ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ย. 2024
- The whole video:
• Video
Yes, I do have a Patreon account, thank you for asking:
/ themessianicmanic
My other channel about other stuff:
/ reedwestward
My Twitter:
/ idiolekt
My tumbr:
www.tumblr.com...
My facebook:
/ themessianicmanic
Here’s my society6 store if you’re interested in my pretentious minimalist poster designs:
society6.com/t...
This is actually the first time I have ever seen an apologist actually explicitly arguing that circular reasoning is valid. I thought I had seen everything already, but this was new.
I was just astonished by this 😱
It is deductively valid
Read Aristotle circular reasoning is not always fallacious, when you’re arguing transcendentally your reasoning is inherently circular.
He’s not an apologist and the lesson is not meant to be arguing God’s existence, nor is he trying to convince people that God exists he’s simply going over logical fallacies, The argument he presented which is not really an argument it’s more like a proposition is valid because the conclusion matches up with the first promise. And pretty much every analytic philosopher agrees that epistemic circular reasoning is inevitable, how can you sense that your senses are valid? How can you reason that reasoning is reasonable, here’s an example why is logic logical because it’s reasonable why is reason reasonable because it’s logical. TMM is conflating epistemic circular reasoning with logical circular reasoning.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Maybe so, but nevertheless, even if _some_ circular reasoning, at some level, is inevitable, that fact in itself has no use in arguing for the existence of any gods. (If anything, it only serves to weaken any arguments for gods, as it only increases doubt rather than decreasing it.)
Mind blown. Special pleading.. for circular reasoning. Enabling a fallacy with another fallacy, and throwing in a strawman as an example. Creationist spaghetti code that still doesn't compile.
The only spaghetti code that compiles is the FSM.
Can I get a R'amen?
Lol I'm stealing that for Christmas, I knitted a FSM for the top of our tree! He looks epic!
Natalie Skinner
I hope you're eating Spaghetti in honor of the Delicious One.
tabularasa0606 I'm not sure...my children are blasphemous and do not enjoy the delicacy of any pasta!...sometimes I just don't know who they are! Lol!
Tbh I wish I could post a pic here of my Glorious FSM! We could all have a wee giggle at how His meatballs look like testicles hahaa! Have to admit the noodly appendages were a bitch to do! I knit them around pipe cleaners so they are posable! On the eye stalks are a pair of amazing big googly eyes that I had to specially order lol! Best thing I have ever made!
Just tell this fellow; "I am god because I say so. I'm correct because I am god."
Can't argue with that, it's my Ultimate Standard(tm)!
Damn, you cut the dawkins quote too short :D
bitches
TheBT bitches!
Someone has the link to that video?
Navarretuz just search Dawkins Bitches
Well... I will have lots of fun. Thanks
So, circular reasoning is okay because of special pleading. Got it.
or baseless assertions.
Classic fundie apologetics 101:
Step 1: Attempt (erroneously) to show that atheists/naturalists/secularists/etc commit Fallacy X
Step 2: Assert that only Christians can reason using Fallacy X, because Jesus/God/Uncaused Cause/etc
Step 3: Profit
It's really more a two-step thing for most apologists, though.
Step 1: Point out a logical fallacy.
Step 2: *Immediately use it yourself with no apparent self-awareness.*
I added the third step, "profit", for cynicism and accuracy.
TestMeatDollSteak I know, but that's a more special case. Not every apologist makes money out of it.
I just wish I remembered which apologist it is I'm thinking about who in the process of explaining a logical fallacy's problems immediately committed it himself. All of them kind of blur together in a formless mass of incoherent bullshit after a while. I'm not sure if it's chemist scientist John Morris Pendleton or one of the shithead authors Steve Shives did An Atheist Reads series about before he flipped his lid and joined the popular cult doing the rounds...
I mean, it was pretty bad. Literally in the same sentence where said dickhead explained why a logical fallacy was bad, immediately did it.
Bah, it's probably William Lane Craig. It's the kind of shit he does.
***** Haha. The whole time I was reading your response, I just kept thinking about the debate between Sean Carroll and William Lane Craig, where Carroll points out that Craig makes a God of the Gaps argument immediately after claiming that he wasn't making a God of the Gaps argument. Classic. Sean did really well in that debate...I think that TMM even made a few videos on it.
TestMeatDollSteak Yeah, WLC is pretty much a gigantic jackass like that... my "favorite" example is him saying that most other philosophers [the false philosophers because only sainted He, William of Lane Craig is a True(tm) Philosopher(tm)] just name other philosophers from history in lieu of making an argument whereas sainted He would never do such a thing, and then does it. Six times as much.
He's just _such_ a dick!
That guy is the ultimate standard of idiocy.
dogless10, and hypocrisy! Apologists seem to mostly be made up of "Snake Oil Salesmen"! Bullshit artists.
That's a misquote of Dawkins.
The actual quote is
"It works... _bitches._ "
So, basically, it's ok if you're full of shit, as long as it's Gods shit
Ahhh Cmon let Richard finish. Here I'll finish for him... It works....BITCHES!
Yeah, the truncation broke my heart a little bit.
Why on earth did you exclude Dawkin's very next word from that quote?
It is absolutely essential to the message!
...
bitches
I'm thinking it would be a little distracting in the middle of a video.
patu8010
Yes. I love the quote but it works better at the end, not in the middle of the video.
But it _isn't_ at the end of the video. It's not in the video at all, *that's the point*!
johnfaber100
The point is that if he had included it in the video and then kept talking, part of the effect would have been lost. That's why he decided to cut that part. Do you understand?
Once again apologetics boils down to "I'm a willfully ignorant liar, therefore there's an invisible demon in the sky who will torture you for eternity if you don't believe in and worship him without evidence for his existence".
1:24 _"we must, in fact, reason circularly when we reach our ultimate standard."_
no, we mustn't, unless we're irrational. a rational person starts by assuming his unprovable ultimate standards are true, then reasons linearly from there.
KEvron
"...bitches."
The ontological argument is a perfect example of circular reasoning.
G-Division51 Yeah, what sucks though is creation scientists went looking (in large groups, of course) on that mountain that it supposedly ended up on, I can't remember it's name (I think it's somewhere in Turkey?), the second time they went looking the Soviet Union told them to stay off the mountain, if my memory is correct. It's on the Answersingenesis website. They had to admit to having never found it. You think God would have just thrown them a bone so to speak and made finding it possible. After all, they did put forth the effort.
It's sort of not. There defining god to be something that must exist. So it's obviously still wrong but it's not circular reasoning.
"Ultimate Standard!" Now with a side of Nacho Cheese blasted flavor for only $12.99 at The Circle Jerk Hut! Tuesday is Ladies Night!
Nice song in the closing credits!
Theist: God obviously doesnt need a creator because he is the most complex being!
Atheist: But you say the universe is so complex it requires a creator?
Theist: Correct!
Atheist: Then why do you end that reasoning at god?
Theist: Because God! :D
Atheist: ...
New outro is the best outro.
Damn, that guy was so close to self-awareness.
Ah, so he solves circular reasoning by special pleading. One fallacy justified by another.
lol I love the outro
3:00 my answer would be because science works and I can demonstrate that it works.
you don,t know science fool you have not studied anything you were stealing when other children were going to school
Apologists never cease to amaze me. Are they so dim that they cannot see their glaring double standards?
"Circular reason is a no-go, unless we're talking about the Bible, then it's perfectly acceptable - I'm just gonna pull a term out of my arse, and call it 'ultimate standard'. Yeah, that'll work!"
Kinda reminds me of the whole: Everything has a cause, unless we're talking about God, then it's perfectly acceptable to say that he's eternal. Why? Because stoping there is apparently a-ok!
Gotta love these religious arguments:"You're not allowed to do that! But I am! In this very specific case, because.... noodles!"
Razid - But Gawd is the ultimate thing, so he doesn't need a cause...
The best part is that they clearly know and understand their arguments are false.
loki2240 Ikr? Lmao, while being surprisingly absent from reality. Oh, Religion...
Razid Nothing like compounding a fallacy with another. So not only is he arguing circular reasoning is wrong, but then throws in special pleadings to excuse it. But what can you expect from a theist? When placed into a corner by his own reasoning, they will cut a hole in the floor to dig themselves deeper into the hole they have dug trying to escape
4:08 this is the real reason why i watch your channel
Was getting legitimately sick of your end credits song, this new closing is the best, more of that! Thanks for great content.
If you base food on science you get record long periods without famine. The wonders of science.
Yes, right there at about the :50 mark there is a dishonest example of circular reasoning, an example to support his agenda. If the guy is going to explain circular reasoning, he ought to do it with valid examples.
Please let that be that your outtro from now on. Bonus points if it's a different instrument every time.
hmm... I wonder how he defines an "ultimate standard". Whatever I want to be true, the ultimate double standard.
He is fool unskilled in logic.There is no ultimate standard His defence of faith is is wrong way of proving faith
Lesson 35? I'm guessing Lesson 1 was 'the need for mental gymnastics in Creationism'.
"Da da da da daaaaa"
It's da mothafuckin' T double M
'Why do you think science is truth', because it is the best method we have as of yet found to figure out the truth of anything and it will eliminate biases and errors since it is a self correcting process. The results of science are demonstrable in our technology.
Loved the outro!
All you have to do to demolish this 'foundation' for circular reasoning is go to the faith argument.
Peter, as a Christian, has faith that the Bible is correct. Abdul, as a Muslim, has faith that the Qur'an is correct. One must be absolutely incorrect, yet both used faith in the inerrancy of their preferred religious tome to arrive at their "truth" statement. The double-whammy against using faith to find ultimate truth is that while we know without a doubt that either Peter or Abdul is wrong, there is also a very high probability that the other one is also incorrect.
Your while we know is circular reasoning.
Prophets come with miracles that make them to accept their word by people.
you believe what you talking is true or you don,t believe .
you have no reasoning for for thinking so , true believers have proof of their claim.
Melodica ending was awesome!! :D
Didn't you know? It's virtuously circular! ;)
the ending was particularly nice
Christian ) "It's only fallacious when somebody else does it' Double think
"It works... BITCHES!"
The only circular reasoning that is acceptable can be ones that are self-evidencing, like the Cartesian _cogito_ (I doubt; I exist).
That the bible is the word of God is nowhere even close to being self-evidencing (TMM bringing up other holy texts of other traditions is one way to make this point clear).
that apologist gave me the best laugh of the morning.
I didn't know you were such a musical mastermind! =D
That outro was dank.
"This guy is an apologist so you know there's something goofy coming." Dude. You're an apologist.
How is he an apologist?
@@Oombadoomba Definition of Apologist (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) -
someone who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something that is typically controversial, unpopular, or subject to criticism.
He does that for atheism.
@@lightbeforethetunnel
Fair enough. I guess he should've specified what kind of apologist the guy he's responding to is.
hello TMM first thanks for your videos... as an ex muslim I see amazing similarity between Christian and muslim apologists.. the way you follow in short videos is really efficient.. I wish if your videos translated to arabic
I think there are ways to add subtitles in, check with TMM if you want to do the translation.
Ironic. He could save the others from fallacies, but not himself.
You cut out the part of Dawkins saying bitches, I am saddened.
But it wouldn't have added anything to the argument....
I liked this video and I would say that I think that a proper premise for the Christian argument SHOULD be that God exists because the people who wrote it were inspired by him. I know this sounds like circular reasoning, but this leaves open more room for discussion and third party sources and corroboration. So it’s not that, “God exist because the Bible says God exists”, but rather, “God exists because people claimed to have been inspired by God and had their lives affected by God.” That’s a more logically sound argument.
Perfect outro.
Yeah, his fossil example was weird but true and what you said is true. He just constructed a stupid example to make the fictional scientist look stupid. Thank you for the good video that addressed some silly things he stated.
When a person starts swearing its makes them sound so much less professional and childish.
Excuse me, what was that GLORIOUS instrument you were playing?
That's a melodica.
Rabbit, from Steam Powered Giraffe, has played that in the past.
TMM thanks, now please keep playing it :)
heh! we used to use the melodica, doubled with harmonica, on our recordings, but only the harmonica for live performance.
you know, cuz melodicas just aren't cool.
KEvron
Thanks! Also please keep playing it.
The ending was so out of the blue I love it
Please tell me that's going to be your outro from here on.
that ending... you look like the hipster to end all hipsters.
You need to appear in your videos more often.
not only ok, it's a requirement. "The bible is true because it is god's word. God is real because the bible says so."
Always enjoy your work TMM
"Ultimate Standard"? whose ultimate standard?.. The bible.. So the bible is true because the bible says it's true and we know this to be the true because the ultimate standard of true is the bible. TMM, you are wrong.. This is not circular reasoning, this is the 8 of circular reasoning.
Also, other religions also have their 'ultimate standard'. So are they all true?
One of your best.
Fantastic response! I can't believe this guy says that circular reasoning is false _except_ in his case... that's special pleading, yet another fallacy. To say "scientists do it, too", even if that were accurate, would be ad hominem tu quoque. I don't think this guy genuinely understands logic, or at least won't apply it consistently.
don't believe in science, understand it.
That song at the end tho👍
awwww, you didn't let dawkins finish....
TMM is right because TMM uses reason to show where TMM is right, therefore TMM must be right.
I find your presup style attack on reason as circular cute, if clumsy. Only, rreason can be backed by observation(science is a mixture of rationalism _and_ empiricism. And, again, science works. Also, the apologist attempts to use reason and excepts logic, so is clearly open to rational rebuttal. Presuppositionalism ius intellectually bankrupt. I hope you were joking.
munstrumridcully Apologists attack science, and rationality. I attack funnybones with logic. Spot the difference? Look within yourself.. you know it to be true, with your own "special knowledge" fallacy!
frosted1030 yay, you _were_ kidding! I'm relieved😀
You cut off the best part of Dawkin's quote
Bitches!
It works... bitches.
0:52 Also, carbonium.
Oh come on! Don't cut out the BITCHES! That's the best part...
shot bus wheels go round'n'round
I'd take a ride on the shot bus!
Another round for the shot bus on me!
Yet another good one! 4:07-4:21 You are such a fuckin' hoot. LOL
We need to live our lives. We need some guidelines on how to do that. Science provides guidelines that enable us to live our lives successfully. Even if science is wrong, it's the best tool we have to enable us to live our lives successfully.
Christianity, on the other hand, is not about living your life successfully. It's about living your life such that your next life will be successful. The problem is, it can't demonstrate that there even is a next life.
Science tells to you lie steal , cheat ,kill hate.
@@ghumman1000 Christianity tells you that you can do all of that when Yahweh gives you permission.
You rock, or what ever your musical preference, #TMM, YOU ROCK! Or...
The problem with beginning by accepting the conclusion you want is that you blind yourself to what the real conclusion might by. People are very good at rationalizing that which isn't rational. It's a problem that's very easy to fall into regardless of how intelligent you are. It's why indoctrination works.
This comment is written by a god
gnhtd1 Gee, how could anyone possibly refute that!?
We can only live our lives by what we observe and that's why science works.
Great video!
Well done 👍
Good vid as always.
Circular reasoning can be handy to explain some concept from another perspective, though it will not prove it. I think circular reasoning is okay to define things or explain them, not to prove them.
woop woop! liked this one!
What an amazing display of self-delusion. "Circular reasoning is bad except when we use it for the most important thing we believe."
Just for fun of it I tried fallacies and their own arguments against creationists, they immediately called out my BS. Yet somehow they are surprised that I'm not buying into their fallacious reasoning. Typical hypocrisy of creationism.
Please keep the new outro!
Was the lesson before this one straw man because he is expert at that fallacy.
So my question is do Apologists know that they are using deceptive arguments?
It seems that it's OK if you are WLC or Dinesh D'Souza.
Does anyone have the link to the video with Dawkins' explanation that TMM showed here?
When do you tour?! LOL
Best ending ever.
If people who went to church for one hour a week would spend that one hour a week checking themselves, say, otherly, maybe they could still do good in their communities without spending that time, (learning?), about a god who leaves it ALL up to us anyway! That would be a lot of man, woman, child hours spent doing good instead of, (learning). Think of the implications. All of that time wasted in church learning about someones interpretations of a god, when they could be discussing how to better the human condition, locally, as well as worldwide, which let us understand, IS local!
So ... this guy obviously never heard about the formal science that took a few decades to thoroughly establish logic and mathematics without circularity, just to be super-sure-sure that what we do is correct? ... well, of course he didn't. He is just happy with special pleading his own circularity by throwing some strawmans around. Now that's some standard you cannot argue with ... though for different reasons than it being impenetrable.
You know ... grabbing your king and running away is also a strategy to win a chess game that not clever piece moves can prevent.
P1. The Word of God can be identified solely on its claim to be the Word of God
P2. The Bible claims to be the Word of God
P3. The Qur'an claims to be the Word of God
P4. The following text exists: "The moon is made of cheese, and this text is the Word of God"
Conclusion: The Bible and the Qur'an are both Word of God - and so is this text: "The moon is made of cheese, and this text is the Word of God"
3:57 why cut out the best part?
St. Thomas Aquinas qualifies as a "Theist", so this your video title is hyperbolic lol
The amount of delusion one has to be in to believe this is absolutely mind blowing. Please seek help.
Didn't know you were a musician, TMM.
What does this apologetic mean by "the ultimate standard"?
Apologists love the word "ultimate" because it's the sort of term that is subjective, non-quantifiable, able to shift goal posts when needed, and which can't be properly defined. It's perfect for their psudeo-philosophy.
Circular reasoning is _technically_ valid, it's just pointless.