necessary cause of the universe's beginning match precisely with descriptions of God.
_"God is the best explanation of the beginning of the Universe."_ Nope. As Ozy made it very clear, God isn't any kind of explanation for the beginning of the universe, or anything else. First of all _things_ aren't explanations. "God" doesn't explain anything any better than "my left foot" explains anything. Second, for something to even be a _candidate_ as an explanation, it has to be _possible_ and for something to be a _good_ candidate (let alone the best) it has to be _proven_ to exist. I could posit Big Foot as the best explanation for every unsolved murder and missing person in history. There's literally zero unsolved murders or abductions that _couldn't_ have been committed by Big Foot... except there's no compelling reason to think that Big Foot exists, so its a trash option as explanations go. _"It can be logically deduced that cause must have the following traits:"_ Only if one grants you all of your totally unsubstantiated premises, which no reasonable person would. While I don't subscribe to the position myself, (as there is no evidence pointing to it) "the universe came from nothing" is a far better, and more parsimonious explanation than "God." Not to mention it has far, far fewer philosophical commitments.
The real problem dealing with a Presup, is that they're too Stup!d to realize that the problem, is that they are too Stup!d to comprehend anything outside the Presup Gibberish Loops. Modern religion is nothing more than thousands of years of bad Fan-Fic writing, originally based on ancient goat herder mythology. Everything Presup is based on, is Nonsensical Gibberish that doesn't actually apply to this Reality; their arguments only apply to the Fan-Fic writing in their head. Presup isn't an argument, it's a method to hide from having to actually deal with real arguments.
@ajhieb There is so much rambling and fallacious reasoning in your post, none of which addressed any of the substance in the OP at all, so I shouldn't even be honoring it with a response. But just to highlight the category error fallacy (the same one you always commit: non-contingent to contingent claims) you said "for something to even be a candidate as an explanation, it has to be possible..." Worldviews are non-contingencies, which are not probabilistic claims. That's why if I were to ask what Aron Ra always asks, only in reverse, you won't be able to answer it: "Can you provide independently verifiable evidence that your particular non-theistic worldview is possible?" Of course you can't. Because that's an expectation in scientific debates about normative-level claims, not paradigm-level debates between competing worldviews (which are non-contingent claims) Every worldview is a proposed model of reality, which is a proposed explanation. The difference is: Christians have a deductive justification that ours is the correct one and everyone else's is false. You guys have no justification at all for your model of reality that you start with, AND you delusionally ignore the positive demonstration that it's necessarily false on top of that. That's not only just irrational, but it's literally delusional. Definition of delusional - holding to a false belief despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
@ajhieb Also, I don't think the Kalam is the best argument for God anymore... I wrote the OP over a year ago. But claiming that you don't accept the first premise is a lie. You are all about science, which requires presupposing the Causal Principle (which includes that everything that begins to exist has a cause) So, yes you do accept the first premise of the Kalam. You just lie about it when it's no longer convenient to accept it, in typical atheist fashion.
On the TH-cam mobile app, I've bumped the Subscribe button and both sub'd to channels I don't care for and unsub'd from channels I enjoy. Having said that, TH-cam has some "cleansing" algorithm that weirdly auto-unsubs you from channels you're sub'd to. No one knows why. For example, I have sub'd to AronRa 4 times in the past 4 years. TH-cam keeps deciding for me that his channel sucks. So maybe you unsub'd accidentally or maybe you didn't do a thing. TH-cam is weird.
TH-cam may have deleted an entire comment thread on another video I did. The wanker that left the comments is blaming me for it, but I’d responded to him and even my response is gone. TH-cam is a fickle mistress.
Darths fear was palpable
“So your position is there is no gods. Okay”!
Less than 1 minute in and DD is trying to tell Oz what his position is, just to suit his script. DD doesn’t listen at all. He just wants his plan to play out by the numbers.
cowardly darth outclassed again by Ozzy
Oz is definitely a stand up guy. I think the angriest I've seen him get is in a video with Floyd (another guy I have a lot of respect for) and Shamos. At one point I think he tells Shamos to "step off." The video is a classic at this point.
Haha, love that you pick the exact moment I would have picked. I remember it well. He's not one for the dis smackdowns, but that was his.
Ozzy shredded DD, just imagine what he'd do to JRobin.
Not started watching yet. I predict that little darth will mute and run away like a prepubecent school girl when ozy ties him in knots and totally dishonestly misrepresent the conversation!
correct!
Yep. You win.
Exit strategy engaged?
22:15 Sorry HogTie, this is where you messed up. This IS how humans work, but you forgot that Derp is not so much human, as a composite of everything despicable about Van Til, Bahnsen, and Bruggencate boiled down, crystalized, and smoked out of tinfoil. Human is a stretch, at best.
I am guessing this ends with a dishonest rant and bloviation at the legion of doom?
I’m sure there was. I wonder where DD goes these days, post argument, to huff his copium…🤔
Could there be any more irony of dd claiming Ozy had a double standard? lol DD interrupts at almost every sentence then complains when Ozy interrupts to point out the blatant misrepresentation. None of this is surprising behavior for dd. IMO don’t talk to him when he has mod powers, he’s too abusive and evasive when he has that control.
As Clemenza said: "Leave the potato - take the poutine pizza pop."
These are the kind of conversations I would love to participate! What a pity that my time zone doesn’t allow for it. 🥺
It’s so good to listen to Hogtie again!
If you like not completing a sentence!
@@JerryPenna 😂
That’s fair. I will have to give you that one… he does loose his train of thought sometimes and leaves the idea hanging in the ether!
Still prefer to listen to him talk to many of the ones that are very precise in what they are saying but struggle to do it charitably and civilly.
@@Smayor75 I mean did doesn't allow you to complete a sentence, right? You weren't referring to dd as charitable and polite were you?
Pizza pops don't exist because?.....
Gary demands respect for his age but shows no one any himself his how old are you is a digression used as a dismissal and is always a set up for an open ended insult , act your age etc.
Gary sole aim in any confrontation is to dominate disarm and crush his opponent , to blind them with rhetorical confabulations insults and claim a perique victory by default .
Plus he loads his questions and uses mod powers to mute any challenges. He’s completely a dishonest authoritarian asshole.
1:15:45 Pay attention to Ozy's answer because we all joked in chat about how Darth was just going to completely strawman Ozy in his after-the-kick monologue and I happened to notice today on a Darth Dawkins Debunked video that not only did he strawman Ozy, he lied completely about what Ozy's answer was.
This is the video: th-cam.com/video/Tg0oQnEiUkU/w-d-xo.html
Universe creating pixies explains the universe too.
Human decency from Gary are you out of your mind 🤣
Gary is claiming metaphysics is the foundation of all that is physical his god metaphysically conjured all that is physical into being , he thinks he can metaphysically philosophically and thereby logical define his god into existence and that this claim is undeniable because you can not positively disprove it .
That's his game in short. But it comes down to pigeon preaching in the end.
So the car was broken and now it’s working, the reason to why it’s working now is “because the mechanic”, according to Christians. Never mind it doesn’t explain how the concept of the mechanic explains what and how he did it, because he’s the mechanic!
Exactly! May I please steal your non-Pizza-Pop example?
@@HogTieChamp it ain’t like I’m gonna copyright it or anything, so sure I guess ;)
I'd like to see someone use Darth's minimalist definition of God against him. He wants the atheist to demonstrate their rationality by providing a sound deductive argument against his proposed deistic God. It's Darth's position that you can't invoke a deistic God because it's not revelatory. He also says you can't be neutral towards God so regardless of whether the denial of his definition of God is rational or not, his own argument concludes that all other alternatives are irrational. At the very least you could expose the dishonesty of his question.
Ultimately there is no difference between Darth minimalist god and the anthropomorphization of metaphysics.
As soon as you attack his minimalist ultimate transcendent brain matter god he calls category error or other bullshit and blows right over it. He just plays metaphysical pigeon chess so he can pigeon preach and troll.
When you argue with Gary you are driving up a one way street one set of rules for you anther for him ,he lies he is disingenuous and has not an oz of intellectual integrity he is verbose that is to say he uses far too many words and unnsecersery nomenclature, it not just being long winded Ozy is not as is see it verbose his words carry value or meaning and contribute to content verbosity can make a request for the bath room into a speech. Just saying .
Darth is still with his "God does not exist because?..." bullshit question. That question is meant for someone who claims be able to create god and failed, not to someone who simply doubts the proposition. Old Derpy Donuts just doesn't get it. Well he probably does knowing what a great troll that malformed loaded disingenuous question is.
How did god do it? You need to drill down on this. WhT did he do? When? What tools did he use? Does he have a lab?helpers? Why did he do it? What exactly did he create? How does he keep records of what he created and what is coming in the future? What took him so long? Why such a short life span?
Then go to heaven. Explain what where how heaven works. And hell…
All this is target rich stuff for deists?
31:00 Came here to say this. No way could Darth actually give his "good reasons" to not believe in Bigfoot without breaking his own rules of what he allows/won't allow as "good reasons."
He has in the past and it was just special pleading.
He says for big foot and Santa etc we can use "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" but not with God because is in its own special category.
Then he says comparing God to big foot and Santa is an atheist cliche, I've heard it all before, I'm 60 years old, you should be embarrassed, I'll kick you! Now, God dose not exist because?
I'm so glad my random comment at 1:27:35 triggered a penny candy story from HogTie.
This was such a helpful breakdown! I just saw this video on TR's channel but your commentary was extra enlightening. My knowledge of philosophy is pretty weak so and I plan to watch some of Ozy's content. Thanks for putting this out there!
Jefferson...you don't remember romp-a-room...I'm old I guess...
I remember it. I just don’t remember ever watching it while I was a kid.
@@JeffersonSpatchcock - ah okay. I had 2 friends that were actually on it.
Was this just two weeks ago? Man I have lost track of things, I haven't seen either Ozy or Hog Tie in years.
Spudding… omg you guys are so eastern. ;)
I picked it up in northwestern Saskatchewan. That's the same place I learned about "pulling shitters" and tried my best not to "hit the rhubarb." Drive safely, Buddy!
@@HogTieChamp no worries…. My wife jokes that Saskatchewan is a nice place to be from. Just as long as you don’t get your gonch in a twist.
@@chadzsideg7710 YOU SAID GONCH!!! OMG!! Literally less than 20 minutes ago, I was talking with my wife about this comment thread, and she said, "I still can't believe you guys say 'gonch' instead of 'ginch' -- That's just weird."
Chad, I haven't heard the word 'gonch' in years, and you posted that right after my wife was making fun of it. That's hilarious! Thanks for that.
Wow, how did someone get that massive sphere to balance perfectly on that tiny spike?
Geoff did it!
Wow thanks!!!!
I don't understand why so many people are debating with this guy, what's the point. Why you all treat him like he deserves all this attention? Nothing he's saying is not even intellectually challenging.
Pizza Pops are clearly more like empanadas than samosas.
Also, we Americans probably wouldn't take too kindly to whatever baguette pronunciation of poutine that is. It would aggravate the masses to learn of another culture perverting the culinary boundaries of pudding.
The terms not-God and God-worldworld begs the question that if there was a God then it wouldn't exist in a different world.
Wtf is a pizza pop
Pizza pocket.
1:12:17 we have pizza pockets.
2:03:42 Along these lines, he will also on occasion say something like, "You're about to piss me off," "this is why I get so pissed off," or "and people wonder why I get so pissed off," etc. No DD, not one person in the room cares whether or why - or feels threated by the fact that - you might or do get pissed off. This is narcissism, sure, but also a huge red flag of a potential abuser. IRL, we should care about people near him.
You made an interesting point there that I haven't considered, regarding his telling the room about getting pissed off. He's insinuating that we should care about him getting pissed. It's an implication that his emotions should be important to us, and that upsetting him, in particular, is something that everyone should avoid doing.
Wow. Yeah, further evidence of his narcissism.
Studying Darth from a psychological perspective is a pet project of mine. He's an insufferable person, but a fascinating case study.
Cheers!
@Jefferson Spatchcock
Hi! If one desired to speak with you, or Ozy or HogTie, what would be the best way? It seems you guys are knowledgeable and respectful
I’m not sure how active Ozy is currently, but he was on Clubhouse occasionally. HogTie is there too, but I don’t know how often. I just rejoined Clubhouse but I’m not on that much. I’m also in Discord or you can reach me by email.
@@JeffersonSpatchcock
Thanks! I'm not very familiar with the community. I tried to install Clubhouse once but was unsuccessful. If you have a Discord, I would love to chat with you.
@@natanaellizama6559 Unfortunately, I don’t. I’m not active much on Discord.
@@JeffersonSpatchcock
That's a bummer. I've never been able to download Clubhouse in my Mac
@@JeffersonSpatchcock
Installed the Clubhouse app on my phone. What is your community or how do I contact you?
HogTie sounds like Gus lol
5 to 10 seconds of the debate.
5 minutes of commentary.
5 to 10 seconds of the debate
10 minutes of commentary...
Only seems fair; Gary has spent 12+ years of his life crafting this argument, it deserves a few minutes of analysis. It’s a fascinating argument to unpack even if it is a monument to its creator’s madness.
@@Detson404 Rather than just a appealing to ridicule fallacy, which you commited with the madness comment, let's hear your non-fallacious objection to presup.
I've been asking atheists for years for a non-fallacious objection to presup. Still have yet to hear what it is.
@@lightbeforethetunnel The argument isn’t wrong because Darth is nuts, the argument is the evidence that he IS nuts. Why do you keep asking for people to disprove presup? That’s an incoherent question. It’s like asking me to disprove Euclid’s First Postulate. Either you’re operating within the Christian worldview or you’re not.
@@Detson404 The purpose of presup is its a school of argumentation which provides argumentation which demonstrates, to the perspective of anyone of any worldview, why the Christian worldview is the only true worldview. That it's the only correct worldview to start with.
The reason why I ask for your non-fallacious objection to presup is because of this:
By responding with fallacies, you've demonstrated that you're emotionally motivated in the sense that you don't WANT presup to be correct.
But since you can't coherent refute/invalidate presup, the only way you can create the illusion to yourself that it's not correct is by using logical fallacies.
That's typically how people react when they're experiencing cognitive dissonance in response to argumentation they don't WANT to be true (but objectively is). It's a very common reaction.
@@lightbeforethetunnel It doesn’t matter what I want. Again, the core argument isn’t incorrect because Darth is nuts. He just happens to be nuts. It’s incoherent to ask for a disproof of presup because it’s a worldview. At best you could say that it’s not the most parsimonious explanation or that it’s maybe not properly basic.
There is only one God who exists as three distinct persons who are coequal and coeternal, God the Father, God the Son, and God The Holy Spirit. God loves us and wants a relationship with us. The bad news is that sin separates us from God. We have all sinned and broken God’s law, sins such as lying, stealing, anger, lust, pride, fornication, abortion, dishonoring our parents, and gossip. God is Holy and Just and because of this, God cannot let sin go unpunished, and that punishment is eternal hell. We can’t work our way into heaven and our good deeds can’t save us from our sin. The bible says all our righteous acts are like filthy rags. We need something more than our own righteousness. Our righteousness does not measure up to God’s standard of goodness.
The Good news is that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. God sent his son Jesus to save his people from their sin. Jesus lived a perfect life and never sinned. He willingly went to the cross where God the Father took the wrath that was meant for his people and put it on Jesus. Jesus paid the price for their sin and died on the cross, and on the third day God raised him from the dead. Jesus overcame and defeated death. Now anyone who would put their trust in Jesus and repent of their sins, will have their sins forgiven and they too will overcome death and will receive eternal life. To repent means to turn away from sin, to change your mind about the sin you use to do. A change of mind will result in a change of action. Christians will struggle with sin and they won't be perfect, but they don’t embrace and live in sin. Jesus, who is God, is the standard of goodness and anyone who puts their trust in him will receive his righteousness. When it’s time to face God, God will welcome them in heaven because of Jesus’s righteousness. If you die today, will you face God with your righteousness or will you accept Jesus’s righteousness? Repent and believe today
Mmmmmm nah!
If your goal is to convince non believers that Christianity is true, just stating confidently what you believe won't do it. You need to provide reasons why anyone should accept it as true and asking people to 'believe today' makes the false assumption that we can simply choose what to believe at the drop of a hat. I could no more choose to believe in the Christian God than I could just start believing that London is the Capital of France without sufficient justification to make either proposition believable.
@@philwhitehouse4290 Hi Phil. If one still doubts there is a lot of evidence, eye witness accounts, fulfilled prophecy, archaeological evidence, Scientific Evidence, extra-biblical historical evidence. Even non Christians scholars agree that Jesus is a historical person. I would suggest anyone skeptical to checkout Mike Winger evidence for the bible series on TH-cam. I hope this helps you.
That's a pretty much copy paste sermon. A pity that it's based around a specific hatred of humanity and a lot unproven assertions.
@@Fluffykeith Hi Keith, what do you mean by that?
In worldview debates, both sides have an equal burden to argue for why their worldview is true over the competing worldview. That seems to be the primary problem... you guys seem to think of your worldview as the "default worldview" which automatically becomes true if you subjectively determine the evidence/reasoning for a competing worldview isn't sufficient, which is appeal to ignorance fallacious reasoning in the fundamental way you guys approach these debates. There is no such thing as a "default worldview" which becomes true without any evidence/reasoning just because you complained, don't like, or don't understand the evidence/reasoning for a competing worldview. You need evidence/reasoning for your positive belief in the worldview you adhere to. Otherwise, you're violating your own standard for truth by believing things without evidence/reasoning.
That’s fair, although Ozzy himself doesn’t do that.
@@Detson404 He does do that.
Of course stipulating the ultimate ground of all being is a mind adds explanatory power. Minds have causal power. It explains the beginning of the universe.
The Kalam supports that its an unembodied mind too. Look at the last trait which is logically deduced below.
God is the best explanation of the beginning of the Universe.
A)Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
B)The universe began to exist. C)Therefore the universe has a cause.
It can be logically deduced that cause must have the following traits:
Spaceless - Because space came into being and did not exist until this cause brought it into existence, the cause cannot be spatial. It must be spaceless or non-spatial. You cannot be inside of something if you are that something’s cause. You cannot be inside of something if that something did not exist until you brought it into existence
Timeless - Since time did not exist until the cause, the cause cannot be inside of time. It must be timeless.
Immaterial - The cause’s non-spatiality entails immateriality. How so? Because material objects cannot exist unless space exists. Material objects have mass and ergo occupy spatial dimensions. If there is no space, matter cannot exist. This means that because the cause is non-spatial, it is therefore non-material.
Unimaginably Powerful (if not omnipotent) - Anything able to create all matter, energy, space, and time out of absolutely nothing must be extremely powerful, if not omnipotent.
Supernatural - “Nature” and “The universe” are synonyms. Nature did not begin to exist until this cause caused it to. Therefore, a natural cause (a cause coming, by definition, from nature) cannot be responsible for the origin of nature. To say otherwise would be to spout incoherence. You’d basically be saying “Nature caused nature to come into being.”
Uncaused - Given that the cause of the universe is timeless, the cause cannot itself have a beginning. To have a beginning to one’s existence entails a before and after relationship. There’s a time before one existed and a time after one came into existence. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. Since the cause existed sans time, the cause, therefore, cannot have a beginning. It’s beginningless.
Personal - This is an entailment of the cause’s immateriality. There are two types of things recognized by philosophers that are immaterial: abstract objects (such as numbers, sets, or other mathematical entities) or unembodied minds. Philosophers realize that abstract objects if they exist, they exist as non-physical entities. However, abstract objects cannot produce any effects. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number 3 isn’t going to be producing any effects anytime soon. Given that abstract objects are causally impotent, it, therefore, follows that an unembodied mind is the cause of the universe’ beginning
All these traits that are logically deduced for the necessary cause of the universe's beginning match precisely with descriptions of God.
_"God is the best explanation of the beginning of the Universe."_ Nope. As Ozy made it very clear, God isn't any kind of explanation for the beginning of the universe, or anything else. First of all _things_ aren't explanations. "God" doesn't explain anything any better than "my left foot" explains anything. Second, for something to even be a _candidate_ as an explanation, it has to be _possible_ and for something to be a _good_ candidate (let alone the best) it has to be _proven_ to exist. I could posit Big Foot as the best explanation for every unsolved murder and missing person in history. There's literally zero unsolved murders or abductions that _couldn't_ have been committed by Big Foot... except there's no compelling reason to think that Big Foot exists, so its a trash option as explanations go.
_"It can be logically deduced that cause must have the following traits:"_ Only if one grants you all of your totally unsubstantiated premises, which no reasonable person would.
While I don't subscribe to the position myself, (as there is no evidence pointing to it) "the universe came from nothing" is a far better, and more parsimonious explanation than "God." Not to mention it has far, far fewer philosophical commitments.
The real problem dealing with a Presup, is that they're too Stup!d to realize that the problem, is that they are too Stup!d to comprehend anything outside the Presup Gibberish Loops.
Modern religion is nothing more than thousands of years of bad Fan-Fic writing, originally based on ancient goat herder mythology.
Everything Presup is based on, is Nonsensical Gibberish that doesn't actually apply to this Reality; their arguments only apply to the Fan-Fic writing in their head.
Presup isn't an argument, it's a method to hide from having to actually deal with real arguments.
😂😂😂
@ajhieb There is so much rambling and fallacious reasoning in your post, none of which addressed any of the substance in the OP at all, so I shouldn't even be honoring it with a response. But just to highlight the category error fallacy (the same one you always commit: non-contingent to contingent claims) you said "for something to even be a candidate as an explanation, it has to be possible..."
Worldviews are non-contingencies, which are not probabilistic claims. That's why if I were to ask what Aron Ra always asks, only in reverse, you won't be able to answer it:
"Can you provide independently verifiable evidence that your particular non-theistic worldview is possible?"
Of course you can't. Because that's an expectation in scientific debates about normative-level claims, not paradigm-level debates between competing worldviews (which are non-contingent claims)
Every worldview is a proposed model of reality, which is a proposed explanation. The difference is: Christians have a deductive justification that ours is the correct one and everyone else's is false.
You guys have no justification at all for your model of reality that you start with, AND you delusionally ignore the positive demonstration that it's necessarily false on top of that.
That's not only just irrational, but it's literally delusional.
Definition of delusional - holding to a false belief despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
@ajhieb Also, I don't think the Kalam is the best argument for God anymore... I wrote the OP over a year ago. But claiming that you don't accept the first premise is a lie. You are all about science, which requires presupposing the Causal Principle (which includes that everything that begins to exist has a cause)
So, yes you do accept the first premise of the Kalam. You just lie about it when it's no longer convenient to accept it, in typical atheist fashion.
Just saw I had somehow unsubscribed from you which is why I’ve been missing all your shows. Lame!
On the TH-cam mobile app, I've bumped the Subscribe button and both sub'd to channels I don't care for and unsub'd from channels I enjoy. Having said that, TH-cam has some "cleansing" algorithm that weirdly auto-unsubs you from channels you're sub'd to. No one knows why. For example, I have sub'd to AronRa 4 times in the past 4 years. TH-cam keeps deciding for me that his channel sucks.
So maybe you unsub'd accidentally or maybe you didn't do a thing. TH-cam is weird.
TH-cam may have deleted an entire comment thread on another video I did. The wanker that left the comments is blaming me for it, but I’d responded to him and even my response is gone. TH-cam is a fickle mistress.