I never knew Aron said this but I was thinking this the entire call, 'if everything is faith based then reality ceases to exist'. The caller has successfully made an Argument For Delusion
Absolutely. One of the worst calls ever. I thought for sure that after Eric was led in circles by this guy, then Vi finally cut in they’d cut through the BS and get to the root of the problem. Nope.
They agreed on a definition at 4:01 ("belief without evidence") so any following usage of 'faith' would fall under that. They didn't agree to redefine it at any point throughout the convo so I don't think what you're saying happened actually happened. If one of them uses the word incorrectly in the context of the agreed definition, that's not an equivocation issue, that's simply misapplication of the word. I found it really easy to follow and didn't pick up on any equivocation issues.
This reminds me of the conversation between Greg Brahe, Bob Greaves, and Eric Hovind. Eric Hovind intentionally swapped 'Honesty', 'Consistency' and 'Validity' over and over again. At one point, Eric said - "You need to be as honest as you can be." 10 minutes later, he said - "I asked you to be consistent and you agreed to it." 10 minutes after that, he said - "You claimed that your points would be valid..." And then...back to "You promised to be honest and each of your statements would be completely truthful." Bob Greaves caught him towards the end and exposed the dishonestly. That's what this guy is going with the word 'Faith.'
I've noticed this "Everything is faith" equivocation circling through apologist circles a lot lately. I guess it's kinda effective. In the sense that it's so blitheringly stupid that it's hard not to just get mad at the person for being so smugly mendacious. I assume there's some apologist or set of apologists pushing this idea hard right now. As far as memes go, it's pretty cursed.
At that point you can just say "If I have faith in science, then religious people have BLIND faith in their religion, because evidence go AGAINST what your faith says". Bring it down to their level so that they understand you're talking about two different things.
@@TheDahaka1 I was actually just recently arguing with a person pulling this schtick. There's no misunderstanding. There's no weird indoctrination/cognitive dissonance thing going on. They're just liars. They're willing to do or say just about anything to drag reality down into the gutters with them. They're more concerned with being right than being correct. If you get my meaning. It's the inevitable consequence of conservatives across the globe sliding head first into fascism and spreading fascist rhetoric. No ideology but the acquisition of power. I think Eric's anger was justified here. If the caller was anything like the other people I've encountered arguing this way, they just need to be shut down for their inanity. Ridiculed if needs be. These are not serious people.
what is most pathetic about presup callers is that they think them babling nonsense is like owning anyone besides making themselves look stupid and childish. that "hahahah" when he gets caught is just sad
That caller is very dishonest. He made a point to say he does not support solipsism. He even emphasized it. But his argument hinges on solipsism. I was hoping Eric would remind him about that and ask him if he was being intentional about it.
A minute in and we already have a problem. Faith and intuition are not the same thing; having a hunch and looking for evidence to verify it isn't the same thing as believing something purely on faith. He does this with everything he tries to call faith. Inference, experience, trust in our own memory and senses, none of these are even vaguely synonymous with faith.
Eric sure likes to get these guys on the line. YET IF WE TAKE THE GAHHHDAMN CONVERSATION TO THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION. The callers will always be either A. Dishonest or B. Disingenuous. I'm with Vi on these calls. They ALWAYS go the same.
I had to fast forward to the end.. I.really couldn't understand where all that was going Basically..Faith is believing something to be true without evidence.. If you have evidence there is no need for faith ? So What ?
The thing is, we DO have evidence for our experiences. They're called memories. Some are better than others in terms of evidence. Like, knowing I dislike pickles because I remember experiencing eating a pickle and disliking it. Then there's more tangible evidence, such as scars, tattoos, and acquired skills. Eric touched on this with walking. None of these require faith. And, yes, one can bring up the fact idea that we popped into existence 2 seconds ago, but as usual, this issue isn't solved by including faith.
Those experiences are fine as a starting point. But they are not evidence. Evidence is what we can present to others. We can't present our subjective experience to others.
Religious faith appears to necessarily be "loyal trust", not just trust. The old "trust but verify", for example, can not be applied to religious doctrine.
I think I have a headache just from listening to this. And I think she was right when she said that his position is essentially solipsism without claiming that it's solipsism. For JP evidence is a subset of things one has faith in. Since faith is belief without evidence, and JP thinks evidence requires faith, he has constructed a paradox workout realizing it. If JP is communicating himself correctly, he sees no distinctions between trust based on experience, belief without evidence, or the acceptance of evidence; for him, they are all just faith.
The term "faith" has a lot of connotations that are extremely difficult to disentangle from it in conversations like this. It may be useful for future discussions stemming from here to use a different word, even if it's just a nonsense string of characters, in order to precisely define the concept being discussed.
I’m only 4 or so minutes in, but this caller’s opening argument isn’t quite on the nail. A scientist can have an untested hypothesis, but they don’t just believe it to be true (akin to the type of religious faith the caller confirms). A scientist may suspect it might be true and wish to test it to confirm their hypothesis before believing it to be true. Also, generally speaking, scientists have prior evidence to form this tentative hypothesis, so they do in fact have an element of evidence at the start of the process. Edit - right, he’s just another caller who can’t see the difference between having a degree of confidence biased on prior evidence and someone using blind faith.
@@Leith_Crowther According to me, it is. The point is to shock the theist well past their tolerance and force them to accept that I'm not playing their game by their rules. Once they recognize that their script will never work, they either give up (80%) or engage honestly and try to figure out why the thing they've been told always works isn't working(15%) or they try to kill me (5%). Either way, I win.
@@Leith_Crowther How so? Either the theist runs away (I win), the theist engages with their actual brain and I can deconvert them (I win) or they do something stupid which justifies me venting frustration on them physically before having them arrested (I win). There's literally no outcome that isn't in my favor.
Religious faith, in my experience, always came with a specific feeling. I lost that feeling the same way I lost my faith in God and the supernatural; it evaporated like steam vapor. I've never felt like that again and I don't have that kind of faith in anything.
He’s replacing the word “confidence” with “faith”. My past experience gives me confidence of an outcome. Especially since he is using faith is believing without evidence.
I've said it before and I'll say it again (that's why the hosts are clever because they don't sound like a stuck record like me), One could have faith that magical pixies created the universe or that we are living in the matrix therefore faith is not a good pathway to truth, especially regarding origins and gods. It is literally just an assumption and assertion and nothing more.
Lack of experiences make us uncertain about a probable result. When we have consisten experiences about a thing, we can be certain about an specific result. I can be certain about that a leg or an arm will never grew up again in a human being as I´m certain that a person with tons of faith will never expec that to happen either.
Usually scientist are the persons who knows exaclty what is """wrong""" with the scientific method. What are the limits of it. Same argument as the mistakes in science discovered by other scientists. :D
Presups invoke hard solipsism to show we make our own presuppositions about our senses and reason. While true, they make they presuppose the same things, but then they add the bit about whatever God they like without any sort of justification. It's a super lazy "argument".
TRUST is when you believe in what someone tells you without substanciating evidence, or when you believe in your own senses without relying on confirmation from someone else. SKEPTICISM is when you believe in something and you feel justified because every piece of evidence points to that conclusion, while no piece of evidence points to it being false (apart from extreme streches of imagination) FAITH is when you believe in something even when people tell you that it's wrong and you have no actual evidence to back it up, while every piece of evidence points to the contrary. FAITH is a KIND of belief, a subset of belief, that comes into action only when you have no reason to believe in what you believe.
I love how honestly Eric engages with people. I hope you guys are doing okay. I honestly can say I've learned a lot listening to Eric discuss things when I discovered all the older recordings from Talk Heathen followed by all the videos on this channel. Just wanted to say thanks for teaching me in an indirect way, Eric. 🫡
I award no points to the caller for switching between “confidence” and “belief without evidence” as his definitions of faith within the first five minutes. I have confidence in the methods of science, just as I have confidence that my car will start. This confidence is based on my experiences with these things; it is not belief without evidence. It’s not blind acceptance based on authority or text. What the hell is “faith in the past”?? Why do theists talk like this? If theists’ gods were real they wouldn’t have to engage in such clumsy, opaque wordplay.
_Would the apologetics offered up in defense of Abrahamic theism be _*_any worse_*_ if Yahweh _*_didn't_*_ exist? Or would the entire exercise be exactly as unconvincing as it is in a world where we're assuming that Yahweh _*_does_*_ exist?_
I'm going to do my best to remember this particular presup declaring that we cannot use our tools to work on and improve our tools each and every time I use a whetstone to sharpen a knife ... but I'm not going to make any promises. ... Additionally, I love *_love LOVE_* the idea that a theist would be so ready to flush personal experience down the theological commode in an effort to win a @#$% argument. See 38:56 for the beginning of the end of appeals to personal testimony being lamely offered up as evidence by theists! Hooray! *_♫ Personal testimony? PFFT! What is it good for? HWUH! Absolutely nuthin'!♫_*
A good way to explain this is an example of crossing the street. If we view faith as "not looking for cars before crossing" and the scientific method is "looking for cars (evidence) before crossing the street" If one doesn't look, they may make it across unharmed, or not. But because there's one instance where a person did make it across a busy street unharmed, let's even assume no accidents were caused, no one was hurt, we wouldn't or even shouldn't argue that not looking for cars before crossing the street is "useful" or a good thing in any capacity.
Watching this is bugging me a bit as to how pre-suppositions don't fit into the definition of faith being belief without evidence. Like the presupposition of mine independent reality. I feel it is inappropriate to call that faith but I'm struggling to find an actual justification as to why it's not.
Well, here's the question: Would you be willing to change your mind? The thing about a skeptical inquiry is that it can survive self-reference: The assumptions that have been made are only tentatively accepted and will be rejected when they show themselves to be unreliable. Even skepticism is subject to skepticism and if we can be shown that there is a better way, we'll reject it. I know we don't want to go down the rabbit hole of Cartesian Doubt, but it is something that must be addressed, especially in the light of the example given of the box with a chair in it. It is not impossible that everybody who went into the room and saw a chair and have come out and given a consistent description of that chair are wrong. Depending upon how deep we want to go, it can be an elaborate illusion played upon the people who went into the room where they come out with an impression that they saw a char that really wasn't there to the point where the person asking all these people is being fed an illusion...there isn't even a room let alone a chair in it with people going inside. That is a non-zero possibility. So why do we behave as if external reality is a thing? Because if it is all but an illusion and there is no way to pierce the illusion, then how is that any different from reality itself? And since a difference that makes no difference is no difference, we are content to choose the option that doesn't require extra bits that don't actually do anything. But we can't know for certain. Even though we live our lives as if reality is real, we understand that it is only a tentative acceptance of that state. We are willing to change our minds if we could be shown a good reason to do so. "But you don't know" is not sufficient. "But it could be," is not sufficient. We do have evidence that external reality is real because it behaves as we would expect it to if it were real. That doesn't mean that all of it couldn't be a grand illusion but again, if we can never pierce the illusion, what's the difference? We'll accept that we may be wrong but so far, going with the idea of independent reality seems to work. When new evidence presents itself, we'll consider it and possibly change our minds if it's sufficient.
@@dhwyll that was kind of the issue that it's not something you can have evidence for or against. That evidence comes from observation but in order to do observations you must first assume mine independent reality exists without that assumption what are you observing other than your own experience. You can't even begin a discussion with another person without the assumption that there is a world and that it is populated by other conscious agents. so you can't rely on other people's experience to validate your own because you must assume they exist and that is the claim that is being tested.
@@kevinhaddad9420 No, it's more the reality of the Null Hypothesis: Nothing is accepted without a good reason. We aren't assuming that an independent reality exists. We have evidence for it. What we are observing is consistent with an independent reality. That doesn't mean it can't be a grand illusion, but there is no evidence of such a grand illusion and thus, we reject that claim until such time as there is evidence to support it. Again, we are back to Cartesian Doubt: Whether there is an independent reality or this is all an illusion is irrelevant from a fundamental standpoint. There is something. That's the point behind, "I think, therefore I am": Even if you are "plagued by demons" (as Descartes put it) and everything you experience is just a fiction presented to you, there is still *you* experiencing it. Even if you, too, are just a program in some grand simulation, there is still a simulation that has generated *you.* From your perspective, that may be the only thing that you can definitively claim. After all, if you weren't here, then that entire conversation you're having with yourself over whether or not you exist wouldn't be taking place because there is no you to have it. That isn't an assumption. That is based upon the evidence: You are here (from your perspective). So what about everything else? We can't say for certain. But again, what you are experiencing is consistent with there being an external reality. Even if we were to assume that it's all an illusion, there is something that is generating that illusion to you. You may not understand the nature of that something, but the fact that you are experiencing something means that there is a something that is connected to an experience apart from you (either generating it or the actual thing). So again, that isn't an assumption. That is based upon the evidence: You are experiencing things (from your perspective). So now we have to consider if those things are real. Illusory things can operate however they wish. There are no constraints since they aren't real. That doesn't mean they have to behave in contradictory ways, but it does mean that they don't have to. This is in comparison to real things which would be constrained by their properties. So how to make a determination? That comes down to things like the Null Hypothesis. It requires evidence to indicate that there is something beyond what is being experienced. From before, we are confident that the experience is real. Thus, we accept it at face value without assuming "chocolate sprinkles" on top of it of some extra thing generating an illusion that mimics the real thing that is experienced. That doesn't mean it's proven true. We aren't assuming it to be true. We are simply demanding that before we claim that there is something more, we must have evidence to justify it. And we don't have any. Thus, we reject H1 in favor of H0. The experience we have is accepted at face value since we don't have any justification to claim that there is more to it. We might be wrong, but the burden of proof is on the one making the claim and the claim is that there is more going on than what we're experiencing. Thus, we behave as if there is an external reality because all that we experience is consistent with that. Again, illusory constructs can behave any way they wish and while that includes behaving in lock step with how an external reality would behave, that alone is not good enough to justify a claim of illusion. So no, you don't assume an independent reality exists. Instead, you start with observation and come to a conclusion that existence is consistent with there being an independent reality. That conclusion is tentatively accepted until such time as good evidence presents itself to call it into question.
There should be a Truth that other truths point towards. The biggest problem with reality is that it looks very different depending on who you are. I think that is why truths are important because it can shape the reality that you are seeing. People certainly all have faith to some degree but the degree of reasoning can vary wildly. There are things you can know with certainty as well. I have faith that my car will start everyday when I go out based on a long history of my car starting everyday. I can know with certainty that my car will not always start, one day I will have a dead battery or some other mechanical issue. I can also know with certainty that if my car fails to start, Gremlins are not the cause. Our observations are evidence of something. Reasoning is a skill that is developed, which is why some people are very good at reasoning and others not so much. It is our observations of the world around us combined with reasoning that helps us get from faith to knowledge. When a person isn't blinded by irrational desires, we can often know when someone did a better job of reasoning than we did and easily adopt the better reasoning that in turn provides a better understanding of what we are attempting to understand.
I believe education and knowledge will always survive without faith. You can and will become more knowledgeable and educated without faith because of the evidence. You can only have faith without evidence which translates to knowledge and education.
@@Semper_Fish Belief: a feeling of being sure that a person or thing EXISTS or is TRUE. Faith: complete TRUST or CONFIDENCE in someone or something. It is hilarious you can't see the difference. Hence why education is important.
Firs they say don't bother with the 9 that say blue. Then even your own experience is pretty much worthless. I call BS on this as well. The most non-solipsist solipsist ever. We are preparing to start shoehorning in "the voices in our head" as some real kind of value here.
It seems like discussion should have delved into properly basic beliefs at some point. I, personally, will believe things without evidence if doing otherwise would cause me to die or be put in an insane asylum. For example, inductive reasoning often works. My actions can influence an external reality. My memory has some reliability to it. Other people are also conscious. None of the above can be proven. But if you actually went about life believing the contrary, you wouldn't make it very far.
Could this just be fixed if truth is defined as "that which comports to my perception of reality." My perception includes other people and their descriptions of their perceptions of that same reality. It seems like it bypasses needing an unnecessary discussion on solipsism.
The problem of solipsism doesn't really go away ever. It's just people that have interact with philosophy are aware of its existence and tend to skip over it in the discussion because you have to in order to acknowledge one another's existence.
@@kevinhaddad9420 Right, I get that it never goes away. I was just trying to avoid that long unnecessary "Well don't you have faith in your observations?" part. Honestly, he was probably going to drag it there no matter what, so it isn't worth it.
I think this started as a basic confusion between the colloquial understanding of "faith" and the actual definition. When on secular matters, overwhelming confidence in one's own opinion is called "faith". Even if your evidence or logic is poor, or contrary to most other people's opinion. Whereas religious faith is the belief in something in the complete absence of any positive evidence.
Yeah, like I have faith that my phone will start every time because it has done a million times already. Even then though, I'm not 100% sure it will start because I know electronics can fail sometimes. Theists have faith that a god exists because they were indoctrinated, think the bible is the literal word of god and think spirits and woo woo is real. There has been no actual demonstration of any of that whatsoever.
And there is a gradient of reliability to subjective experience as well. Simply feeling strongly about something, we discover through practice, is not reliable. But in any case,it's NOT EVIDENCE, because it's not demonstrable. Evidence refers strictly to what we can point out to each other. "I have a very strong sense of conviction that I saw something" is not evidence. "There it is again, next to that tree. Can you see it? It looks like a sort of grey box." "Yes, I can see it. Let's look more closely." NOW we have evidence, and therefore some basis for verification.
Look, ultimately everyone's views are based on the "faith" (meaning assumption) that there is an external reality separate from us, and that we are not brains in a vat experiencing delusions (or whatever variant of solipsism you prefer). That doesn't mean that faith in magical sky-daddies (gods) rests on the same basis. That's an additional claim I classify alongside claims of unicorns and bigfoot. Doesn't mean the claims aren't true, by necessity, but the claimant needs to demonstrate their reality if they want to be taken seriously.
This kind of idiots will just say "you have faith that you don't have faith" because they're terrified of the idea of having an inferior basis for their beliefs XD
Y'all need you some MAtt dilahunty. He'd have shut this thing down in a minute. 'You have faith' 'no i don't. I have confidence based on evidence. I can extend trust. I have no faith.' 'You have faith that you can use your reason to figure things out' 'No i don't. I not only can use my reason, i can use OTHER people's reason to check MY reason.' That's it. done.
Very early in here, but I think it’s pretty tough to defend the claim “faith is good for absolutely nothing” I think you would agree that we can cash that out as “faith has no utility.” Assuming you do agree, and that you are fine with using the sense of faith that refers to faith in a religion, isn’t it simply the case that for some people, faith does have utility? Some people find comfort in faith, others find a prepackaged moral system. Whatever the case, certainly there are people who find utility in faith. That is not to say that there are no other methods with which a person could find more utility for that same purpose. I (and I believe you)would reject the argument that a Toyota Corolla has no utility because there are Cadillacs in the world and Cadillacs are “better” cars. Of course the Corolla still has utility. I’m an atheist, but I just can’t see how one can justify this claim that there is no utility in any faith for any person. Now if you want to make an argument that we would all, collectively, be better off without faith, that’s fine, and perhaps you can support that, perhaps not, but that doesn’t get you to the first claim.
Two blind children bump into a wall. They both correctly conclude that they can't pass directly through the wall. One is told (and believes) it's due to God's will (or Allah, or Hanuman, etc.,) the other is not told that. At this point which blind child has the least assumptions regarding their inability to pass directly through the wall?
Empiricism is = My mother washed my cloths, diapers, clean house, food on the table. nice words...I believe she loves me. I do not NEED scientific, empirical evidence to believe that My Mother Loves Me. My reality does not change if you do not believe that My Mother Loves Me. I do not use faith in my mother whatsoever.
@@shanewilson7994 Please tell me how am I wrong... seriously. I care about what I can prove. I have love for things I can not personally prove. Greek scepticism is based on questioning your own scepticisim. Not others. "Scepticism" and scientific "Empirical" evidence are somewhat hijacked by science and twisted around a bit. Both based on does even matter which way to go about sun/earth relationship or what are the sun and stars?! I do not like cynic people! :D If you want to force your own self to stop arguing then go to zen and use hard solipsism. :D On matters of "faith"... I decide do I wanna be a parent or not. Medical professionals decide do I need to take a vaccine or not.
Both confidence and faith can use reason. Confidence reasons things out using evidence. Faith doesn't have evidence so the reason could be I can't think of any other reason and everyone has told me this and it's in a book
Your example of faith as reason is bad reasoning. They call that “god of the gaps,” AKA the appeal to ignorance fallacy. “I (or ‘we’) don’t know; therefore, God.”
It's a Fallacy of Equivocation to say that "everyone has faith" in order to ignore the critical distinction between justified and unjustified belief. I don't think you realize this, but you've compounded the problem with a new Fallacy of Equivocation around the word "reason." The example you've offered of "faith" being based on "reason" is a list of UNREASONABLE premises. In other words, you're using the word "reason" in its casual sense when trying to present an argument for its formal sense. A bit of careful rephrasing would help to clarify your argument here. Perhaps you could say "Faith doesn't have evidence, which can mean one of two things. Either the belief in question is taken PURELY on faith, with no justification at all, or it's taken on some ad hoc or fallacious basis such as emotion, convention, authority, and so on."
I can't stand these trolls who call into all the atheist talk shows on the same day to ask the essentially same questions. They don't care about the atheist perspectives, they just want to preach or waste the shows' time.
I think this guy is confusing having faith in something, and having confidence. Faith is only used when you don't have evidence. Confidence is when you have evidence. I have faith that I have many more years of life left to live. I have confidence that tomorrow the sun will rise and set around sunrise and sunset.
Through information discovered and through TESTING, theses scientists and researchers came to their conclusions. Not through faith. They used leeches and maggots because they viewed on the battle field that soldiers who had maggots on their wounds healed better. It wasn't through faith they did more studies into it.
This whole, "i can prove god by questioning reality" is so ridiculous. Even if you can prove evolution is wrong. Even if you can prove the big bang is wrong. Even if you can prove reality itself doesn't exist, how the F does that prove that a god did it????
This is all about philosophy. In world history, there have been about 10,000 philosophers. That's why I always hated philosophy. It's just matters of personal opinions with no proof which one is correct.
Presuppositional conflation of terminology. The caller is calling basically everything "faith" but not realizing he's talking about multiple concepts with the same word. There is Faith: belief in something you have no evidence for. This is the category of all mythologies, they only have conspiracy theories to support their claims. Then there is faith: not capitalized because it's reasonable faith. If something has happened repeatedly we can reasonably expect that thing to keep happening, unless something in the system changes. The earth is going to keep doing what it's doing, unless something "significant" happens to change the pattern. Remember relative scale here, even if the entire atmosphere disappears, the planet will still be here. As such "significant" is relative to the scale of what you intend it to mean. Presuppositional Arguments require absolutely Blind Faith. So their method of response to other people, is to try and conflate their Blind Faith with other people's reasonable faith in mundane occurrences. Another conflation trick played by Apologetics is to pretend Revelation (from god) and revelation (people talking to each other) are the same. JRobin and Derpy-Dawk, and other presups, on Clubhouse love to play this word game. Ultimately, Presuppositional Arguments are just gibberish word games, with useless terminology that only makes sense after you start believing in their god concept.
![Method Writing: The First Four Concepts - Jack Grapes [FULL INTERVIEW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ba9jAVzADY0/mqdefault.jpg)
Aron Ra once nailed this kind of reasoning: "Their God can only be real if reality isn't".
I never knew Aron said this but I was thinking this the entire call, 'if everything is faith based then reality ceases to exist'. The caller has successfully made an Argument For Delusion
Theist: I need faith to hold my weak position. If I can say you need faith too, then we're on the same ground.
I nearly cried when Vi asked him to call back in. I don't even know how I made it through the whole video. Mind-numbing.
Absolutely. One of the worst calls ever. I thought for sure that after Eric was led in circles by this guy, then Vi finally cut in they’d cut through the BS and get to the root of the problem. Nope.
Well, there are so many equivocation issues that it was hard to keep up with the argument. "Faith" was used in all its meanings simultaneously.
Yeah seven minutes in and I'm seeing that already. Without clear definitions being used the conversation becomes meaningless.
They agreed on a definition at 4:01 ("belief without evidence") so any following usage of 'faith' would fall under that. They didn't agree to redefine it at any point throughout the convo so I don't think what you're saying happened actually happened. If one of them uses the word incorrectly in the context of the agreed definition, that's not an equivocation issue, that's simply misapplication of the word. I found it really easy to follow and didn't pick up on any equivocation issues.
It took me seven minutes to realize Eric was petting a cat....
44 minutes 😊
Reasonable considering the onscreen graphics.
@@theotakux5959 , sad thing is, as much as I'd love to blame the lower screen, it was practically in full view, lol!
This reminds me of the conversation between Greg Brahe, Bob Greaves, and Eric Hovind. Eric Hovind intentionally swapped 'Honesty', 'Consistency' and 'Validity' over and over again. At one point, Eric said - "You need to be as honest as you can be." 10 minutes later, he said - "I asked you to be consistent and you agreed to it." 10 minutes after that, he said - "You claimed that your points would be valid..." And then...back to "You promised to be honest and each of your statements would be completely truthful." Bob Greaves caught him towards the end and exposed the dishonestly. That's what this guy is going with the word 'Faith.'
I've noticed this "Everything is faith" equivocation circling through apologist circles a lot lately.
I guess it's kinda effective. In the sense that it's so blitheringly stupid that it's hard not to just get mad at the person for being so smugly mendacious.
I assume there's some apologist or set of apologists pushing this idea hard right now. As far as memes go, it's pretty cursed.
At that point you can just say "If I have faith in science, then religious people have BLIND faith in their religion, because evidence go AGAINST what your faith says".
Bring it down to their level so that they understand you're talking about two different things.
@@TheDahaka1 I was actually just recently arguing with a person pulling this schtick.
There's no misunderstanding. There's no weird indoctrination/cognitive dissonance thing going on.
They're just liars.
They're willing to do or say just about anything to drag reality down into the gutters with them. They're more concerned with being right than being correct. If you get my meaning.
It's the inevitable consequence of conservatives across the globe sliding head first into fascism and spreading fascist rhetoric. No ideology but the acquisition of power.
I think Eric's anger was justified here. If the caller was anything like the other people I've encountered arguing this way, they just need to be shut down for their inanity. Ridiculed if needs be.
These are not serious people.
It sounds like you have faith in athiest apologists.
@@Semper_Fish You do know that dictionaries are freely available online, right?
@@rainbowkrampus It sounds like you have faith in dictionaries too.
Imagine thanksgiving with this guy. 💀
Scary
what is most pathetic about presup callers is that they think them babling nonsense is like owning anyone besides making themselves look stupid and childish. that "hahahah" when he gets caught is just sad
For what it's worth, I got the "War" reference
I strive to have faith in as few things as possible. Science requires the least amount of faith.
That caller is very dishonest.
He made a point to say he does not support solipsism. He even emphasized it. But his argument hinges on solipsism. I was hoping Eric would remind him about that and ask him if he was being intentional about it.
A minute in and we already have a problem. Faith and intuition are not the same thing; having a hunch and looking for evidence to verify it isn't the same thing as believing something purely on faith. He does this with everything he tries to call faith. Inference, experience, trust in our own memory and senses, none of these are even vaguely synonymous with faith.
Eric sure likes to get these guys on the line. YET IF WE TAKE THE GAHHHDAMN CONVERSATION TO THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION.
The callers will always be either A. Dishonest or B. Disingenuous.
I'm with Vi on these calls. They ALWAYS go the same.
I had to fast forward to the end..
I.really couldn't understand where all that was going
Basically..Faith is believing something to be true without evidence..
If you have evidence there is no need for faith ?
So What ?
Eric: ‘Because the problem of induction is a problem for everyone, it is not a problem for me.’
The thing is, we DO have evidence for our experiences. They're called memories. Some are better than others in terms of evidence. Like, knowing I dislike pickles because I remember experiencing eating a pickle and disliking it. Then there's more tangible evidence, such as scars, tattoos, and acquired skills. Eric touched on this with walking. None of these require faith. And, yes, one can bring up the fact idea that we popped into existence 2 seconds ago, but as usual, this issue isn't solved by including faith.
Those experiences are fine as a starting point. But they are not evidence.
Evidence is what we can present to others. We can't present our subjective experience to others.
@@starfishsystems that's why I followed them up with things such as scars, tattoos, and acquired skills. Things that can be presented to others.
Ah, the argumentum ad delusion.
Religious faith appears to necessarily be "loyal trust", not just trust.
The old "trust but verify", for example, can not be applied to religious doctrine.
It's best to label it: Religous Faith.
Vi, your Cheshire Cat faces are awesome. You’re a doll. 💙
JB doesnt use language. he abuses it
I always found the "brain in a vat" argument ridiculous. If reality is not actual reality what is the point?
All my favorite apologists argue for a spaceless, timeless, _and personal_ mind in a vat.
I think I have a headache just from listening to this. And I think she was right when she said that his position is essentially solipsism without claiming that it's solipsism.
For JP evidence is a subset of things one has faith in. Since faith is belief without evidence, and JP thinks evidence requires faith, he has constructed a paradox workout realizing it.
If JP is communicating himself correctly, he sees no distinctions between trust based on experience, belief without evidence, or the acceptance of evidence; for him, they are all just faith.
im on the cat's side
The term "faith" has a lot of connotations that are extremely difficult to disentangle from it in conversations like this. It may be useful for future discussions stemming from here to use a different word, even if it's just a nonsense string of characters, in order to precisely define the concept being discussed.
ahhhh HE ALMOST SAID IT JB trusts that he's talking to Eric and VI, not faith
what is their terminology for having an assured confidence of something without evidence?
I’m only 4 or so minutes in, but this caller’s opening argument isn’t quite on the nail. A scientist can have an untested hypothesis, but they don’t just believe it to be true (akin to the type of religious faith the caller confirms). A scientist may suspect it might be true and wish to test it to confirm their hypothesis before believing it to be true. Also, generally speaking, scientists have prior evidence to form this tentative hypothesis, so they do in fact have an element of evidence at the start of the process.
Edit - right, he’s just another caller who can’t see the difference between having a degree of confidence biased on prior evidence and someone using blind faith.
I didn't mind JB overall. He seemed to honestly want to discuss his thoughts and wasn't being a jerk about it. Plus good audio.
As Matt would say I don't use faith, I make some presumptions (that my brain and senses r accurate) and then use evidence 2 assess claims.
I frequently tell theists that 'faith is the one true sin'.
Why, though? According to the mythology, it isn’t.
@@Leith_Crowther According to me, it is. The point is to shock the theist well past their tolerance and force them to accept that I'm not playing their game by their rules. Once they recognize that their script will never work, they either give up (80%) or engage honestly and try to figure out why the thing they've been told always works isn't working(15%) or they try to kill me (5%). Either way, I win.
You got a weird idea of victory, dude.
@@Leith_Crowther How so? Either the theist runs away (I win), the theist engages with their actual brain and I can deconvert them (I win) or they do something stupid which justifies me venting frustration on them physically before having them arrested (I win). There's literally no outcome that isn't in my favor.
@@mitchhaelann9215 A debate should be about getting closer to the truth. You have a really weird fetish for "winning"
Religious faith, in my experience, always came with a specific feeling. I lost that feeling the same way I lost my faith in God and the supernatural; it evaporated like steam vapor. I've never felt like that again and I don't have that kind of faith in anything.
Are you interested in a path to find that feeling again?
@@Semper_Fish It's a false euphoria. So no, we don't want it.
@@grantcarpenter6685 Have you pet a Musky in the wild without catching it? That's euphoria.
@@Semper_Fish Whatever floats ypur boat, man.
did blood letting actually work though? are was it held up by presumption since they had lil to no knowledge of medicine then
He’s replacing the word “confidence” with “faith”. My past experience gives me confidence of an outcome. Especially since he is using faith is believing without evidence.
I've said it before and I'll say it again (that's why the hosts are clever because they don't sound like a stuck record like me), One could have faith that magical pixies created the universe or that we are living in the matrix therefore faith is not a good pathway to truth, especially regarding origins and gods.
It is literally just an assumption and assertion and nothing more.
What's the cat's name?
Lack of experiences make us uncertain about a probable result. When we have consisten experiences about a thing, we can be certain about an specific result. I can be certain about that a leg or an arm will never grew up again in a human being as I´m certain that a person with tons of faith will never expec that to happen either.
0:18 people don’t get that song reference?!?!?
I know I'm preaching to the choir, so to speak, but presup argumentation is just narcissistic philosophical maturation.
Damn autocorrect
The problem, JB, is that experience is evidence. Its not accepting something with an absence of evidence.
Usually scientist are the persons who knows exaclty what is """wrong""" with the scientific method. What are the limits of it. Same argument as the mistakes in science discovered by other scientists. :D
Presups invoke hard solipsism to show we make our own presuppositions about our senses and reason. While true, they make they presuppose the same things, but then they add the bit about whatever God they like without any sort of justification.
It's a super lazy "argument".
Apologists ... especially the seminary school ones... love to equivocate in order to befuddle so as to easier hawk for their delusions.
Yep, when in doubt, conflate conflate conflate.
That way you can pivot back and forth between whichever concept is most useful for you.
TRUST is when you believe in what someone tells you without substanciating evidence, or when you believe in your own senses without relying on confirmation from someone else.
SKEPTICISM is when you believe in something and you feel justified because every piece of evidence points to that conclusion, while no piece of evidence points to it being false (apart from extreme streches of imagination)
FAITH is when you believe in something even when people tell you that it's wrong and you have no actual evidence to back it up, while every piece of evidence points to the contrary.
FAITH is a KIND of belief, a subset of belief, that comes into action only when you have no reason to believe in what you believe.
I love how honestly Eric engages with people. I hope you guys are doing okay. I honestly can say I've learned a lot listening to Eric discuss things when I discovered all the older recordings from Talk Heathen followed by all the videos on this channel. Just wanted to say thanks for teaching me in an indirect way, Eric. 🫡
I award no points to the caller for switching between “confidence” and “belief without evidence” as his definitions of faith within the first five minutes.
I have confidence in the methods of science, just as I have confidence that my car will start. This confidence is based on my experiences with these things; it is not belief without evidence. It’s not blind acceptance based on authority or text. What the hell is “faith in the past”?? Why do theists talk like this?
If theists’ gods were real they wouldn’t have to engage in such clumsy, opaque wordplay.
Well said Hank, 100% agree my dude. :)
What happens when your confidence is broken?
@@georgyporgy777 Could you succinctly provide your absolute best evidence that a god exists then if you're so smart?
@@TheTruthKiwi I have confidence that you and hank likely don't know the steps of the scientific method.
@@Semper_Fish You mean peer reviewed journals?
_Would the apologetics offered up in defense of Abrahamic theism be _*_any worse_*_ if Yahweh _*_didn't_*_ exist? Or would the entire exercise be exactly as unconvincing as it is in a world where we're assuming that Yahweh _*_does_*_ exist?_
I'm going to do my best to remember this particular presup declaring that we cannot use our tools to work on and improve our tools each and every time I use a whetstone to sharpen a knife ... but I'm not going to make any promises.
...
Additionally, I love *_love LOVE_* the idea that a theist would be so ready to flush personal experience down the theological commode in an effort to win a @#$% argument. See 38:56 for the beginning of the end of appeals to personal testimony being lamely offered up as evidence by theists! Hooray!
*_♫ Personal testimony? PFFT! What is it good for? HWUH! Absolutely nuthin'!♫_*
A good way to explain this is an example of crossing the street.
If we view faith as "not looking for cars before crossing" and the scientific method is "looking for cars (evidence) before crossing the street"
If one doesn't look, they may make it across unharmed, or not. But because there's one instance where a person did make it across a busy street unharmed, let's even assume no accidents were caused, no one was hurt, we wouldn't or even shouldn't argue that not looking for cars before crossing the street is "useful" or a good thing in any capacity.
Watching this is bugging me a bit as to how pre-suppositions don't fit into the definition of faith being belief without evidence. Like the presupposition of mine independent reality. I feel it is inappropriate to call that faith but I'm struggling to find an actual justification as to why it's not.
Well, here's the question: Would you be willing to change your mind? The thing about a skeptical inquiry is that it can survive self-reference: The assumptions that have been made are only tentatively accepted and will be rejected when they show themselves to be unreliable. Even skepticism is subject to skepticism and if we can be shown that there is a better way, we'll reject it.
I know we don't want to go down the rabbit hole of Cartesian Doubt, but it is something that must be addressed, especially in the light of the example given of the box with a chair in it. It is not impossible that everybody who went into the room and saw a chair and have come out and given a consistent description of that chair are wrong. Depending upon how deep we want to go, it can be an elaborate illusion played upon the people who went into the room where they come out with an impression that they saw a char that really wasn't there to the point where the person asking all these people is being fed an illusion...there isn't even a room let alone a chair in it with people going inside. That is a non-zero possibility.
So why do we behave as if external reality is a thing? Because if it is all but an illusion and there is no way to pierce the illusion, then how is that any different from reality itself? And since a difference that makes no difference is no difference, we are content to choose the option that doesn't require extra bits that don't actually do anything.
But we can't know for certain. Even though we live our lives as if reality is real, we understand that it is only a tentative acceptance of that state. We are willing to change our minds if we could be shown a good reason to do so. "But you don't know" is not sufficient. "But it could be," is not sufficient.
We do have evidence that external reality is real because it behaves as we would expect it to if it were real. That doesn't mean that all of it couldn't be a grand illusion but again, if we can never pierce the illusion, what's the difference? We'll accept that we may be wrong but so far, going with the idea of independent reality seems to work. When new evidence presents itself, we'll consider it and possibly change our minds if it's sufficient.
@@dhwyll that was kind of the issue that it's not something you can have evidence for or against. That evidence comes from observation but in order to do observations you must first assume mine independent reality exists without that assumption what are you observing other than your own experience. You can't even begin a discussion with another person without the assumption that there is a world and that it is populated by other conscious agents. so you can't rely on other people's experience to validate your own because you must assume they exist and that is the claim that is being tested.
@@kevinhaddad9420 No, it's more the reality of the Null Hypothesis: Nothing is accepted without a good reason. We aren't assuming that an independent reality exists. We have evidence for it. What we are observing is consistent with an independent reality. That doesn't mean it can't be a grand illusion, but there is no evidence of such a grand illusion and thus, we reject that claim until such time as there is evidence to support it.
Again, we are back to Cartesian Doubt: Whether there is an independent reality or this is all an illusion is irrelevant from a fundamental standpoint. There is something. That's the point behind, "I think, therefore I am": Even if you are "plagued by demons" (as Descartes put it) and everything you experience is just a fiction presented to you, there is still *you* experiencing it. Even if you, too, are just a program in some grand simulation, there is still a simulation that has generated *you.* From your perspective, that may be the only thing that you can definitively claim. After all, if you weren't here, then that entire conversation you're having with yourself over whether or not you exist wouldn't be taking place because there is no you to have it.
That isn't an assumption. That is based upon the evidence: You are here (from your perspective).
So what about everything else? We can't say for certain. But again, what you are experiencing is consistent with there being an external reality. Even if we were to assume that it's all an illusion, there is something that is generating that illusion to you. You may not understand the nature of that something, but the fact that you are experiencing something means that there is a something that is connected to an experience apart from you (either generating it or the actual thing).
So again, that isn't an assumption. That is based upon the evidence: You are experiencing things (from your perspective).
So now we have to consider if those things are real. Illusory things can operate however they wish. There are no constraints since they aren't real. That doesn't mean they have to behave in contradictory ways, but it does mean that they don't have to. This is in comparison to real things which would be constrained by their properties. So how to make a determination? That comes down to things like the Null Hypothesis. It requires evidence to indicate that there is something beyond what is being experienced. From before, we are confident that the experience is real. Thus, we accept it at face value without assuming "chocolate sprinkles" on top of it of some extra thing generating an illusion that mimics the real thing that is experienced. That doesn't mean it's proven true. We aren't assuming it to be true.
We are simply demanding that before we claim that there is something more, we must have evidence to justify it. And we don't have any. Thus, we reject H1 in favor of H0. The experience we have is accepted at face value since we don't have any justification to claim that there is more to it. We might be wrong, but the burden of proof is on the one making the claim and the claim is that there is more going on than what we're experiencing.
Thus, we behave as if there is an external reality because all that we experience is consistent with that. Again, illusory constructs can behave any way they wish and while that includes behaving in lock step with how an external reality would behave, that alone is not good enough to justify a claim of illusion.
So no, you don't assume an independent reality exists. Instead, you start with observation and come to a conclusion that existence is consistent with there being an independent reality. That conclusion is tentatively accepted until such time as good evidence presents itself to call it into question.
*mind*-independent, just fyi
Because your experience of the world is evidence. In this way it cannot be faith.
There should be a Truth that other truths point towards. The biggest problem with reality is that it looks very different depending on who you are. I think that is why truths are important because it can shape the reality that you are seeing. People certainly all have faith to some degree but the degree of reasoning can vary wildly. There are things you can know with certainty as well. I have faith that my car will start everyday when I go out based on a long history of my car starting everyday. I can know with certainty that my car will not always start, one day I will have a dead battery or some other mechanical issue. I can also know with certainty that if my car fails to start, Gremlins are not the cause.
Our observations are evidence of something. Reasoning is a skill that is developed, which is why some people are very good at reasoning and others not so much. It is our observations of the world around us combined with reasoning that helps us get from faith to knowledge. When a person isn't blinded by irrational desires, we can often know when someone did a better job of reasoning than we did and easily adopt the better reasoning that in turn provides a better understanding of what we are attempting to understand.
I can't believe that anyone buys into this line of crap. just a bunch of circular talk and word games.
2:40
Its not faith. Its the actual investigation and experimentation.
Eric Gets Esoteric playlist upcoming???
“Presup”… 🤦🏼♂️
#delusional
Faith is not the presence of any special knowledge, but the absence of elementary.
Get your Frankie Goes to Hollywood On!
Presups are the most obnoxious of the bunch.
Edwin Star War
I had the 45 It had a purple label
It's amazing the number of times that discussions like this come down to semantics.
I believe education and knowledge will always survive without faith. You can and will become more knowledgeable and educated without faith because of the evidence. You can only have faith without evidence which translates to knowledge and education.
It's hilarious how you said you believe that and can't see the faith in it.
@@Semper_Fish Belief: a feeling of being sure that a person or thing EXISTS or is TRUE.
Faith: complete TRUST or CONFIDENCE in someone or something.
It is hilarious you can't see the difference. Hence why education is important.
@@WE_R_DNA It sounds like you have confidence in your belief.
Faith is for chumps and trust is earned.
Firs they say don't bother with the 9 that say blue. Then even your own experience is pretty much worthless. I call BS on this as well. The most non-solipsist solipsist ever. We are preparing to start shoehorning in "the voices in our head" as some real kind of value here.
This call went on way too long and you let him ramble for absolutely no reason.
exactly
This was so painful, lol lol.
It seems like discussion should have delved into properly basic beliefs at some point.
I, personally, will believe things without evidence if doing otherwise would cause me to die or be put in an insane asylum.
For example, inductive reasoning often works. My actions can influence an external reality. My memory has some reliability to it. Other people are also conscious.
None of the above can be proven. But if you actually went about life believing the contrary, you wouldn't make it very far.
Could this just be fixed if truth is defined as "that which comports to my perception of reality." My perception includes other people and their descriptions of their perceptions of that same reality. It seems like it bypasses needing an unnecessary discussion on solipsism.
The problem of solipsism doesn't really go away ever. It's just people that have interact with philosophy are aware of its existence and tend to skip over it in the discussion because you have to in order to acknowledge one another's existence.
@@kevinhaddad9420 Right, I get that it never goes away. I was just trying to avoid that long unnecessary "Well don't you have faith in your observations?" part. Honestly, he was probably going to drag it there no matter what, so it isn't worth it.
@@slyrax4154 I think that would only make it worse, because it would put hallucinations and visual illusions on the same level than 'reality'.
I think this started as a basic confusion between the colloquial understanding of "faith" and the actual definition. When on secular matters, overwhelming confidence in one's own opinion is called "faith". Even if your evidence or logic is poor, or contrary to most other people's opinion. Whereas religious faith is the belief in something in the complete absence of any positive evidence.
Yeah, like I have faith that my phone will start every time because it has done a million times already. Even then though, I'm not 100% sure it will start because I know electronics can fail sometimes.
Theists have faith that a god exists because they were indoctrinated, think the bible is the literal word of god and think spirits and woo woo is real. There has been no actual demonstration of any of that whatsoever.
In my world the only difference between Truth and truth is one is capitalized and one isn't.
Yeah, I don't really understand why they were granting two types of truth.
Depends of how faith is used.
Presups are as annoying and absurd as SovCits...
I got the title… great song.
18:05 EXACTLY!!!
Experience IS evidence, barring perhaps hallucinations.
And there is a gradient of reliability to subjective experience as well. Simply feeling strongly about something, we discover through practice, is not reliable.
But in any case,it's NOT EVIDENCE, because it's not demonstrable. Evidence refers strictly to what we can point out to each other. "I have a very strong sense of conviction that I saw something" is not evidence.
"There it is again, next to that tree. Can you see it? It looks like a sort of grey box."
"Yes, I can see it. Let's look more closely." NOW we have evidence, and therefore some basis for verification.
Is this Ben Shapiro?
Look, ultimately everyone's views are based on the "faith" (meaning assumption) that there is an external reality separate from us, and that we are not brains in a vat experiencing delusions (or whatever variant of solipsism you prefer). That doesn't mean that faith in magical sky-daddies (gods) rests on the same basis. That's an additional claim I classify alongside claims of unicorns and bigfoot. Doesn't mean the claims aren't true, by necessity, but the claimant needs to demonstrate their reality if they want to be taken seriously.
He's just shoehorning "faith" into whatever argument is given to him. I don't think he actually cares what faith is.
2:03 Technological advance? Progress in medicine...?
This kind of idiots will just say "you have faith that you don't have faith" because they're terrified of the idea of having an inferior basis for their beliefs XD
Got ya.
Y'all need you some MAtt dilahunty. He'd have shut this thing down in a minute.
'You have faith'
'no i don't. I have confidence based on evidence. I can extend trust. I have no faith.'
'You have faith that you can use your reason to figure things out'
'No i don't. I not only can use my reason, i can use OTHER people's reason to check MY reason.'
That's it. done.
Very early in here, but I think it’s pretty tough to defend the claim “faith is good for absolutely nothing” I think you would agree that we can cash that out as “faith has no utility.” Assuming you do agree, and that you are fine with using the sense of faith that refers to faith in a religion, isn’t it simply the case that for some people, faith does have utility?
Some people find comfort in faith, others find a prepackaged moral system. Whatever the case, certainly there are people who find utility in faith. That is not to say that there are no other methods with which a person could find more utility for that same purpose.
I (and I believe you)would reject the argument that a Toyota Corolla has no utility because there are Cadillacs in the world and Cadillacs are “better” cars. Of course the Corolla still has utility.
I’m an atheist, but I just can’t see how one can justify this claim that there is no utility in any faith for any person. Now if you want to make an argument that we would all, collectively, be better off without faith, that’s fine, and perhaps you can support that, perhaps not, but that doesn’t get you to the first claim.
I think these conversations would be beter if solipsism did not have such a bad rep and people could just 'fess up to holding that believe.
There's no such thing as 'faith in reasoning.' Reasoning is INFORMED BY INFORMATIONAL EVIDENCE.
Two blind children bump into a wall. They both correctly conclude that they can't pass directly through the wall. One is told (and believes) it's due to God's will (or Allah, or Hanuman, etc.,) the other is not told that. At this point which blind child has the least assumptions regarding their inability to pass directly through the wall?
8 minutes in... This guy just wants to call everything faith...
Empiricism is = My mother washed my cloths, diapers, clean house, food on the table. nice words...I believe she loves me.
I do not NEED scientific, empirical evidence to believe that My Mother Loves Me. My reality does not change if you do not believe that My Mother Loves Me.
I do not use faith in my mother whatsoever.
Yup, and of course you could be wrong. But being able to be wrong doesn't equate to faith.
@@shanewilson7994 Please tell me how am I wrong... seriously.
I care about what I can prove. I have love for things I can not personally prove. Greek scepticism is based on questioning your own scepticisim. Not others.
"Scepticism" and scientific "Empirical" evidence are somewhat hijacked by science and twisted around a bit.
Both based on does even matter which way to go about sun/earth relationship or what are the sun and stars?!
I do not like cynic people! :D
If you want to force your own self to stop arguing then go to zen and use hard solipsism. :D
On matters of "faith"...
I decide do I wanna be a parent or not.
Medical professionals decide do I need to take a vaccine or not.
Both confidence and faith can use reason. Confidence reasons things out using evidence. Faith doesn't have evidence so the reason could be I can't think of any other reason and everyone has told me this and it's in a book
Your example of faith as reason is bad reasoning. They call that “god of the gaps,” AKA the appeal to ignorance fallacy. “I (or ‘we’) don’t know; therefore, God.”
It's a Fallacy of Equivocation to say that "everyone has faith" in order to ignore the critical distinction between justified and unjustified belief.
I don't think you realize this, but you've compounded the problem with a new Fallacy of Equivocation around the word "reason." The example you've offered of "faith" being based on "reason" is a list of UNREASONABLE premises. In other words, you're using the word "reason" in its casual sense when trying to present an argument for its formal sense.
A bit of careful rephrasing would help to clarify your argument here. Perhaps you could say "Faith doesn't have evidence, which can mean one of two things. Either the belief in question is taken PURELY on faith, with no justification at all, or it's taken on some ad hoc or fallacious basis such as emotion, convention, authority, and so on."
I can't stand these trolls who call into all the atheist talk shows on the same day to ask the essentially same questions. They don't care about the atheist perspectives, they just want to preach or waste the shows' time.
I'm only four minutes in, but it seems like the caller is describing the scientific method and not faith...
it's fun to watch ppl playing philosophy 😅
Vi, I 💛 ya, but you can't grant logic. It's math. You can't say that we use faith to determine 2+2 is 4.
I think this guy is confusing having faith in something, and having confidence. Faith is only used when you don't have evidence. Confidence is when you have evidence. I have faith that I have many more years of life left to live. I have confidence that tomorrow the sun will rise and set around sunrise and sunset.
Through information discovered and through TESTING, theses scientists and researchers came to their conclusions. Not through faith. They used leeches and maggots because they viewed on the battle field that soldiers who had maggots on their wounds healed better. It wasn't through faith they did more studies into it.
When did Ben Shapiro call the show?
They lost me at capital vs lowercase truth... I have no idea what they are talking about...
capital T Truth - they mean “Absolute Truth” which is mostly something you can’t get to
@@TheBrutumFulmen
That's still pretty vague...
This whole, "i can prove god by questioning reality" is so ridiculous. Even if you can prove evolution is wrong. Even if you can prove the big bang is wrong. Even if you can prove reality itself doesn't exist, how the F does that prove that a god did it????
This word vomit is insufferable.
This is all about philosophy. In world history, there have been about 10,000 philosophers. That's why I always hated philosophy. It's just matters of personal opinions with no proof which one is correct.
Vi has got to have the best hair ever.
Presuppositional conflation of terminology. The caller is calling basically everything "faith" but not realizing he's talking about multiple concepts with the same word.
There is Faith: belief in something you have no evidence for. This is the category of all mythologies, they only have conspiracy theories to support their claims.
Then there is faith: not capitalized because it's reasonable faith. If something has happened repeatedly we can reasonably expect that thing to keep happening, unless something in the system changes. The earth is going to keep doing what it's doing, unless something "significant" happens to change the pattern. Remember relative scale here, even if the entire atmosphere disappears, the planet will still be here. As such "significant" is relative to the scale of what you intend it to mean.
Presuppositional Arguments require absolutely Blind Faith. So their method of response to other people, is to try and conflate their Blind Faith with other people's reasonable faith in mundane occurrences.
Another conflation trick played by Apologetics is to pretend Revelation (from god) and revelation (people talking to each other) are the same. JRobin and Derpy-Dawk, and other presups, on Clubhouse love to play this word game.
Ultimately, Presuppositional Arguments are just gibberish word games, with useless terminology that only makes sense after you start believing in their god concept.
These people are so desperate to hang on to religious terms!