I love how he tries to say your epistemology is flawed (without being able to demonstrate why) and when Vi asks how his works he dodges the question because he knows it can't hold up at all lol
Your epistemology, if you accept mainstream academia and knowledge, (please pay attention to this, it is IF you accept mainstream ideas, i’m not telling you what you believe) is justified and grounded by unjustified and ungrounded assumptions, things like causality being true, laws of logic being true, laws of nature applying to all times and all places, induction being valid, your senses being accurate in telling you what is happening ect. It’s admittedly and uncontroversially “flawed” in the sense it’s not perfect, that’s why the concept of fallibility exists, literally called fallibility in logic and epistemology, and it’s a core tenant of mainstream knowledge and science and academia. Therefore un-controversially, unless you’re a lacktheist trying to tell a theist he needs perfect epistemology, flawed.
@@travispratt6327 Some of those things are demonstrable. I don't assume half of what you think I do for the rest lol. This is not about certainty. It's about what can reasonably be believed and shown to be likely true. Religion has nothing worthy of belief so I am an atheist. Don't know why that seems so hard for theists to understand. It's the same reason you probably don't believe in Santa. Until that can be rectified theism will continue its downward trend and I say good riddance. If it's illogical (which it is) then it's not worth our time. I do love that you essentially said that everything we have good reason to believe is true MIGHT be false therefore argument for god. As though that did anything but show how absurd the claim of a god is. Thanks for that.
@@49perfectss That wasn’t what I said, but I expect you knew that and anyone else who read it does too so whatever. I can explain to you why it seems like theists don’t “get” your lack belief rhetoric if you’d like, unless that was also rhetoric and you do understand why.
You just know that after he called into the show, did his word salad bullshit and got nowhere, he went running back to daddy Darth looking for a pat on the back.
@@DANISEVIL I saw Mommy kissing Santa Claus, so I blew him away! He deserved it and so did his stupid reindeers, especially that effeminate one with the red nose.
It was revealed to me in a way hat I can be certain that God did exist, his name was Jerry Mugenwieller and he lived in Gary, Indiana from 1843 to 1954 while working in the booming Whale Oil coupon recycling industry. It has also been revealed to me in a way that I can be certain that Sye Ten Bruggencate's dodge is shit.
Presuppers tell on themselves with their “ultimate ground of etc” schtick. As soon as you hear that, you know what’s coming and it’s difficult to take them seriously.
Why is it difficult to take that question seriously? Because you don't understand it? The issue, in all Atheist worldviews is they have nothing which ontologically grounds their epistemology. This means their truth claims are grounded in "I don't know" and have no truth value. So all their truth claims are arbitrary within their own worldview. Truth claims with no truth value = a contradiction You need something universal, concrete, and ontologically fundamental which connects your epistemology to reality, otherwise your epistemology is completely disconnected from ontological reality and cannot possibly produce any truth. That's a big deal, and it's only ONE of the numerous problems if you don't have God as the fundamental metaphysic
Calling it a "problem" is an under-statement, actually. It's a disaster for your worldview and completely disproves it, showing it cannot possibly be a correct model the world.
All these presuppers that call these shows are all Darth Dawkins followers, they all sit in a discord server all day just repeating this nonsense argument. They're are the dishonest apologist on the internet.
Today Im going to eat some special revelation using some special revelation, sitting on my special revelation. After few hours I'm going to sit on another special revelation, defecating some special revelation and flushing it special revelation. It's great! God is real!
Presup kryptonite: How can you _objectively_ demonstrate that the concept of revelation is what you claim it is, and how can you _objectively_ demonstrate that what has been revealed to you is accurate? If you can't do either of those demonstrations, on what grounds should I take the concept seriously?
Well you can't demonstrate something unfalsifiable and it's built into the entire faith that you may not test thy lord, God so you cannot even try. It's obvious why because if you test it and find no evidence then it doesn't make much sense, does it? That's why readers of the Bible without the guidance of those that WANT you to believe makes you realise.... This makes no sense what so ever.
@@michaelmay5453 Exactly. They can't demonstrate the validity or accuracy of their claims, which gets us to the last question... If you can't do either of those things, on what grounds should I take the concept seriously? And it would appear we both reached the same conclusion on that... There are no grounds on which to take their argument seriously.
@@ajhieb Propaganda sells easily to those looking for answers is the actual answer to this question. There is nothing special about it just because they are using the unfalsifiable concepts of a God that is quite frankly literally logically impossible, in fact it just makes it worse. But people make money off of it and Gary Milne (the cult leader known as Darth Dawkins) certainly wants money and power, he's a sociopath and a narcissist and my guess is that he'll eventually reveal himself as the one true prophet of god. Religion has always been used for power and wealth, it's the only thing it can ever properly produce.
@@ajhieb I think the difference in vocabulary is because I'm using scientific terms and you are using other terms but seems to me that we agree on this. That's good. :) Have some tequila and celebrate the night my friend.
In my head i totally heard Darth getting pissed at JRobin for working with the definition of "ultimate" Darth would've never, Never acknowledged that ultimate means something different than it does to him.
@@HuxtableK Darth Dawkins in an infamous presuppositional creationist old man who likes to pretend that he knows everything and everyone else knows nothing. The guy is a big meme. I'll link you a playlist where he "debated" with (i.e. annoyed) a bunch of famous people like Lawrence Krauss or Graham Oppy. Great entertainment. Let's see if I can insert a playlist here: th-cam.com/play/PLhDPpu-dTzz4gOf0gy2zh2XiD9RcmA9BT.html
Uh-oh... Darth Delusion is gonna be mad. Not only did Robin fail in concealing the blatant circularity at the core of the presup argument.... he also failed at the MAIN GOAL of bulldozing the other members of the discussion to "shut the mouth" of the non-believer. Nice job, Vi on calling out the "disembodied mind"... that is where he lost control of the situation.
I love how easily and quickly Vi and Eric can challenge what people say by creating counter arguments on the fly like that... "What if I have a revelation that you are a liar?"... Blew my mind. I'll never be on that level lol
@@lightbeforethetunnel _"Its a fallacious counter-argument. "_ No, it isn't. _"Her worldview doesn't have anything that can give revelation."_ Tell me that you STILL don't understand how internal critiques work without saying "AJ, I STILL don't know how internal critiques work." Her worldview is IRRELEVANT to any internal critique she's making of JRobin's worldview. _"She's an atheist."_ Good for you buddy. You finally got something right. "Blind squirrel" postulate confirmed. _"So she's appealing to a different worldview that contradicts her own to make her argument,"_ She's specifically appealing to her interlocutor's worldview. That's how internal critiques work. It's astonishing that I've explained this to you dozens if not hundreds of times over the last few years and you still can't get it through your thick skull. _"which is a fallacy."_ No. It isn't. While an appeal to a 3rd party worldview _can_ be fallacious in some contexts it isn't necessarily so. When a presupper makes the claim that their worldview _must_ be true because all others are incoherent, I need not appeal to the coherency of my own worldview to refute the argument as ANY coherent worldview disproves the presupper's claim. Nothing fallacious about that, though I have no doubt you'll still offer up some preposterous objection.
God is the ultimate idiot, ultimate a-hole, and ultimate winner of hide and seek. I've heard Robin before. He's as unconvincing as ever, as are all ultimately useless presup word games. Vi on point! I enjoy listening to these takedowns. Revelatory epistemology LOL. So if my epistemology is Dr. Seuss, I can visit Whoville, yay!
@@badabingbadaboom7519 god isn't even that, at least my absentee landlord signed the lease and gave me the keys. I also know that my checks get cashed so there's proof he exists. Lol
@@r.m.5548 u r right my friend. Technically in the devils Advocate, Pacino was the Devil, so the assumption was that there was definitely a god. A shit one, but he definitely exists in the movie. But in real life , your comment is correct.
But, but, he knew it in his knower! 😹 Mic issues aside, great call! I'm glad I found y'all again! I'm going now to watch more of your content. Thanks y'all!
I was just referencing Detective Drebin in a comment yesterday! It was in relation to an especially obtuse theist caller who was more or less arguing that our Norse-named weekdays are proof for Yahweh. All I could hear was Leslie Nielsen saying: _"I know a place that serves _*_great_*_ Viking food."_
Well I am happy to see Eric and Vi alive, I haven't seen them on the ACA for afew weeks. Now back to the internet to find out they left a community they help build.
@@Zachorazor1 so I found a post on the talk heathen reddit page. Disagreement and creative conflicts seem to be the words implied. However the real details are left out. ACA or reddit mod post that Vi and Eric moving on to new projects and Eric(or vi I don't remember) post their goodbyes saying they have been indefinitely removed as host. And not given a final episode.
6:34 The caller _isn't_ arguing that a god exists, he just wants to have clarification on whether or not anyone accepts that this being exists? _Right._
Presuppositionalism can *_only_* survive in an environment that has been sterilized against rational debate. This is why its proponents are so hell-bent on destroying any basis for reasoning outside the confines of their own theological cesspit.
Like Vi, I don't like the dichotomies. I'm an Atheist. I don't *believe* any of the god claims made to date. I'm also an Agnostic - I don't think we can *know* with absolute certainty. I'm therefore an Agnostic Atheist.
Do you mean you don't like false dichotomies? Or do you mean you actually don't like A cannot equal not A? Darth is infamous for his false dichotomies. He totally does it on purpose though. He gives premises using a definition, then changes the definition in the conclusion... Which is really hard to do on accident.
And he is demanding to know how she decides to disbelieve. That is completely backwards. Nobody should need to have reasons not to believe something that has never been shown in the first place.
The circularity in the presup argument is that it claims “without god, knowledge would not be possible. Since knowledge is possible, god exists.” How does this assumption justify that knowledge would not be possible without god?
Ok... so 'relavatory' is Gods Communication, and you know it's from God cause its Revalatory???? I once had a rat that chewed it's own tail off that was less circular than that.
@@altal2993 glad I could....lemme tell you about the time my GF found one of the house cats pulling off its tail skin in the shower.... When she was going to shower for work....lol
@@TheSnoeedog but many of the presups aren't even able to have a conversation to answer questions. They just ask and than continue with the script even if it doesn't fit the answer they got
Also worth noting, I don't know what the name for it is, but I've been in the same camp as Vi for a while now... I can't speak to all gods, as I can't be sure I've encountered all god-concepts, but for one reason or the other, I've eliminated all the theistic god-concepts that I _have_ encountered. Robin was trying to take a page out of Darth's book by trying to force his interlocuters to defend their position by refuting all god-concepts at once. That's only valid if you arrived at your position by that same methodology.
Robin is one of those dishonest people just like Darth: John Petersen said DD argument is only sound in that he defines god in such a way, without substantiation, that he can offer premises that do not fit reality. By claiming the premises: there must be something foundational and ultimate, and that his god is that thing, and all facts are dependent on that god, he builds an argument that is wholly and utterly begging the question. Asking questions like: can god exist in a world where I or more facts is not dependent on him?; what is ultimate and foundational in your world view if it's not god?; if you don't believe in god how can you know anything or have reason?; etc...only have meaning in the context of his utterly constructed and unsubstantiated premises. His argument is nonsensical and is Built on illogical faulty premises.
It’s weird now Darths cults god is just a ‘mind’ because he got tired of trying to defend the Christian god so he just labels this vague Deistic god concept ‘Bible god’ and just makes up what it does.
@@davids11131113 Yeah, there has been a noticeable shift over the last couple of months. I haven't heard Darth mention The Triune God of the Bible in quite a while. He used to defend _that_ god exclusively.
@@davids11131113 thats because Darth knows he is incapable of defending his God, so instead he attempts to make you argue against the very possibility of _any_ god. It's incredibly dishonest because he claims you can't argue from a position you don't hold, and yet he does so every time
Wow, Robin has to work very hard to defend his beliefs by pretending he doesn't understand the question "how do you know it was god that revealed something". All he could respond with was - Stuff exists, therefore god. He really doesn't want to think about how every revelation could just be him fooling himself and believing others that have fooled themselves.
In the Skeptic Generation videos I have seen so far, Vi always sounds distant. Eric leaving was useful because without Eric’s microphone, we cannot hear Vi. It seems that Vi’s microphone has not worked properly since the channel started.
I’ve heard this guy multiple times AXP, he tries so hard to follow a script and get to the gotcha question. I kinda feel sorry for people like Robin who thrive on being a troll but he chose this path and misery loves company
@14:30 the caller begs the question when they assert that "god has revealed that a disembodied mind is possible" while attempting to demonstrate that god is possible by showing that a disembodied mind is possible. Their premises appear to be supported only by the very conclusion they aim to prove -- which is textbook question begging.
I ultimately do not care about the word ultimate. With that being said, Vi and Eric are gracious hosts. Kudos for the progress and keep up the good work.
I’ll be honest. I was watching this and eating a sausage sandwich (UK in the house!) and dropped some ketchup down myself, and took my T-shirt off because it was one of my favourites (Fraserhead, mashup of Liz Fraser from Cocteau Twins and David Lynch movie). So I watched this video with my shirt off eating a sandwich and as much as I enjoyed it, I felt like John Wayne Gacy. I don’t know why but it didn’t seem like a non-serial killer thing to do
As someone who likes sandwiches, likes to run around shirtless and is not a serial killer, I can ensure you that it's a non-serial killer thing to do too. :)
If they’re being charitable, they’ll say that non-Christian’s can reason, but can’t account for reason. Which is nonsense- if the universe is real and our senses and cognition broadly accurate, we can account for reason just fine. God doesn’t solve anything, just adds another layer of presupposition.
I think you guys did a phenomenal job, I'd have had whatever level of different response but I wanted to comment on one thing specifically or I've curated my own counter apologetics, all observable minds are attached to physical brains and computers if any theist using any strategy wants to claim God is an abstract mind use "all observable minds are attached to physical brains and computers". It's very effective keep coming back to it, explain how hardware contains software and displays it to show these computer minds explain how brain tissue works at whatever level you understand it and constantly compare it to their abstract concept. I used this series of argument on true empiricism several years ago, where as soon as that argument came off my lips he controlled my audio for the rest of the call and I just kept coming back to it and he looked ridiculous, constantly muting over 70 times.
Yea I don’t accept at all there exists something that is ‘ultimate and fundamental to all things’ nothing with such qualities has ever been observed it’s just a totally baseless assertion it’s ridiculous.
TJump said it best in his debate with DD. It's reality. Simple as that. Reality determines what is possible and impossible. We don't know what's behind reality, so it ends there. Of course, to DD's diseased brain, that is somehow gobbledygook compared to his brilliant and clear word salad.
Yes. I believe that there is some form of harmony in the universe keeping each other in check. Like how the laws of physics is kept in place by how physics work.
@@sorenjensen3863 I don't always agree with him, but I usually do. When it gets into morality, I kinda check out. It's such a nebulous concept, I don't think philosophers or theists can adequately address it. I just think we keep trying to do better, and we can't even all agree on what better is.
@@andreaskarlsson5251 Well the laws of physics are our observations of how things work and should work and they’re pretty reliable observations so far, I don’t think we’ve observed gravity and there’s something ‘keeping the effects of gravity in check’ it is just how it is.
Robin has nothing. He basically says that god is responsible for all knowledge. Where does he get this idea? The Bible, which is the basis for his religion. Yet the Bible presents itself as a book of human myths, with no proofs, and does not answer specific scientific questions. He can't really use the Bible as an information source. So tries to work the whole concept of science as only being possible because god shows us the world around us through science. That science is a subset of religion. Which is a desperate attempt to try to make religion the origin of, and a part of, our current understanding of scientific subjects. His concepts are a mess. It's sad.
Finally I figure out where you guys have been! I couldn’t find this channel linked anywhere, and I couldn’t remember the name. So glad it popped up in recommendations.
This video is a great representation of what would happen if Darth was actually able to have a polite conversation. Robin is much more polite, but without bullying a barrage of questions, Darth's presup bs falls completely apart with simple questions.
Hey, Eric, Hey Vi, is this where you guys been hiding 🙂.... Or is this the new name for Talk Heather 🤣....Only kidding!!! Don't start that conversation 😯....anyway. have subscribed because I love you guys..... Thank you for everything you guys do. Vi, ur cool.... Eric.... Ur cool too... You guys are like Strawberries and Cream.... A perfect combination 👍
@@iliketurtles6777 I've had life stuff go on over the past month (good stuff I might add) or so and have not paid attention. I saw the change at TH. It's ok, thought I'd just need to get used to it a bit more. Started to raise my eyebrow a little with the name issue. Wandered where my fab Eric and Vi were. I listen every week in my car in Birmingham UK, while waiting for my wife to finish work.... I'm a little disappointed as I sense dark goings on somewhere here. But so pleased to find them again....
What I don’t get is why does it matter ? I prescribe medicine and save lives for a living of which I see the results daily and the idea of what is fundamental has zero impact whereas the scientific methods have 100% impact. Why would I care what is fundamental and how does it benefit anything ?
Robin: "I'm following this script so I can try and trick you into saying something I can use to pretend you admitted God is real." Hosts: "Well, we are not allowing you to do that as we want an honest conversation." Robin: "Yeah but I just want to follow this script so I can try and trick you into saying something I can use to pretend you admitted God is real." That's what I got out of this.
Good point, does god also create its wants? Does it have needs? If it were real and wanted us, why then would it plan to separate us, plan a hell (Christian god) and plan to have souls fill said hell. Especially if it’s all powerful and wants us near it, why make that “our” choice while we can’t know it? What kind of benevolence is that?
Sorry Eric but this entire conversation was NOT fun to listen to. You just allowed Robin to play his little presuppositional apologetics game and it gets bogged down in definitions and the listener really does not want to hear any of that verbose argument. I rate this session a 1 using a 0-10 scale where 10 is great and 0 is absolutely sucks.
1:39 - Vi perfectly described my perspective. Either there is an intelligent designer (i.e. an agent that created, and possibly sustains the universe), or there isn't. From that standpoint, I assign 50% probability to the proposition. But as soon as you start ascribing attributes and canon to that designer (omnipotence, omnibenevolence, caused a worldwide flood, etc.) the probability of the veracity of the proposition drops precipitously. For this reason, I believe as Vi does: there is virtually no chance that any religion's explicitly-defined god exists.
God refers to omnipresence which is contradictory to "an agent". In order to be an agent there must be a continuously and independently existing entity. Omnipresence is the complete absence of any such entity, else it would just be presence. This is a common misunderstanding in religion.
That long pause that we thought we lost him. Big assertion of me to state this, but he was looking up for a response to her answer to the question. He is indeed following a script. Also my reasoning for my assertion was the lack of distortion in sound.
Anyone that thinks that Matt Dillahunty is too mean or too "firebrand" should check out Eric and Jamie. Eric especially has a very gentle and soft spoken approach that can reach theists that won't respond to the aggressive style.
I wanna talk to Robin. I’d concede everything, for the sake of the argument. “I have no ultimate ground Robin. I don’t know anything. Help me. Go” I’d love to see where the conversation (interrogation) goes from there.
@@norswil8763 .....or, far more likely, there is no 'Satan' and there is no 'God' and the watermelon was never a thing and I was just making it all up to show how utterly ridiculous your unverifiable, unprovable God assertions really are. The correct answer when there is insufficient evidence is "Currently, I'm not sure and don't know". Why is that so difficult a sentence for you to say?
@@paulklein4096 I'm being facetious Paul. Obviously the supernatural can only be argued through philosophical methods, speculation. Honesty is the first thing to go when trying to prove a god.
@@norswil8763 Ha ha - good one Narwhal. 'Satan got you good'....brilliant. That's exactly the kind of dumb-assed meaningless nonsense they come out with.
The strategy of a pressup: be so low and slimy, repetitive and aggressive, mistaken and cocky that your interlocutor loses all desire to take you seriously. Then declare victory. Doesn’t work at all but that’s all they have.
Robin is definitely nicer than Darth but he is Darth's "Mini Me". He presents the script almost exactly as Darth does. These pre-sup apologists are all about word tricks and trying to twist you around but they can only do it if you let them manipulate you down the path of their script. Vi did an awesome job at getting in front of that from the beginning.
There’s a hole in the revelation argument that needs addressing. 1. There are people in mental hospitals who believe god has revealed it that they are perfectly sane and the alternate reality they are living is real. They believe they know this in such a way that they can’t be wrong . 2. How would Robin know that he’s not just a person in a coma or heavily sedated who “thinks” god has revealed knowledge to him. Presupps think they can escape the brain in a vat problem but first they would have to demonstrate how to distinguish a person who is in a coma who is dreaming god has revealed it to them that they are actually not in a coma but living a normal life from someone who actually has revelation. What’s the criteria to differentiate person X ( someone who thinks they have divine revelation ) from person Y ( someone who actually does). Both scenarios involve a person who claims they know it through god in such a way that they can’t be wrong . You have to use a scenario similar to a brain in a vat ( but something that we can actually relate to) . You have to strip them of revelatory knowledge and rip that rug from underneath them and force them to demonstrate the difference between person X and Y. When they fail to do so they have lost the ability to be certain about the revelation being genuine
Sometimes in the morning when I wake up I am a hard atheist.
To quote Sterling Archer "Phrasing".
I’m a morning glory atheist
😂🤣👍
When i listen to too much presubs arguments i become a soft atheist...
Why wood you say something like that?
I love how he tries to say your epistemology is flawed (without being able to demonstrate why) and when Vi asks how his works he dodges the question because he knows it can't hold up at all lol
Did he ever even accurately identify the hosts' epistemology!
@@nathanielthomson6600 lol no
Your epistemology, if you accept mainstream academia and knowledge, (please pay attention to this, it is IF you accept mainstream ideas, i’m not telling you what you believe) is justified and grounded by unjustified and ungrounded assumptions, things like causality being true, laws of logic being true, laws of nature applying to all times and all places, induction being valid, your senses being accurate in telling you what is happening ect. It’s admittedly and uncontroversially “flawed” in the sense it’s not perfect, that’s why the concept of fallibility exists, literally called fallibility in logic and epistemology, and it’s a core tenant of mainstream knowledge and science and academia. Therefore un-controversially, unless you’re a lacktheist trying to tell a theist he needs perfect epistemology, flawed.
@@travispratt6327 Some of those things are demonstrable. I don't assume half of what you think I do for the rest lol. This is not about certainty. It's about what can reasonably be believed and shown to be likely true. Religion has nothing worthy of belief so I am an atheist. Don't know why that seems so hard for theists to understand. It's the same reason you probably don't believe in Santa. Until that can be rectified theism will continue its downward trend and I say good riddance. If it's illogical (which it is) then it's not worth our time. I do love that you essentially said that everything we have good reason to believe is true MIGHT be false therefore argument for god. As though that did anything but show how absurd the claim of a god is. Thanks for that.
@@49perfectss That wasn’t what I said, but I expect you knew that and anyone else who read it does too so whatever. I can explain to you why it seems like theists don’t “get” your lack belief rhetoric if you’d like, unless that was also rhetoric and you do understand why.
Robin is a Darth disciple. He is on Darth's server all the time. Pretty sure he was messaging him and getting talking points throughout the call.
Is it JRobin? That was my first thought
This guy is a copy of Bargain Bahnsen AKA DERP DORKINS
@@sorenjensen3863 yes!
messaging or massaging?
You just know that after he called into the show, did his word salad bullshit and got nowhere, he went running back to daddy Darth looking for a pat on the back.
Presuppositional arguments for God always come down to “revelation from God”, which is indistinguishable from making shit up.
Santa whispered in my ear that he's real therfore Santa is real and your just denying Santa
@@DANISEVIL I saw Mommy kissing Santa Claus, so I blew him away! He deserved it and so did his stupid reindeers, especially that effeminate one with the red nose.
@@DANISEVIL Yeah but is Santa a necessary precondition for intelligibility?
It was revealed to me in a way hat I can be certain that God did exist, his name was Jerry Mugenwieller and he lived in Gary, Indiana from 1843 to 1954 while working in the booming Whale Oil coupon recycling industry.
It has also been revealed to me in a way that I can be certain that Sye Ten Bruggencate's dodge is shit.
@@G_Demolished
Is anything?
Presuppers tell on themselves with their “ultimate ground of etc” schtick. As soon as you hear that, you know what’s coming and it’s difficult to take them seriously.
"I'm not making the cosmological argument" says everyone who makes the cosmological argument.
I really need one of them to walk me through how they got sold on such nonsensical gobbledeegook
@@TheSnoeedog They don’t “get to it” they fall on it lol
Why is it difficult to take that question seriously? Because you don't understand it?
The issue, in all Atheist worldviews is they have nothing which ontologically grounds their epistemology. This means their truth claims are grounded in "I don't know" and have no truth value. So all their truth claims are arbitrary within their own worldview.
Truth claims with no truth value = a contradiction
You need something universal, concrete, and ontologically fundamental which connects your epistemology to reality, otherwise your epistemology is completely disconnected from ontological reality and cannot possibly produce any truth.
That's a big deal, and it's only ONE of the numerous problems if you don't have God as the fundamental metaphysic
Calling it a "problem" is an under-statement, actually. It's a disaster for your worldview and completely disproves it, showing it cannot possibly be a correct model the world.
All these presuppers that call these shows are all Darth Dawkins followers, they all sit in a discord server all day just repeating this nonsense argument.
They're are the dishonest apologist on the internet.
It was really hilarious watching Robin talking to himself. He probably enjoys that more than actually having a conversation with others.
Welcome to presuppositionalists.
It’s so hard not to trip over all that special revelation all over the place.
Today Im going to eat some special revelation using some special revelation, sitting on my special revelation. After few hours I'm going to sit on another special revelation, defecating some special revelation and flushing it special revelation.
It's great! God is real!
@@piage84 You had me at special revelation.
"A general definition of atheism is most appropriate" then why did you ask whether they are hard or soft atheists? The bull is strong in this one.
@@scambammer5940 I thought the accepted scale was weak to strong. I am a strong atheist.
Soft and hard? Penises come to mind. Nothing else.
@@PariahQuail I'm a hard atheist, out and proud.
Presup kryptonite: How can you _objectively_ demonstrate that the concept of revelation is what you claim it is, and how can you _objectively_ demonstrate that what has been revealed to you is accurate? If you can't do either of those demonstrations, on what grounds should I take the concept seriously?
And how can you (Robin) demonstrate that your revelation isn't just your overactive imagination?
Well you can't demonstrate something unfalsifiable and it's built into the entire faith that you may not test thy lord, God so you cannot even try.
It's obvious why because if you test it and find no evidence then it doesn't make much sense, does it? That's why readers of the Bible without the guidance of those that WANT you to believe makes you realise.... This makes no sense what so ever.
@@michaelmay5453 Exactly. They can't demonstrate the validity or accuracy of their claims, which gets us to the last question... If you can't do either of those things, on what grounds should I take the concept seriously? And it would appear we both reached the same conclusion on that... There are no grounds on which to take their argument seriously.
@@ajhieb Propaganda sells easily to those looking for answers is the actual answer to this question.
There is nothing special about it just because they are using the unfalsifiable concepts of a God that is quite frankly literally logically impossible, in fact it just makes it worse.
But people make money off of it and Gary Milne (the cult leader known as Darth Dawkins) certainly wants money and power, he's a sociopath and a narcissist and my guess is that he'll eventually reveal himself as the one true prophet of god.
Religion has always been used for power and wealth, it's the only thing it can ever properly produce.
@@ajhieb I think the difference in vocabulary is because I'm using scientific terms and you are using other terms but seems to me that we agree on this.
That's good. :)
Have some tequila and celebrate the night my friend.
Vi takes no nonsense 💪
She is great much improved.loved seeing her here!!!!
They've always been one of my favourite presenters, and I love their style of arguing. It's great seeing both Eric and Vi doing so well.
Their face palm towards the end was priceless
Vi is so natural ,cute as a button. love from Australia
Gotta love Vi!!
In my head i totally heard Darth getting pissed at JRobin for working with the definition of "ultimate"
Darth would've never, Never acknowledged that ultimate means something different than it does to him.
The trick is to define God into existence by giving these minimalist traits then saying ‘if you can’t come up with an alternative to this then I win’
Caller - "your standard of evidence is different from mine."
Vi - (if only) "yes....I have one"
Special pleading: “I know because god has revealed himself to me, but you need proof to support your statements.”
Ahhh, immediately recognized the voice. Checked the description: yes, it's JRobin. One of the Darth Dawkins buddies.
As soon as she said "let's talk to robin" I immediately thought JRobin...
All of Darths disciples are mentally deficient
@@sorenjensen3863 if they weren’t, they’d be able to actually defend their beliefs.
Darth Dawkins? I'm afraid I don't get the term.
@@HuxtableK Darth Dawkins in an infamous presuppositional creationist old man who likes to pretend that he knows everything and everyone else knows nothing. The guy is a big meme. I'll link you a playlist where he "debated" with (i.e. annoyed) a bunch of famous people like Lawrence Krauss or Graham Oppy. Great entertainment.
Let's see if I can insert a playlist here:
th-cam.com/play/PLhDPpu-dTzz4gOf0gy2zh2XiD9RcmA9BT.html
Darth Dawkins is Gary Milne, a mentally ill presup ‘famous debater’ although all he really does is run script and rant and rave abusing people.
I always lead with "I'm 99.9% sure no gods exist and 100% sure yours doesn't."
Uh-oh... Darth Delusion is gonna be mad. Not only did Robin fail in concealing the blatant circularity at the core of the presup argument.... he also failed at the MAIN GOAL of bulldozing the other members of the discussion to "shut the mouth" of the non-believer. Nice job, Vi on calling out the "disembodied mind"... that is where he lost control of the situation.
I look forward to the "meanwhile, at the Legion of Doom" episode of this on Tom Rabbitt's channel!
I'm so glad you two have a show together, you (and Jamie) were the reason i watched Talk Heathen to begin with
I love how easily and quickly Vi and Eric can challenge what people say by creating counter arguments on the fly like that...
"What if I have a revelation that you are a liar?"... Blew my mind. I'll never be on that level lol
Its a fallacious counter-argument. Her worldview doesn't have anything that can give revelation. She's an atheist.
So she's appealing to a different worldview that contradicts her own to make her argument, which is a fallacy.
@@lightbeforethetunnel _"Its a fallacious counter-argument. "_ No, it isn't.
_"Her worldview doesn't have anything that can give revelation."_ Tell me that you STILL don't understand how internal critiques work without saying "AJ, I STILL don't know how internal critiques work." Her worldview is IRRELEVANT to any internal critique she's making of JRobin's worldview.
_"She's an atheist."_ Good for you buddy. You finally got something right. "Blind squirrel" postulate confirmed.
_"So she's appealing to a different worldview that contradicts her own to make her argument,"_ She's specifically appealing to her interlocutor's worldview. That's how internal critiques work. It's astonishing that I've explained this to you dozens if not hundreds of times over the last few years and you still can't get it through your thick skull.
_"which is a fallacy."_ No. It isn't. While an appeal to a 3rd party worldview _can_ be fallacious in some contexts it isn't necessarily so. When a presupper makes the claim that their worldview _must_ be true because all others are incoherent, I need not appeal to the coherency of my own worldview to refute the argument as ANY coherent worldview disproves the presupper's claim. Nothing fallacious about that, though I have no doubt you'll still offer up some preposterous objection.
God is the ultimate idiot, ultimate a-hole, and ultimate winner of hide and seek. I've heard Robin before. He's as unconvincing as ever, as are all ultimately useless presup word games. Vi on point! I enjoy listening to these takedowns. Revelatory epistemology LOL. So if my epistemology is Dr. Seuss, I can visit Whoville, yay!
Like Pacino says in the Devils Advocate. “God is an absentee landlord “
@@badabingbadaboom7519 god isn't even that, at least my absentee landlord signed the lease and gave me the keys. I also know that my checks get cashed so there's proof he exists. Lol
@@r.m.5548 u r right my friend. Technically in the devils Advocate, Pacino was the Devil, so the assumption was that there was definitely a god. A shit one, but he definitely exists in the movie. But in real life , your comment is correct.
But, but, he knew it in his knower! 😹
Mic issues aside, great call!
I'm glad I found y'all again!
I'm going now to watch more of your content.
Thanks y'all!
I was hoping we were going to have a Frank Drebin moment from Naked Gun when Eric stepped away to go to the bathroom with his mic . . .
I heard it! 🤳💨💦
I was just referencing Detective Drebin in a comment yesterday! It was in relation to an especially obtuse theist caller who was more or less arguing that our Norse-named weekdays are proof for Yahweh. All I could hear was Leslie Nielsen saying:
_"I know a place that serves _*_great_*_ Viking food."_
For clarity's sake, Robin, why are you asking what THEY think when the only thing you need to do is prove YOUR imaginary friends exist.
Vi approaching ultimate adorableness on this one. Ultimately.
Well I am happy to see Eric and Vi alive, I haven't seen them on the ACA for afew weeks. Now back to the internet to find out they left a community they help build.
They did? What happened?
@@Zachorazor1 so I found a post on the talk heathen reddit page. Disagreement and creative conflicts seem to be the words implied. However the real details are left out. ACA or reddit mod post that Vi and Eric moving on to new projects and Eric(or vi I don't remember) post their goodbyes saying they have been indefinitely removed as host. And not given a final episode.
@@ericwilliams1659 Wow. Thanks for taking the time to update me on that. That's pretty big news.
@@ericwilliams1659 they wanted money and more airtime, they simply aren't popular enough
6:34 The caller _isn't_ arguing that a god exists, he just wants to have clarification on whether or not anyone accepts that this being exists? _Right._
Presuppositionalism can *_only_* survive in an environment that has been sterilized against rational debate. This is why its proponents are so hell-bent on destroying any basis for reasoning outside the confines of their own theological cesspit.
Like Vi, I don't like the dichotomies.
I'm an Atheist. I don't *believe* any of the god claims made to date.
I'm also an Agnostic - I don't think we can *know* with absolute certainty.
I'm therefore an Agnostic Atheist.
Do you mean you don't like false dichotomies? Or do you mean you actually don't like A cannot equal not A?
Darth is infamous for his false dichotomies. He totally does it on purpose though. He gives premises using a definition, then changes the definition in the conclusion... Which is really hard to do on accident.
And he is demanding to know how she decides to disbelieve. That is completely backwards. Nobody should need to have reasons not to believe something that has never been shown in the first place.
I feel confident enough to say with absolute certainty that a god doesn’t exist. Same thing that I can say about any mythical creature.
The circularity in the presup argument is that it claims “without god, knowledge would not be possible. Since knowledge is possible, god exists.” How does this assumption justify that knowledge would not be possible without god?
Good job, kids. The clips are as entertaining as the live show.
Ok... so 'relavatory' is Gods Communication, and you know it's from God cause its Revalatory????
I once had a rat that chewed it's own tail off that was less circular than that.
Lol......you made me smile my friend 👍
@@altal2993 ⁰0
@@altal2993 glad I could....lemme tell you about the time my GF found one of the house cats pulling off its tail skin in the shower....
When she was going to shower for work....lol
At least he`s sort of capable of having a conversation, and doesn`t answer every question with another question from his script
you underestimate the ....breadth of his script (there's a flow chart he's following, with a list of bullet points to round it out)
@@TheSnoeedog but many of the presups aren't even able to have a conversation to answer questions. They just ask and than continue with the script even if it doesn't fit the answer they got
Also worth noting, I don't know what the name for it is, but I've been in the same camp as Vi for a while now... I can't speak to all gods, as I can't be sure I've encountered all god-concepts, but for one reason or the other, I've eliminated all the theistic god-concepts that I _have_ encountered. Robin was trying to take a page out of Darth's book by trying to force his interlocuters to defend their position by refuting all god-concepts at once. That's only valid if you arrived at your position by that same methodology.
It's called intellectual honesty. You're just an Atheist.
So 'revelation' is just "I believe it without a reason".
May as well just use 'faith'! :)
ALL these Darth clones read the same script use the same talking points because the religious argument hasn't changed in 90 years
Robin is one of those dishonest people just like Darth:
John Petersen said DD argument is only sound in that he defines
god in such a way, without substantiation, that he can offer premises that do not fit reality. By claiming the premises: there must be something foundational and ultimate, and that
his god is that thing, and all facts are dependent on that god, he builds an argument that is wholly and utterly begging the question.
Asking questions like: can god exist in a world where I or more facts is not dependent on him?; what is ultimate and foundational in your world view if it's not god?; if you don't believe in
god how can you know anything or have reason?; etc...only have meaning in the context of his utterly constructed and unsubstantiated premises. His argument is nonsensical and is
Built on illogical faulty premises.
It’s weird now Darths cults god is just a ‘mind’ because he got tired of trying to defend the Christian god so he just labels this vague Deistic god concept ‘Bible god’ and just makes up what it does.
@@davids11131113 Yeah, there has been a noticeable shift over the last couple of months. I haven't heard Darth mention The Triune God of the Bible in quite a while. He used to defend _that_ god exclusively.
@@davids11131113 thats because Darth knows he is incapable of defending his God, so instead he attempts to make you argue against the very possibility of _any_ god. It's incredibly dishonest because he claims you can't argue from a position you don't hold, and yet he does so every time
Either God is trying to speak to Vi and Eric, or Eric's chair needs oil.
Wow, Robin has to work very hard to defend his beliefs by pretending he doesn't understand the question "how do you know it was god that revealed something".
All he could respond with was - Stuff exists, therefore god. He really doesn't want to think about how every revelation could just be him fooling himself and believing others that have fooled themselves.
First they’ll try to convince you that you can’t trust your own senses. Then they insist you trust theirs. Funny logic.
@@iliketurtles6777 ya, i've literally had Mormons just wave their arms and say just look around you when I've demanded evidence.
This is Robin (JRobin in Darth's channels)'s main shtick. He is one of the worst interlocutors out there.
@@KenLord the classic argument from "LOOK AT THE TREEEEEEES!!!"
"I´m not giving the cosmological argument, but what I´m saying basicially is in line with the cosmological argument."
In the Skeptic Generation videos I have seen so far, Vi always sounds distant. Eric leaving was useful because without Eric’s microphone, we cannot hear Vi. It seems that Vi’s microphone has not worked properly since the channel started.
As embarrassing as that was, it was helpful! We've made some audio changes and that should be fixed moving forward :)
@@SkepticGeneration Murphy's Law--it's a thing.
@@SkepticGeneration Nothing to be embarrassed about. Mistakes are inevitable. Only thing to do is what you did... fix it and move forward.
That's her own fault
I don't collect stamps, but i wouldn't call myself a hard or soft
non stamp collector.
Subscribed!! I like your approach guys.
Thanks! Looking forward to seeing you around!
Hooraaay!! I didn’t know where you guys went. I’m so goddamned happy to have found y’all again! Thank science! Subscribed. Bell rung.
14:50 and there we have it.
We have a standard of evidence and they do not. This is the ultimate foil.
Yay!! New show!! So excited for y'all!!
Thank y'all so much for all the work y'all do!!
I’ve heard this guy multiple times AXP, he tries so hard to follow a script and get to the gotcha question. I kinda feel sorry for people like Robin who thrive on being a troll but he chose this path and misery loves company
@14:30 the caller begs the question when they assert that "god has revealed that a disembodied mind is possible" while attempting to demonstrate that god is possible by showing that a disembodied mind is possible. Their premises appear to be supported only by the very conclusion they aim to prove -- which is textbook question begging.
Oh snap, that’s jrobin. I’ve talked to him.
I ultimately do not care about the word ultimate.
With that being said, Vi and Eric are gracious hosts. Kudos for the progress and keep up the good work.
I’ll be honest. I was watching this and eating a sausage sandwich (UK in the house!) and dropped some ketchup down myself, and took my T-shirt off because it was one of my favourites (Fraserhead, mashup of Liz Fraser from Cocteau Twins and David Lynch movie). So I watched this video with my shirt off eating a sandwich and as much as I enjoyed it, I felt like John Wayne Gacy. I don’t know why but it didn’t seem like a non-serial killer thing to do
As someone who likes sandwiches, likes to run around shirtless and is not a serial killer, I can ensure you that it's a non-serial killer thing to do too. :)
@@berndborte8214 Give it time.
@@orionred2489 That's absolutely correct. If I wanted to be absolutely precise, I should've written "not a serial killer, yet". :D
"I really want to talk to Robin" already has me excited, I love comedy.
How did Robin know things before he had the revelation?
He would probably say that certain things were revealed to him at birth. He knew from birth to go download the God program.
If they’re being charitable, they’ll say that non-Christian’s can reason, but can’t account for reason. Which is nonsense- if the universe is real and our senses and cognition broadly accurate, we can account for reason just fine. God doesn’t solve anything, just adds another layer of presupposition.
“What is your standard of truth, what makes something worthy of believing?”
“Ummmm.. appeals to authority”
My main comment is actually that I find this show way less stressful than other similar content.
I like how Vi drops the mic, picks it back up to drop it again. Then Eric Throws the mic one more time. Great job guys.
What’s more pathetic? Darth or his cheerleader cultists?
Answer YES!!
I think you guys did a phenomenal job, I'd have had whatever level of different response but I wanted to comment on one thing specifically or I've curated my own counter apologetics, all observable minds are attached to physical brains and computers if any theist using any strategy wants to claim God is an abstract mind use "all observable minds are attached to physical brains and computers". It's very effective keep coming back to it, explain how hardware contains software and displays it to show these computer minds explain how brain tissue works at whatever level you understand it and constantly compare it to their abstract concept.
I used this series of argument on true empiricism several years ago, where as soon as that argument came off my lips he controlled my audio for the rest of the call and I just kept coming back to it and he looked ridiculous, constantly muting over 70 times.
Yea I don’t accept at all there exists something that is ‘ultimate and fundamental to all things’ nothing with such qualities has ever been observed it’s just a totally baseless assertion it’s ridiculous.
TJump said it best in his debate with DD. It's reality. Simple as that. Reality determines what is possible and impossible. We don't know what's behind reality, so it ends there. Of course, to DD's diseased brain, that is somehow gobbledygook compared to his brilliant and clear word salad.
Yes. I believe that there is some form of harmony in the universe keeping each other in check. Like how the laws of physics is kept in place by how physics work.
@@zacharyberridge7239 I've heard a lot of people, on both sides of the argument, disparage TJump... but I see no issue with his arguments.
@@sorenjensen3863 I don't always agree with him, but I usually do. When it gets into morality, I kinda check out. It's such a nebulous concept, I don't think philosophers or theists can adequately address it. I just think we keep trying to do better, and we can't even all agree on what better is.
@@andreaskarlsson5251 Well the laws of physics are our observations of how things work and should work and they’re pretty reliable observations so far, I don’t think we’ve observed gravity and there’s something ‘keeping the effects of gravity in check’ it is just how it is.
Man - Vi is getting fierce! I love it! ... Y'all should get a backup table mic tho 😅
I think Darth or a Darth follower calling in is a rite of passage for atheist- related (not necessarily focused on atheism) call-in shows.
It’s analogous to the Predator’s first kill.
I hope Robin has a completely rounded wall bathroom, otherwise he would loose himself in one of the corners.
Robin has nothing. He basically says that god is responsible for all knowledge. Where does he get this idea? The Bible, which is the basis for his religion. Yet the Bible presents itself as a book of human myths, with no proofs, and does not answer specific scientific questions.
He can't really use the Bible as an information source. So tries to work the whole concept of science as only being possible because god shows us the world around us through science. That science is a subset of religion.
Which is a desperate attempt to try to make religion the origin of, and a part of, our current understanding of scientific subjects.
His concepts are a mess. It's sad.
Finally I figure out where you guys have been! I couldn’t find this channel linked anywhere, and I couldn’t remember the name. So glad it popped up in recommendations.
If God created all things, caller's definition, God created himself or God isn't a thing.
GAWD is tHe eXcEpTiOn!
This video is a great representation of what would happen if Darth was actually able to have a polite conversation. Robin is much more polite, but without bullying a barrage of questions, Darth's presup bs falls completely apart with simple questions.
Hey, Eric, Hey Vi, is this where you guys been hiding 🙂.... Or is this the new name for Talk Heather 🤣....Only kidding!!! Don't start that conversation 😯....anyway. have subscribed because I love you guys..... Thank you for everything you guys do. Vi, ur cool.... Eric.... Ur cool too... You guys are like Strawberries and Cream.... A perfect combination 👍
We're so glad you found us!!
Well you too are cool Al. Love your charm. One can say you’re the spoon to the creamy strawberries.🤓
@@iliketurtles6777 I've had life stuff go on over the past month (good stuff I might add) or so and have not paid attention. I saw the change at TH. It's ok, thought I'd just need to get used to it a bit more. Started to raise my eyebrow a little with the name issue. Wandered where my fab Eric and Vi were. I listen every week in my car in Birmingham UK, while waiting for my wife to finish work.... I'm a little disappointed as I sense dark goings on somewhere here.
But so pleased to find them again....
What I don’t get is why does it matter ? I prescribe medicine and save lives for a living of which I see the results daily and the idea of what is fundamental has zero impact whereas the scientific methods have 100% impact. Why would I care what is fundamental and how does it benefit anything ?
Darth Dawkins is pathetic, his clones even more so...
Ultimate?
"Can God make a burrito so hot he can't eat it?"
Socrates.
Someone needs to practice their script some more lol
Great job Robin!!! Even with a broken mic!!!
Derp Dawkins script.
Robin: "I'm following this script so I can try and trick you into saying something I can use to pretend you admitted God is real."
Hosts: "Well, we are not allowing you to do that as we want an honest conversation."
Robin: "Yeah but I just want to follow this script so I can try and trick you into saying something I can use to pretend you admitted God is real."
That's what I got out of this.
Pre-sups have such weak arguments.
If Robin were a lawyer, he would lose all cases by his logic and lack of evidence.
What event caused “god” to decide to cause the “first cause”?
Good point, does god also create its wants? Does it have needs? If it were real and wanted us, why then would it plan to separate us, plan a hell (Christian god) and plan to have souls fill said hell. Especially if it’s all powerful and wants us near it, why make that “our” choice while we can’t know it? What kind of benevolence is that?
What was god doing before ‘the first cause’ … playing backgammon by himself?
"The telephone callers argument is not logical."
Mr Spock
“Your standard of evidence is different than mine”
- No shit!
Yeah. I had a feeling about this guy with his opener. I will ask this again, "Are any theists not arrogant?????"
Sorry Eric but this entire conversation was NOT fun to listen to. You just allowed Robin to play his little presuppositional apologetics game and it gets bogged down in definitions and the listener really does not want to hear any of that verbose argument. I rate this session a 1 using a 0-10 scale where 10 is great and 0 is absolutely sucks.
I was wondering where Eric went. Glad I found him.
1:39 - Vi perfectly described my perspective. Either there is an intelligent designer (i.e. an agent that created, and possibly sustains the universe), or there isn't. From that standpoint, I assign 50% probability to the proposition. But as soon as you start ascribing attributes and canon to that designer (omnipotence, omnibenevolence, caused a worldwide flood, etc.) the probability of the veracity of the proposition drops precipitously.
For this reason, I believe as Vi does: there is virtually no chance that any religion's explicitly-defined god exists.
God refers to omnipresence which is contradictory to "an agent". In order to be an agent there must be a continuously and independently existing entity. Omnipresence is the complete absence of any such entity, else it would just be presence. This is a common misunderstanding in religion.
"Your standard of evidence is different than mine"
Yes, in that she has some. You said you just believe whatever YOU THINK your God wants.
That long pause that we thought we lost him. Big assertion of me to state this, but he was looking up for a response to her answer to the question. He is indeed following a script. Also my reasoning for my assertion was the lack of distortion in sound.
Vi was on FIRE!!!
Not really
Basically the default position is to withhold belief until sufficient evidence is found and proven. End of story. That's it.
Anyone that thinks that Matt Dillahunty is too mean or too "firebrand" should check out Eric and Jamie.
Eric especially has a very gentle and soft spoken approach that can reach theists that won't respond to the aggressive style.
Pretty amazing sound quality for the mic being all over the place.
2minutes in, this guy has already moved the goalposts
I've heard Robin several times and this was a better conversation. Well done.
I wanna talk to Robin. I’d concede everything, for the sake of the argument.
“I have no ultimate ground Robin. I don’t know anything. Help me. Go”
I’d love to see where the conversation (interrogation) goes from there.
I bought a watermelon yesterday. Sliced it in half and the pattern of the seeds spelled out 'THERE IS NO GOD'............a miracle!!!!
That was Satan Paul, he got you good!
@@norswil8763 .....or, far more likely, there is no 'Satan' and there is no 'God' and the watermelon was never a thing and I was just making it all up to show how utterly ridiculous your unverifiable, unprovable God assertions really are. The correct answer when there is insufficient evidence is "Currently, I'm not sure and don't know". Why is that so difficult a sentence for you to say?
@@paulklein4096 I'm being facetious Paul. Obviously the supernatural can only be argued through philosophical methods, speculation. Honesty is the first thing to go when trying to prove a god.
@@norswil8763 Ha ha - good one Narwhal. 'Satan got you good'....brilliant. That's exactly the kind of dumb-assed meaningless nonsense they come out with.
@@paulklein4096 it always amazes me, what will they say next?! People in mental institutions sound almost sane compared to these theists sometimes.
Good job Vi and Eric. The presouper came and left with an empty sack.
Eric....had that been a #2, do you think Robin would have hung around and waited with the rest of us? lolol
The strategy of a pressup: be so low and slimy, repetitive and aggressive, mistaken and cocky that your interlocutor loses all desire to take you seriously. Then declare victory. Doesn’t work at all but that’s all they have.
Robin is definitely nicer than Darth but he is Darth's "Mini Me". He presents the script almost exactly as Darth does. These pre-sup apologists are all about word tricks and trying to twist you around but they can only do it if you let them manipulate you down the path of their script. Vi did an awesome job at getting in front of that from the beginning.
Vi bears more than a passing resemblance to Elizabeth Fraser (when she was younger). Nice!
Who fed Robin the follow up question? He's getting coached. Bold move.
He was, at this time, a Darth Dawkins minion. He has allegedly given up on the presup schtick.
LOL one of Darths social justice warriors for Jeebus. What an hilarious fellow.
There’s a hole in the revelation argument that needs addressing.
1. There are people in mental hospitals who believe god has revealed it that they are perfectly sane and the alternate reality they are living is real. They believe they know this in such a way that they can’t be wrong .
2. How would Robin know that he’s not just a person in a coma or heavily sedated who “thinks” god has revealed knowledge to him.
Presupps think they can escape the brain in a vat problem but first they would have to demonstrate how to distinguish a person who is in a coma who is dreaming god has revealed it to them that they are actually not in a coma but living a normal life from someone who actually has revelation.
What’s the criteria to differentiate person X ( someone who thinks they have divine revelation ) from person Y ( someone who actually does).
Both scenarios involve a person who claims they know it through god in such a way that they can’t be wrong .
You have to use a scenario similar to a brain in a vat ( but something that we can actually relate to) .
You have to strip them of revelatory knowledge and rip that rug from underneath them and force them to demonstrate the difference between person X and Y.
When they fail to do so they have lost the ability to be certain about the revelation being genuine
Maybe a simpler way to state this (at least simpler for me), is to say, how do you know it's not just your imagination?
To appeal to a presupposed reality to ground reality doesn't work because the total reality isn't grounded, which defeats any such appeal.
Yes this planet doesn’t conform to your subjective idea of it. 👍