My Response To The Confusion Of
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- MadeByJimbob recently "destroyed" my Atheist Presuppositional Apologetics script according to the chat in a recent video so I took a look at what MadeByJimbob was saying. I am not impressed. He seems to be very confused and reciting the same old arguments that were refuted in prior videos.
Inductive Argument As Presented Verbally In the Video
P1: Everything that is observed to exist arises from pre-existing stuff.
P2: The universe exists.
C: Therefore, it is likely that the universe arose from pre-existing stuff.
Arguments Against Atheism 1-3 Refuations And Follow-Up Video-
• @MadebyJimbob ...What?...
• @MadebyJimbob ...Wow....
• @MadebyJimbob ... Bro...
• The Fatal Argument Aga...
Video This Is Responding To-
@MadebyJimbob
" The Blunder of @realBreakfasttacos "
• The Blunder of @realBr...
Explanation by Sabine Hossenfelder@SabineHossenfelder mentioned in the video.
• First Experiment to Co...
Paper mentioned in the video
"Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing"
arxiv.org/pdf/...
Original Video
"Christian Presuppositionalist (Faceofyah) Makes Me Very Angry While Presenting The Script"
• Christian Presuppositi...
Please like, comment, share, and subscribe for more amazing videos!
Join us at discord.gg/politics for more great conversations!
#religion #christianity #islam #metaphysics #buddhism #christianphilosophy #christian #islamic #metaphysical #morality #moral #ethics #kalam #philosophy #physics #science #quantumphysics #epistemology #ontology #apostasy
Greg Bahnsen, Cornelius Van Til, Presuppositionalist, Presuppositionalism, Presuppositional Apologetics, Kalam Cosmological Argument, Science, Agnostic, Agnosticism, Epistemology, Ontology, Physics, Quantum Physics, Necessary Being, Necessary Existence, Evidentialism, Evidentialist, God, Gods, Argument, Debate, Religion Debate, God Debate, Bible, The Bible, Quran, The Quran, Shroud of Turin, Evolution, Abiogenesis, Argument For God, Argument for Religion, Apologetics, Ignosticism, Metaphysics, Metaphysical, Discord Conversation, Discord, Philosophy, Philosophical, Philosophical Discourse, Theology, Theological Discourse, Noah's Ark, The Great Flood, The Ark, Religion. Argument Against Religion, Arguments Against Religion, Determinism, Free Will, Catholic, Apostasy, Apostate, Evolution, Evolutionism, Evolutionist, physicalim, physicalist
Stuff comes from stuff. Great , excellent id say.
Funny enough you dont observe anything "coming" from something else, you observe things changing their state into something else. If you have observations that break the first law of thermodynamics feel free to propose them.
That is why the argument says stuff arises from stuff silly. I think you are just confused here tbh.
Imagine spending almost 2 hours arguing against Jimbob trying to explain to him the difference between materialism and physicalism when you know for a fact that he obfuscates their differentiation intentionally to try and support his unfalsifiable claims of a god being.
I'm very proud of you, tacos :_)
Great point! Thank you!
do you actually believe the jibberish taco is arguing? :O
@@andreaskarlsson5251 How is it jibberish?
If the ancients were uneducated about the universe, it only shows that people like Jim Bob are following that side of ignorance.
Great point!
@@WE_R_DNA they definitely are smarter than us actually, how do some of the great wonders of the world align with constellations?
@@dolphinitely_bro3944 by not looking down at a device indoors but rather outdoors observing nature their whole lives for survival, that's how they did it. LoL!
In modern times, we've built computers to go beyond human capabilities to gather data, do experiments, and build our devices. Who's smarter? We can debate that topic for years. LoL! But in the end, I don't have an answer. When you look at our cavemen ancestors who had to do it on the fly, sink or swim, and survive, you'd have to give them credit too as being smart for keeping the human species alive without having any need for constellations or computers.
@@WE_R_DNA you realize a lot of darwins claims have been ruled out as theories, and mass transmission right?
@@dolphinitely_bro3944 is Darwin the final ruling to hypotheis and theories in the field of science he chose to observe? The answer is no.
And you do know that science is a process or method, not the final answer to experiments. This is why science is constantly changing as new data comes in. But the old data got them there in the first place.
Not all the way through, but I'm actually agreeing with JimBob a bit. So he is obviously using "the set of all things that materially exist" or something similar as the definition of the universe. That is why he says your argument is using a category error or composition fallacy. All humans have a height, but the set of all humans does not have a height. Likewise, all material things having the quality "made from existing stuff" does not mean the universe has this quality when defined this way.
That being said, this particular argument was used by Bertrand Russell to show the Kalam was fallacious, so it is surprising that JimBob would reference this argument unless he also rejects the Kalam as an argument.
The kalam is a composition division fallacy, this is not. I went into it further in the next video.
@@realBreakfasttacos But you agree that it is such a fallacy using his implied definition of the universe, right? I think providing your definition of the universe is important to show the fallacy doesn't apply to your argument. So I'm guessing that is part of the clarification in the second video?
GIMBAAAAWB
Yes!
Oh shit! I think I get it! We say the universe is everything that exists but they think that means the universe is everything that has ever existed. So the prior instantiation of the matter and energy (i.e. "stuff") is still the universe, to them, but we are mostly talking about the present, unless otherwise specified.
I think you're dead on here 💯
@@kyleepratt but no... Then he does this thing where he claims that by calling it a "prior instantiation", we're appealing to a multiverse! I probably shouldn't look too much into it
We need to establish what we mean by "universe", "space" (multiple senses), "nature" (multiple senses), "cosmos", etc
Great point!
This was a great clarification of the difference between the two "paradigms" and why the theistic one falls hopelessly short.
Thank you!
Heyo. Have you considered looking into the Holy Fire miracle? I am interested in it, either debunking or confirming it, but lack scientifical knowledge to study it by myself(or the cash to visit Israel).
Could you expand on what the supposed miracle is? I'm familiar with eastern Orthodox tradition of the holy fire ceremony at the church of the holy sepulchre, but I'm unfamiliar with the miracle associated with the name.
@@FeliciaByNature I replied but maybe youtube deleted it.
Can you see the other reply?
If I remember I'll check it out. Remind me if I don't in the next week.
@@realBreakfasttacos Sure thing!
you keep conflating science with philosophy, the philosophy is lacking. Im a couple minutes in and you confuse "meaning" with the possible reasons as to why someone acts and his psycological state. Alse existence isnt in the category of science you should at least know that.
i think you are confused with this response.
@@realBreakfasttacos He’s confused because he rejects the self-evident truth of our shared NNNNAATURALLLISTC AAAATTTTHEISTICCC REEAALLLIITTYY.
Very well defended, sir.
Jimbob had a lot to say, but, as you elucidated so eloquently, he turned up empty handed.
"Stuff comes from stuff" "the universe came from prior stuff" "I observe the universe" so profound and eloquent 😂😂😂 bunch of idiots
Thank you!
pure nonsense from both sides xD tacos is obviously just a troll.
Pigsnake like behavior here from Jimbob. He should repent.
LOL
👺👺👺
🐶 🐶 🐶
Hey man! Thank you!
Must protect pupper.
@@Redington931 Cerberus is doin a protect. 🐶 🐶 🐶
At this point you only can say “you just gotta believe me”
Yep
Yeah thats what it boils down to. Opinions without evidence. ~~
@@andreaskarlsson5251 the atheist way
I can’t be the only person who listens to this and wonders why the ideas can’t be expressed more succinctly.
Sorry :(
@@realBreakfasttacos not you :)
taco, im curious, do you actually believe the jibberish youre arguing for? :o
I think you must be confused.
@@realBreakfasttacos Sure, run away then. ~~ I'll just take you as another nutter like the other presuppers.
@@realBreakfasttacos Not one bit. could you answer?
Jimbob keeps using words. I don't think them words mean what he thinks they mean. 😅
But then again strawmanning for god, in his unrighteousness, and obnoxiousness, seems to be the only way he can roll.
Excellent points!
Ever since JB went insane bc Owen Benjamin, the comedian, didn’t believe in the trinity, had some questions, and didn’t understand it practically, I can’t take him seriously. he’s an insane person who will lie to be “right.”
That is hilarious.
I can't take jimbob seriously- the second he says "black jelly bean, jelly bean of color" you can tell he's just putting on a show for the brainworms crowd. His constant scroll of merch doesn't help either.
Interesting point!
you take anyone on these degen servers seriously? lol
Subbed
Thank you!
Jimbo is on milk and has a lot of growing to do before he can move on to solids.
LOL
"Once the quantum field cooled, chemical bonds could form. You just misunderstand our shared reality."
Yes but now they would ask who commanded the chemical bonds to only form once the quantum field cooled enough. They want you to ground the laws of physics because they presume all laws imply a lawgiver.
Do, do you think God is there everytime chemistry happens now? Chemical bonds form naturally all the time, no need for divine intervention...
That's just confusion
@@BrickGriff and you say what? laws just are ? They Have no lawgiver they just exist but where or how do you justify their independency?
@@ΟΜΑΚΕΔΏΝ-ο5λ one does not have to justify their "independence"... That is the word you were trying to use, right?
@@BrickGriff you need to justifyx it you can Not just say IT JUST IS OR IN YOUR CSE LAWS JUST ARE
Breakfast tacos- dude can you do us all a favor and edit this down to where it’s just the apologists bad arguments only, and then the debunk of them because having to listen to all their other bullshit is just too fucking tedious
Sure!
1:38:45 it is interesting here that Jimbob says (in a restating of premise 1) "people come from people, trees come from seeds". He's thinking about "coming from" in terms of birth, he's trying to talk about matter so he should say people come from the food they eat, trees come from air and water and a little soil.
Breakfast Taco is talking about where the material comes from to make our current universe, not what gave birth to the little seed that grew into our universe.
Great point as to how its not an internal critique.
Why is it so hard for them to agree that something can't come from nothing? I think they have to believe we believe in the impossible because otherwise we'd have to move on to the reasonableness of the concept of a disembodied mind being the preexisting stuff.
Great question!
"Composition fallacy"?! Your side is the one saying the only way for a thing to get its properties is from a greater thing that also has those properties!
Great point!
jb painted himself into a corner with his objections. now let's see him explain creation without also resorting to temporal terms, himself.
KEvron
Correct!
7:05 - referring to earth as a pressurized, contained system is an odd choice by JB. That doesn't hold up to the barest technical scrutiny, not sure why he said that.
Maybe his reason will make more sense later...
Also, it's petty, but trees don't "come from the ground" in terms of where the bulk of their mass comes from. Trees collect all their carbon from the air, so all that cellulose is really coming from the air.
Like I said, petty, but I don't ming being petty to Jimbob
That was definitely an interesting one.
Bro stop pausing before he even makes a point its annoying
Sigh
Howdy
Howdy!
Howdy
Hey there!
@25:50
"Atheists have to say many worlds"
No, no they don't. Regardless of any argument or discussion going on, "atheists" are not required to follow specific lines of philosophical, or scientific argumentation.
Atheist doesn't rhyme with, isn't a synonym of, and isn't part of the job requirement for, philosopher, or theoretical physicist, so why apologists insist on equivocating as though they mean the same thing, and why atheists permit them to continually do this, I do not know.
If you swap religious apologist out for ghost hunter, UFO nut, or cryptozoologist, and swap out atheist for 'individual who ain't buying your utterly BS assertions', the point becomes very clear.
Non BS-purchasing individuals could even set up a discord channel with a name such as 'Bigfoot doesn't exist, ding dongs' and when conversing with cryptozoologists there, no matter how much someone insisted that Sasquatch is a necessary precondition for something, and no matter how many questions a Bigfootism believer might spew out, no one is obligated to know enough about X to scientifically answer, or even to have an answer. No one need construct philosophical, sound arguments to refute asinine assertions, nor would they need an understanding of any particular philosophical position, adopt it and defend it.
The people bringing the silly to the discussion table have to demonstrate they're not just asserting fkn nonsense, or they can suck it the fuck up and accept that others will continue to point out that asserted nonsense is asserted nonsense, while reserving the right to mock them for being an adult who is asserting fantastical nonsense, as though it corresponds to reality.
Great points!
Forgive me for possibly misunderstanding, but if the claim is that the universe itself or the state that preceded it is eternal, wouldn't that necessarily entail determinism?
I don't think it's a question of infinite vs ex nihilo, more like a question of perspective. If you're framing things as free will vs determinism, there are many things where we have no free will, like walking through a solid wall or levitating- we can make a sincere choice to do those things, we just can't. In terms of choices like "will I have chicken or fish" the quantum clockwork of the universe *may* have already determined the outcome, but the interactions that determined it would be so numerous, minute, and unobservable that it wouldn't make sense to treat it as something deterministic.
Why would free will entail defying laws of physics?
@@Boneworm852you think free will means being able do anything?not being able to phase through a wall defies free will. How low lQ are you?
@@Boneworm852also not being to predict the "quantum clock" which i wouldnt grant you , wouldnt negate the fact that it would all still be determined, you not being able to not predict this determination wouldnt negate it
@@jesterprivilegefree will doesn’t exist only “Free Won’t” but they ain’t ready for that conversation yet.
He says this only applies "once you have a universe" as if you could have a universe without stuff... how is he distinguishing the universe from everything that exists?!
Lol how would you have stuff without a universe?
@@gibson4648 exactly! They're equivalent!
@@BrickGriff no they're not. A table isn't "the universe", nimrod
@@gibson4648 and it's not stuff either... At least not all of it. It's made of stuff, obviously. Let's not call names. That won't end well... For you.
@@BrickGriff lmao what else is a table made out of besides "stuff" you're so stupid it's hilarious
👍🏻It’s weird seeing Orthobro’s doing apologetics,it’s forbidden by the church
That's incorrect, literally one of the earliest documents from the church fathers is called "the first Apology"
@@DoomerdoxyWithJohn
Bullsh*t,I’m from a LOOONG line of Serbian Orthodox priests & higher ups,was educated at a monastery till 12,apologetics is strictly forbidden for the laity,only the bishops up can,rarely,don’t play these games with an OG wog heretic boy..
@@DoomerdoxyWithJohn You’re incorrect bračko,only the Patriarch can give permission,& laity is strictly forbidden,this is from St Sava monastery today kid,razumiješ?🤣
@@SabracadabrONo according to many saints and the church its allowed and should be practiced. Keep on your atheist position that can not justify anything and has contradictions in their own paradigm with their own assumptions
@@ΟΜΑΚΕΔΏΝ-ο5λwe don’t need to “justify” anything. That is BS lies people like you came up with
You won’t do a 1v1 on YT. lol. Keep running.
I’d like to see a 1v1, but on neutral ground. Jimbob’s soundboard of a screaming goat / other memes doesn’t lend to productive discourse
Wait, you think people are scared to debate jimbob??? Do you live in admitted planet? Jimbob is white belt, kindergarten level apologetics. Not too bright.
@@jackisgallant”logical coherence of Christianity”. 🙄😂 That is hilarious. 🎶 If you only had a brain 🎶
@@jackisgallanthe only dismantles worldviews from his external presupposition. He’s not doing an internal critique. It’s dishonest
@@rhende001 what that excalty shows that you didn't even watch this Video 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣bro you are just ignorant can you kot come with something better than that. If you already lie then create a better Lie 🤣🤣