Premise one: I am correct Premise two: I am correct Conclusion: I am correct!

@andreant862

Ай бұрын

He has cake therefore correct!

Caller - "Without my god, nothing would exist" Host- "Prove that's sound" Caller- "I dont need to. It just is true." Host- " Okay, without Fleep Florp, nothing would exist." Caller- "Prove that's sound" Host- "I dont need to. It just is true." Caller- "So you wont do any of the work and cant prove it????" Pretty much how that argument goes most times.

Presup is the last gasps of desperation from a dying mythology.

@brucebaker810

Ай бұрын

Turns out we were right all along. We never shoulda dropped the "we're in control" strategy. So let's go back to when arguing with us was fatal. When "most awesomest" was the answer to anything. ...and it FLEW with the pipples!

Darth Dawkins script. If the existence of God was demonstrable they wouldn't need to resort to word games like this.

@grantwing4942

Ай бұрын

Can't believe he is still grooming these fools after all those years.

@quecee

Ай бұрын

@@grantwing4942 I don't think Darth is "grooming" these guys. These guys just swallow what he puts out. They just take Darth's bullying to be "assertive" and the arguments as being strong because they think he wins all those arguments where he just kicks people out.

@damonkenny3444

Ай бұрын

@@quecee If TAG is false, why did atheists invent epistemic nihilism to counter objective knowledge?

@Mkeusquealbby

Ай бұрын

Indeed, no one ever had to convince me my parents were real. But an infinitely powerful being needs mortal mouthpieces to show its existence. It doesn't track

'I don't think it's assuming the conclusion. Anyway, we start with the conclusion,...'

The TAG is literally just defining the god into existence.

@MrMattSax

Ай бұрын

Well, if we define a god as necessary then it necessarily exists, right? Words + imagination= existence!

Shout out to Armin for trying his best to cut through the bullshit and get the caller to the finish line. I hate these kindergarten level arguments wrapped up in either word salad or "philosophy" pretending that they did any work to back up their claim. I HATE it calls like this PLUS there was another caller after this guy who did THE EXACT SAME THING. C'mon man.

@Andre-zw5kl

Ай бұрын

That's why he's my favorite host of the show

@Bozo_Weirdo

Ай бұрын

He obviously failed to do so. That’s why he so quickly moves towards ad-hominem. Thank God he had 2 rational people with him to reign him back in.

@Apostolnixx

Ай бұрын

@@Bozo_Weirdo ok, Bozo weirdo

@St.Jimmy815

Ай бұрын

From what I’ve heard, Armin is supporting Israel’s actions, even before I heard of this, most of his arguments are boring or doesn’t get the point across

Premise 1: The flying spaghetti Monster is a necessary precondition for knowledge Premise 2: we have knowledge Conclusion: Therefore the flying spaghetti monster That was easy.

@FernLovebond

Ай бұрын

rAmen. Blessed be his noodliness.

@runemanqwe

Ай бұрын

​@@FernLovebondSlurpy be its name. Amen

@A-WallfromAL

Ай бұрын

You’re totally wrong. The precondition for knowledge is Frank the Unicorn. 🦄 He told me this himself.

"God is real because he has to be real because him not being real is impossible because we have knowledge." Basically, my claim is true because my claim in the first premise that presupposes my claim is true because my claim proving that premise also presupposes my claim.

Armin really hit the nail on the head by asking what is knowledge. It even short circuited the caller since he didn't know how to respond to "there wasn't but now there is." And just went to the script of "i demand this to be a true dichotomy" and even having to say true just shows his intent is to be dishonest.

Presups are the most irritating religious folks, IMO. Get him!

Everybody laughs at presups, except presups, who don't get the joke.

@EdithBromfeld

Ай бұрын

Posturing and feigning laughter won't defeat their arguments. You have nothing.

@starfishsystems

Ай бұрын

​@@EdithBromfeld There is no need to defeat their arguments. That's another attempt to shift the burden of proof. They are, however, obliged to demonstrate the correctness of their arguments, and they have not only failed to do so, they've failed spectacularly. Their arguments may nevertheless still be correct. But until they are SHOWN to be correct, we have no reason to find them interesting. (That goes for your arguments as well, if it wasn't obvious.)

@EdithBromfeld

Ай бұрын

@@starfishsystems You failed to defeat the arguments too. You shift your burden to defeat the proof. You lose.

@Rookz

Ай бұрын

@@EdithBromfeld there is no argument. I presupposed I’m right, so I’m right. Prove me wrong.

@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2

Ай бұрын

​@@EdithBromfeldhi Daniel. What did you do over in Oklahoma?

Cake is an ingredient of Cake to this guy 😂

The first premise gives the conclusion up front, he should replace "God" with peanut butter, so the conclusion would be that peanut butter exists. Imo a working brain is the prerequisite for knowledge, nothing else.

@Bozo_Weirdo

Ай бұрын

A thing to know would also be a prerequisite, but I suppose that’s where we have a falling out, somehow.

Hearing the presup "argument" in syllogistic form is hilariously awful. Premise 1. God exists. Conclusion: God. ...and the people were amazed.

@landsgevaer

Ай бұрын

Atheism doesn't have a position about -god- how life arose. But thinking life just happened would always be less of a leap than god just happened.

@nullverba856

Ай бұрын

@@DontMakeTheGewsAngry Three things: *1.)* Atheism isn't a position on the origins of the universe. *2.)* Instead of pulling an answer straight out of Yahweh's butt, I am 100% content to posit nothing more than that *I don't know* the origin of the universe. So you being convinced or not about my position on the issue doesn't actually do any heavy lifting here, does it? *3.)* I'm inclined to wager that your "evidence" in favor of the existence of a deity is as nonsensical as any and all of the callers who've ever phoned into the AXP to get their ever-lovin' tuchuses handed back to them all tagged 'n gift-wrapped. Just a theory. And since you've already announced that your (ahem) "evidence" will remain under wraps ... it appears that our dialogue (such as it is) is already over. Thanks for making this so easy.

@DontMakeTheGewsAngry

Ай бұрын

​@@landsgevaerthe position of atheism is a disbelief it's an unwillingness or inability to accept God as true. You said believing that life just happened is less of a leap than God just happened or something like that. I is less of a leap than God just happened or something that. I guess this means you're implying that you believe the origins of Life came into existence without God so please provide evidence to why you believe that's true. And if I'm not convinced in return I will provide evidence to why I believe in God and we will see which one is more logical.

@DontMakeTheGewsAngry

Ай бұрын

​@@nullverba856 Atheism is a disbelief for lack of in God or gods which means it's an unwillingness or inability to accept God as true. Which means it's not willingness or ability to accept as true the origins of life is a result of a creator. I didn't ask you what you know is true I asked you what you believe is true. Again do you believe the origins of Life came into existence without the Creator without God if so please provide evidence to why you believe that. And if I'm not convinced in return I will provide evidence to why I believe in God and we will see which one is more logical. If not just admit that you don't believe the origins of Life came into existence without God. I don't care if you pull out the information from atheist humanist Rachel Levine's butt. I just want you to answer the question .

@sparrowthesissy2186

Ай бұрын

@@DontMakeTheGewsAngry So somebody needs to propose some kind of answer as to the origin of the universe before your answer makes sense? If somebody says, "I don't know," then you have no method to demonstrate the thing you think you know? I don't get how this follows.

In the nicest possible way, i think Secular is telling the caller to jog on! LOL

I don't know if is just me but every show with Armin is very enjoyable

@DontMakeTheGewsAngry

Ай бұрын

Well you're a leftist male which probably means you're attracted to other males so maybe you just have a thing for him.

@DontMakeTheGewsAngry

Ай бұрын

PS excuse me I'm assuming you're an atheist so of course I'm going to assume you're a leftist. But I also assumed your gender are you a male , female, cake what do you identify as.

@tonyclements1147

Ай бұрын

Joey, stop spamming.

@nullverba856

Ай бұрын

Armin's game is fierce.

@doneestoner9945

Ай бұрын

I love Armin.

"The self is a first-principle truth." The Buddha: "Hold my herbal tea...."

@Alltime2050

Ай бұрын

2,000 years ago people were ignorant and superstitious as sht. 2,000 years later a lot of them still are.

@AlexStock187

Ай бұрын

@@Alltime2050 Not you, though. Right?

@Alltime2050

Ай бұрын

@@AlexStock187 Only idiots brag about their own intelligence. It's not about me anyway, it's about superstitious people who are only slightly more intellectually evolved than the Romans were. The only difference between now and then is that most of the modern cult's ignorance is often intentional.

@jpstardom3375

Ай бұрын

'Hold my chai tea' ~Miles Morales, probably 😅

@SirElliott32

Ай бұрын

I’m glad someone mentioned this. Lots of philosophers reject the notion of the self and the existence of continuity of identity over time.

Apophatic - knowledge(of God, ostensibly) obtained through negation. He literally identified himself as a fallacious concept and he still managed to make it worse with every bit of word salad he spewed out.

The _Trance-Inducing_ Argument for the Existence of God.

If your first circular argument doesn't work, then make a bigger circle.

The only thing necessary for knowledge is a functioning brain. And that's the problem with presups they lack the functioning part.

@DontMakeTheGewsAngry

Ай бұрын

That's not necessarily true. There's some creatures that have knowledge information but no brain. Matter of fact if you look at the deep sea sponge of the Arctic it has no brain no tissue no organs and no nervous system but yet it's a predator which means it's conscious. Where do you think this consciousness comes there's no evidence of it coming from anything physical.

@joshsheridan9511

Ай бұрын

​@@DontMakeTheGewsAngryapparently basic English is beyond you Sod off troll, is that clear enough for you

@quecee

Ай бұрын

@@joshsheridan9511 What a dumb argument that he's making. Claims that it's a predator, so it's conscious. There are a LOT of single cell organisms that can be considered "predators". Is he going to say they have knowledge? What next? That his god gave them souls???

@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2

Ай бұрын

So "knowledge" means "reacts to things around it"?

@quecee

Ай бұрын

@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 This guy didn't have the "knowledge" of what a TAG is but just reacted to the comments. So he proves that he can react to things around him without knowledge.

I know what's in a chocolate cake. I know what's in a yellow cake.. What's in a "god" cake?

@joshsheridan9511

Ай бұрын

2 cups bullshite 2 cups ignorance 1 cup blind faith And a pinch of desperation

@joshsheridan9511

Ай бұрын

​@Hln20015so god can't exist if humans don't exist. 😂😂😂😂😂

@nealjroberts4050

Ай бұрын

​@@joshsheridan9511 Or she's claiming each of us is a god, which therefore renders her religion, whichever one she's claiming this week, moot.

@Nocturnalux

Ай бұрын

The cake is a lie!!!

@Hampton_Doubleday_Jr

Ай бұрын

Religious nuts

When you say "God is ...", you have have presupposed God. Second, you haven't proven knowledge only comes from God. It comes from a brain without need of any gods.

@DontMakeTheGewsAngry

Ай бұрын

But there's creatures that exist without a brain but yet they have consciousness. Like the deep sea sponge of the Arctic which has no brain no tissue no organs no nervous system but yet it's a predator which means it's conscience.. Where do you believe that consciousness comes from? What about designed thought AKA instinctive thoughts. For example a baby when it's first born without any coaching nose to go to its mother's nipple to feed. Just because life exists why does it necessarily desire to live. If you take a computer it will overheat if you don't design it to shut down in certain situations before it overheats.

@SirElliott32

Ай бұрын

This isn’t necessarily the case in formal logic. I can say “Wands are a necessary pre-condition for Harry Potter-esque wizardry” in a logical argument without presupposing that either wands or wizardry actually exist. It would be a valid premise. Not a theist, just an old philosophy major :)

@williammattes1991

Ай бұрын

​@@SirElliott32except wandless casting is a thing, so you would have to demonstrate that wands are truly needed

@SirElliott32

Ай бұрын

@@williammattes1991 That’s not my point lol. My point is that including something in a conditional does not presuppose either of them existing. Epicurus famously included God in his conditionals in the Problem of Evil in order to prove that God does not exist (at least in a form worthy of worship). Take this example: P1: God is a necessary precondition for a world free of ignorance. P2: A world free of ignorance does not exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist. My inclusion of God in a conditional does not necessarily presuppose his existence.

@kingdomgnark

Ай бұрын

@@SirElliott32 but there is no proof that the premise is true. He can state that as a premise, but if it is objected to, he then has to prove it is true. You could say "IF god is necessary" and have an internally logical argument. But the second your premise is a claim about reality it must be demonstrably true

First, he didn't understand that his argument was valid in structure, but it wasn't sound. Then, he couldn't understand that his argument wasn't sound because you can't have a god being a necessary precondition for knowledge. Because it requires brains for knowledge to exist. Because he didn't realize that he was committing a begging the question fallacy with his first premise, he didn't know that it would be more accurate to say that the universe is a necessary precondition for knowledge because it comprises everything that we know.

@kemest6666

Ай бұрын

No the universe isn't the necessary precondition because that presupposes things such as the external world existing but how do you know the external world exists? Actually what we know about the universe is nothing but faith. And brains aren't the necessary precondition for knowledge because knowledge is a justified true belief which means it's independent of our minds by definition.

@nealjroberts4050

Ай бұрын

​@@kemest6666 Belief is also dependent on having a brain

@nealjroberts4050

Ай бұрын

The caller has posted in a previous thread saying they're aware of the problem with premise 1. They've not corrected that as far as i can see yet

Presuppers deny that we can reason autonomously, yet we need to be able to do that in order to figure out what’s Gods word.

Knowledge is that thing Christianity's God did not want humans to have and as it turns out, people who don't believe in God, tend to have more of it than people who do.

This is why I don't bother with philosophy. Look at how willfully ignorant the caller was…

@AbsurdlyGeeky

Ай бұрын

The caller demonstrated a lack of appreciation for philosophy. He's just using philosophical terms to try to sound convincing. It's a game for those people.

@tosuchino6465

Ай бұрын

I agree. Philosophy, particularly to amateur philosophers, is mostly word association games, some of which sometimes happen to turn out true.

Your god is contingent upon human imagination.

Life hack: Respond to ALL of any trolls posts with one of the following: Hail Satan! Okay, and? Damn, that's crazy, but I don't remember askin'. The earth used to be flat until they buried your mom I'd tell you to go to hell, but I figure god will do that.

@holgerlubotzki3469

Ай бұрын

The earth was never fat until they buried your mom????

@bottlecap632

Ай бұрын

W

@quecee

Ай бұрын

X

@Jebus_Anti-theist

Ай бұрын

These are funny😄. Smart *and* funny, you continue to impress, keep up the good work👍

Actually, Armin WAS speaking on the soundness of the argument. The argument was valid because his premises necessarily lead to his conclusion. The issue is that the argument was not sound because one of his premises assumed the truth of the conclusion without evidentiary warrant.

Without God, there would be no evil. Thank God for Atheism 🙏

@niklaslundstrom7633

Ай бұрын

So as an Atheist, how do you know whats good or evil?

@tryme3969

Ай бұрын

Without Satan, there would be no _____ .

@Apostolnixx

Ай бұрын

​@@niklaslundstrom7633easy. I just roll a dice 😊

@tonyclements1147

Ай бұрын

@@tryme3969 Satan’s a fictional character genius.

@tryme3969

Ай бұрын

@@tonyclements1147 Is Satan's "fictional" character visible to you?

I am 60 yrs spent most of my life believing in the Bible but I say to all you that it's all lies and how did I escape it well using Logic and shows like this....praise the Lord. 😂

@holgerlubotzki3469

Ай бұрын

@@jaflenbond7854 Your g0d must be a sad and pathetic figure if he needs people like you to come out here and *FAIL* to convince a single sane person that he might actually exist.

@holgerlubotzki3469

Ай бұрын

@@jaflenbond7854 Your g0d must be a sad and pathetic figure if he needs people like you to come out here and *FAIL* to convince a single sane person that he might actually exist.

@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2

Ай бұрын

​@@jaflenbond7854Spamwurst

@tonyclements1147

Ай бұрын

JB loves his spam.

Hunger exists. A stomach is necessary for hunger to exist. Therefore all hail the first existing entity of the universe, the giant STOMACH GOD!

"it's not necessarily begging the question" but what if we presuppose that it is necessary that the question be begged?

God seems to be a prerequisite for a whole family of Begging the Question fallacies. That's all the evidence so far.

Word Salad King

@Hampton_Doubleday_Jr

Ай бұрын

Lettuce pray 🙏

@Jebus_Anti-theist

Ай бұрын

@@Hampton_Doubleday_Jr There used to be a fellow atheist who went by the name of "Lettuce Spray" I wonder what became of him, he hasn't been around for a while now.

I think I understand what Apophatic was trying to communicate in his first premise. The way he communicated it was “God is a necessary precondition for knowledge,” which could also be logically phrased as “If knowledge exists, then God exists” or “If there is no God, then there is no knowledge." This is a perfectly valid construction of a premise, as it does not presuppose God. One could validly state “If Faeries exist, then Unicorns exist” as well without presupposing that unicorns actually exist. Epicurus famously used similar conditionals in his Problem of Evil without actually presupposing the existence of a deity. The issue is that Apophatic’s premise is completely unverifiable. There is absolutely no manner of proving that the existence of knowledge can only be possible when a God exists, and there is no way of proving that knowledge could not exist in a possible universe without a God. He would need an entirely different logical argument first to establish the truth value of his first premise, and such an argument simply does not exist. Studied philosophy, only reason I know the difference between logical validity and logical soundness. Not a theist though lol

@holgerlubotzki3469

Ай бұрын

Actually, when you assert “If knowledge exists, then God exists” then you *ARE* presupposing the existence of a g0d, since knowledge *DOES* exist.

@Hampton_Doubleday_Jr

Ай бұрын

@@holgerlubotzki3469 Yeah and God's very upset about that. He desperately tried to stop that nice lady eating that apple from the knowledge tree. But wouldn't ya know it, she didn't like to be bossed around by patriarchal bullies and just went for it. Good for her, I say. "When they insist we're just not good enough, just look 'em in the eyes and say, 'We're gonna do it anyway.'" OK, I know that's about apartheid but hey, the point stands :)

@SirElliott32

Ай бұрын

@@holgerlubotzki3469 I understand how it could seem that way to someone without a philosophical background. You are misunderstanding what presuppositionalism is in philosophy. You can include something in a conditional without assuming it is real: “If wizardry exists, then magic wands are real.” This statement neither presupposes the existence of wizardry or of magic wands. In formal logic, statements like this can be considered both valid and non-presuppositional even though we know them to be factually false. Here’s an example logical argument that is false, but logically valid: P1: If shoes can be seemingly self-repaired overnight, then elves exist. P2: Shoes can be seemingly self-repaired overnight. Conclusion: Therefore, elves exist. P1 does not presuppose the existence of elves, it only leads to that conclusion if you accept the validity and soundness of P2. You would also be well within reason to reject the soundness of P1 itself. Apophatic’s original argument is logically valid, because the premises IF TRUE logically lead to their conclusion. That is what validity means. His argument is not sound, because the premises themselves are not true. I would not accept the truth of his premise 1, and I also seem inclined to reject his second premise based on his understanding of what the word knowledge means.

@holgerlubotzki3469

Ай бұрын

@@Hampton_Doubleday_Jr Oh come on... we know she wasn't really a nice lady. There is no such thing as a nice lady according to the book of wholly babble.

@Hampton_Doubleday_Jr

Ай бұрын

@@holgerlubotzki3469 Yeah, that's true. I'd say Mary was nice but she wasn't technically a lady, she was a 14-year-old girl upon whom God forced himself, so your point remains valid.

Next time you hear TAG just give the response that the nonexistence of god is the grounding of logic, after that they generally demolish themselves.

“My argument is the demonstration”, epitome of “cuz I say”.

1) Lack of intelligence is a precondition for being a presup 2) Apophatic is a presup.....

If all of reality is dependent on a thinking agent then there's no reason to think that agent can't change reality at will, making knowledge of reality impossible. TAG doesn’t solve the problem it claims to.

@oxidize11

Ай бұрын

They pretend to get around it by saying "god is eternal and unchanging" which also breaks it, because a thing would have to change in order to make something.

For his "cake" analogy, he would literally have to say: "flour would not exist without cake"

We LITERALLY just had a throwback video on this claim. What the heck?

@joshsheridan9511

Ай бұрын

It's a good example of how presups are incapable of modifying a long debunked argument

Philosophise as much as you like and it's still just that.

It's starting with a conclusion and looking for anything to apply it to. To answer the question "How do I know anything," without even starting with `I,` is irrational anyway. Without the subject, the question is meaningless. At best, you end up with "I exist and know it, therefore God exists." Which is just an arbitrary claim with zero substance.

The trouble with philosophy is that it only proves philosophers like to argue It's only when philosophy becomes science do we see practical results

TAG all makes sense once you have convinced yourself that gods are not pretend. And it only works for immaterial gods, that could, but don't choose to reveal themselves... and that could speak in an audible voice, but choose to use a form of ESP that also cannot be demonstrated or confirmed. Theists must be aware of how gullible they seem, so they invent sophisticated sounding arguments.

Wow I'm amazed I never thought would happen I'm a convert I was an atheist Now after this call I'm a super atheist

- the song ONE OF THESE DAYS/Pink Floyd

@holgerlubotzki3469

Ай бұрын

Careful with that axe, Eugene!

Darth Dawkins acolyte

@jimmythebold589

Ай бұрын

@@nullverba856 "its"

@nullverba856

Ай бұрын

Faith-based logorrhea at its best/worst/best.

@nullverba856

Ай бұрын

@@jimmythebold589 Don't let anyone ever tell you that your input is entirely useless. It's not.

If I understand what the caller's saying, 'knowledge' cannot exist without a sentient being. But wouldn't the counter be that 'fact' supersedes knowledge since facts can exist irrespective of a sentient observer (as evidenced by the universe existing far before human sentience came into existence). So unless we can indicate God existing as a 'fact' or corroborating evidence then 'knowledge' is pretty much mute.

Oh well, it loooks like i don't have knowledge then.

I define my god into existence. Therefore my god exists. It's really obvious to every pre-suppositionalist like me. I don't understand why you don't get it.

*P1:* God's impossible without Santa Claus *P2:* God exist *C:* Santa Claus exist

- there was a band ,coming out basement, as to being name called Infinite Knowledge back in the 1980's -metal that is

Sometimes S.R. is just too nice and kind. Kudos to Armin for telling this guy flat out how stupid his argument is.

9:27 I like how he used all these really big and complex words, to literally just say that "you need God to have knowledge, because you can't have knowledge without God", which is a trivially-valid tautology that gets you no closer to justifying why that's true. When your argument is bad, best to wrap it up in big words and hope people don't notice. Also, I'd like to see him try to justify first principles if God exists (without just asserting that God solves that problem). At best, he just made the case that we're all in the same boat of not having knowledge.

Dude defines knowledge, but fails to acknowledge what Armin is saying, which is that KNOWLEDGE must be KNOWN to BE knowledge. Knowledge can only exist if there is a thinking agent to conceive of it, therefore, prior to the existence of beings that COULD know things, it didn't. Caller gets confused and tries putting it down to a "worldview dispute" because I'm sure from his perspective, Knowledge has always existed because God has been around to know it. Cool. Now prove that. You won't.

"Apophatic" refers to a method of theological thinking or a style of religious discourse that emphasizes the ineffability or incomprehensibility of the divine. Apophatic theology, also known as negative theology, is characterized by the belief that the nature of God cannot be fully described or understood through positive affirmations or assertions. Instead, it approaches the divine by negation, using language to describe what God is not rather than what God is. The term "apophatic" comes from the Greek word "apophasis," which means "denial" or "negation." Or in this case, "circular reasoning".

But I can eat the cake. I cannot eat God

Imagine first day and a drawing class. Each student has a blank canvas in front of them. Then imagine that the theist in the class draws a small picture of God in the lower corner. Then at the end of the class, he claims the other student’s pictures are illegitimate. At debate with a presuppositionalist is useless. Unless you’re both starting from a blank canvas, the debate can only go nowhere.

Sure give your precious little argument since god is too weak or uncaring to just show up

Bugs Bunny is necessary for the existence of knowledge. We have knowledge therefore there is Bugs Bunny. Knowledge is the valid information retained by the experiences of consciousness. Consciousness is the necessary precondition for knowledge.

Whether or not the argument is technically circular (which depends on the precise formulation), it is functionally circular in that no one who doesn't already accept the conclusion is going to accept the premise that God is required for knowledge.

@damonkenny3444

Ай бұрын

A second order knowledge claim (a claim that examines knowledge itself) is a Meta-Logical appeal to the necessary precondition for the existence of knowledge to be possible which is perfectly valid deductive reasoning. Epistemic Nihilism is the atheistic counter argument to objective knowledge. Atheism is an absurd conjecture.

@amtlpaul

Ай бұрын

@@damonkenny3444 I don't owe you my credulity.

@damonkenny3444

Ай бұрын

@@amtlpaul An argument from incredulity. A fallacy.

@amtlpaul

Ай бұрын

@@damonkenny3444 It's not an argument at all, let alone an argument from incredulity. Care to explain why you think I owe it to you to believe your claims?

@damonkenny3444

Ай бұрын

@@amtlpaul Liar, how could your argument that you don't owe credulity, not be an argument? Atheism is idiocy.

In the analogy, "God" is the "cake". So he is making an argument for cake by saying that cake is a necessary ingredient for cake. He seems to be trying to say that his argument isn't invalid because he's allowed to presume a necessary precondition to make an argument, but then putting the conclusion as the necessary precondition. And you know what, Apophatic? I agree: assuming your god exists _is_ a necessary ingredient in concluding that god exists. Because you can't really make the argument without that deeply flawed argument. Frankly, I fekn hate philosophy for exactly this reason: it's almost always semantic games and meaningless quibbling.

@DontMakeTheGewsAngry

Ай бұрын

I think the guys being a little sarcastic because I was watching KZread and there are people who identify as cake gender. I wonder if you identify as cake does that mean you're a real cake or is there an exception when it comes to identifying as cake as opposed to other genders.

@Bozo_Weirdo

Ай бұрын

@@DontMakeTheGewsAngryNone of that has anything to do with the contents of this video, the original comment, or my reply. Although I have respect for blatant nonsensical trolling, this isn’t the right context for it.

@DontMakeTheGewsAngry

Ай бұрын

@@Bozo_Weirdo it does have something to do with it if the person is being sarcastic when they're mentioning cake gender it means they're trying to make fun of faith-based beliefs of atheist humanist. I just wanted to make sure this isn't the case.

@Bozo_Weirdo

Ай бұрын

@@DontMakeTheGewsAngry Hence the point of my reply that indicates an appeal to mockery about cake genders isn’t actually relevant to the discussion. I have better things to do than to explain these things to you.

@oxidize11

Ай бұрын

It's basically only there as mental masturbation. It doesn't really do anything besides make yourself feel good.

The evolution of the opposable thumb and as a result, the ability to use tools as a survival adaption basically created a feedback system that accelerated the development of the human brain. At a certain point, this process developed an unwanted by-product, self-awareness. This resulted in useless philosophical ponderings like "why do I exist?" or "is there a god?" when there are no real answers to either.

Ugh, presupper doesn’t know his own argument; he’s supposed to admit that it’s circular, but say it’s not VICIOUSLY circular.

@oxidize11

Ай бұрын

And make sure he tells them his is VIRTUOUSLY circular.

Presups are trolls and try hards exclusively. It is the weakest apologetics angle held dear by the dimmest among us seeking some veneer of academic validity where they know they have nothing more than preference and belief at the end of the day. It’s very embarrassing.

@oxidize11

Ай бұрын

It's just a way for narcissistic ego driven dingbats to bully others and demand to be the smartest around.

Armin nailed it on the head. Complete stupidity.

Theists seem to have a hard time differentiating between subjective and objective things.

@nullverba856

Ай бұрын

That problem traces all the way back to their purported-to-exist deity.

@borthwrenblanston6632

Ай бұрын

Prove it. A ROCK didn't come from a BANG, get rained on and produce life from ROCK SOUP. But that's the absolute GARBAGE that you believe. THAT or something similar. Oh btw, TELL ME what part of basic nature produced the human being (e.g. star dust, moist rocks, mud puddles, hot rocks, moon dirt, warm ponds, gravity, oceans, primordial soup, nothing). I get confused with your stupidity (atheism).

@nealjroberts4050

Ай бұрын

It's not theists in general but an outcome of religious indoctrination

Apophatic makes a hash of his syllogism. The transcendental argument for the existence of god seeks to demonstrate the existence of a transcendent being by appealing to the necessary conditions of human experience or thought. It is a form of philosophical reasoning that posits that certain aspects of human experience or cognition presuppose the existence of god as their foundation. The argument can be summarized as follows: The argument begins by asserting that certain necessary preconditions for human experience, rationality, or knowledge exist. These preconditions include concepts such as logic, morality, intelligibility, and the uniformity of nature. The argument suggests that these concepts are necessary for human thought and experience to be coherent and meaningful. The argument then claims that these necessary preconditions cannot be adequately explained or justified within a purely naturalistic or materialistic worldview. Instead, they require a transcendent source or foundation. The argument concludes that the existence of god provides the best explanation for the existence of these necessary preconditions. God is posited as the ultimate source of logic, morality, intelligibility, and other aspects of human experience that cannot be accounted for by naturalistic explanations alone. In other words the transcendental argument asserts that the existence of God is necessary to make sense of human experience and cognition.

@amtlpaul

Ай бұрын

Except it doesn't, but I think that's a fair summary of the argument.

@Kalense

Ай бұрын

@@amtlpaul The problem, it seems to me, is that the first postulate is untenable. Personally I cannot accept the assertion that concepts like logic, morality and intelligibility are necessary preconditions for human experience. These concepts are not inherent features of the universe but emergent properties of human evolution and cultural development. Humans have evolved to perceive and understand the world in ways that enhance their survival and reproductive success, and systems like logic and morality are adaptive strategies for a highly social ape - not preexisting conditions. Without this first premise, the rest of the argument is gibberish.

You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.....after 20 years of preaching the delusions of the bible I found truth without faith and have never been more free!!!

@wwlib5390

Ай бұрын

@UnbelievingPastor Then I give you credit for not continuing in pretense to lead a congregation of seekers of Jesus Christ when you had no message to bring them anymore. That could have led to much destruction for many. I wish you well.

@Jebus_Anti-theist

Ай бұрын

@@wwlib5390 He now brings a message that actually is true. And he has successfully brought it to you and others to see. If he can be free, then so can you.

@UnbelievingPastor

Ай бұрын

@@wwlib5390 Oh, I am sharing the truth with many and rejoice every single time someone engages reason and knowledge to be released from the curse of religion.

@wwlib5390

Ай бұрын

​@@UnbelievingPastor What is Truth? Man-made religions of all types can be a curse - but what about the relational aspect between Believer and his Creator through knowing Jesus Christ - a relationship Adam knew, walking and talking and sharing? Aren't all Jesus' teachings - especially His two commandments to love God and love others purposed to lead whoever heeds them into a relationship? Love doesn't form a religion. Love forms a relationship.

@UnbelievingPastor

Ай бұрын

@@wwlib5390 If you believe in Jesus then you must know he was the same god of the Old Testament (I get the trinity, but still "1 god"....yet, Paul teaches slaves to obey their masters, Jesus never renounced the cultural practice of slavery. Moreover, Jesus never said what his father (the Old Testament god) ordered was wrong. In fact, he said he didn't come to destroy the law; rather fulfill it.....yet god said to take slave, called them your property, said you could beat them as long as they don't die within a day or 2. Also, 'god' said that if a virgin is raped and the perpetrator wanted to he could keep her as his wife....god ordered genocide, should I go on? Truth is that religion--including your Jesus myth-- is manmade.

I dont think Armin attacked his arguments from good places at all. The caller should have been asked how he justifies the assumption that God is necessary for those "first premises" that are necessary for epistemology.

X is necessary for Knowledge, X = something every religion and person to this point in history disagrees on what it is or even that it is, we can't ask X reliably as to what it is, if anything, it's a big unknown, if someone even thinks about it at all. Therefore, X - something that no one has demonstrable knowledge of - is necessary for knowledge, and 'knowledge' is a thing I get at church, just like a I get a Slurpee at 7-11.

What starts out as cake ends up as bullshit on a platter. His exqmp.e with cake falls flat because if pressed, he can show us how to make a cake. A cake can be proven with sufficient evidence. A God cannot.

Armin seems to go from 0 to 110 in 3 seconds lol its a transcendental argument, of course its circular. That's the point

Why does this guy sound like Matthew Powell?

@sypherthe297th2

Ай бұрын

Oh FFS. he really does. I can't unhear it.

HERMES: Congratulations, Socrates, on your epistemological wisdom. The knowledge that you seek-objective knowledge-is hard to come by, but attainable. That mental state that you do not seek-justified belief-is sought by many people, especially priests and philosophers. But, in truth, beliefs cannot be justified, except in relation to other beliefs, and even then only fallibly. So the quest for their justification can lead only to an infinite regress-each step of which would itself be subject to error. ¶ SOCRATES: Again, I know this. ¶ HERMES: Indeed. And, as you have rightly remarked, it doesn’t count as a ‘revelation’ if I tell you what you already know. Yet-notice that that remark is precisely what people who seek justified belief do not agree with. ¶ SOCRATES: What? I’m sorry, but that was too convoluted a comment for my allegedly wise mind to comprehend. Please explain what I am to notice about those people who seek ‘justified belief’. ¶ HERMES: Merely this. Suppose they just happen to be aware of the explanation of something. You and I would say that they know it. But to them, no matter how good an explanation it is, and no matter how true and important and useful it may be, they still do not consider it to be knowledge. It is only if a god then comes along and reassures them that it is true (or if they imagine such a god or other authority) that they count it as knowledge. So, to them it does count as a revelation if the authority tells them what they are already fully aware of. ¶ SOCRATES: I see that. And I see that they are foolish, because, for all they know, the ‘authority’ [gestures at HERMES] may be toying with them. Or trying to teach them some important lesson. Or they may be misunderstanding the authority. Or they may be mistaken in their belief that it is an authority- ¶ HERMES: Yes. So the thing they call ‘knowledge’, namely justified belief, is a chimera. It is unattainable to humans except in the form of self-deception; it is unnecessary for any good purpose; and it is undesired by the wisest among mortals. ¶ - David Deutsch, _The Beginning of Infinity_ (Ch.10: A Dream of Socrates)

Armin needs to chill a little bit, he seems very confrontational. He kinda just started yelling too fast

Armin looks like a young Frank Grillo

@jimmythebold589

Ай бұрын

Admin ??

@jaymikesmovienites3452

Ай бұрын

@@jimmythebold589 typo

@GroundhogRoy

Ай бұрын

Interesting 🤔

God is Cake got it

@Hampton_Doubleday_Jr

Ай бұрын

But... is it cake? Ladies and gentlemen, we have five gods on the podiums in front of you. Four of them are fake gods and one of them is a real cake. Can you identify which is which...?

@diogeneslamp8004

Ай бұрын

Cake as in the baked good or cake-on-the-beach cake?

@jonclark8252

Ай бұрын

The cake is a lie...

@SkepticScarab

Ай бұрын

@@Hampton_Doubleday_Jr My money’s on the Priapus statue being the real one!

@quecee

Ай бұрын

​@jonclark8252 But GLaDOS told me there will be cake. He also told me that there's an infinite paradise waiting for me at the end if I just believe him.

Armin is wrong here. It's ok (and in fact necessary) to have the concept in your premises. If God wasn't mentionned at all in the premises, he would (rightly so) say "how can the conclusion be that god exists when the premises don't have anything to do with God ?" (cf Kalam cosmological argument) What's not ok is to have the CONCLUSION in the premises. You can have premises that include the word God, just not "God exists"

@holgerlubotzki3469

Ай бұрын

Still no evidence for the existence of any god, however....

@quecee

Ай бұрын

I think Armin just didn't state it accurately. He means to say that the conclusion is in the premise, not that the concepts are in both. He should be more careful in the future especially since this is a common fallacious argument.

@Hampton_Doubleday_Jr

Ай бұрын

I believe you meant 'premise', not 'premises'. 'Premises' means the land/building owned by a person/company/organisation.

@casparuskruger4807

Ай бұрын

@@quecee That's true, but I also think it's curious that the caller didn't catch that detail. And this of course would lead one onto strongly suspecting the caller didn't fully understand his own argument as well as not knowing the basic methodology used in logical structure

@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2

Ай бұрын

That is true, however, Apophatic's "argument" can be viewed in two ways: 1. As you took it, in which it is a valid syllogism, but unsound because the first premise is entirely unsupported, or; 2. If he wants the first premise to be considered "true" by his interlocutor (avoiding the issue in 1), then this necessitates that conclusion is accepted at the first premise, making the argument circular at best (i.e., it's still unsound), and completely pointless at worst.

Armin needs to take a breath

1:14 Can you demonstrate that this premise is true? No? Ok then your argument is over. Not only that this premise assumes God exists, which is also the conclusion therefore, circular reasoning.

Arguments are not evidence. Period.

@Bozo_Weirdo

Ай бұрын

No, arguments are not “evidence”. They are logical proofs of what is true. They use evidence to prove a concept. In this case, God needs to exist in order for knowledge of God to exist.

@dcrapier

Ай бұрын

@@Bozo_Weirdo So, you're a presuppositionalist; you assert that there is no knowledge, logic or reasoning without god. Nonsense! to reiterate; Arguments are not evidence - they are not 'proof' of anything. They are simply arguments; word games.

@Bozo_Weirdo

Ай бұрын

@@dcrapier TLDR, You made an argument that arguments aren’t evidence or proof, which pathetically proves itself wrong. I don’t mind whatever you label me as, especially when you generalize my position, put words into my mouth, and specifically misquote what I said. Regardless, I just explained today how the Supreme Court makes judgements on laws. It turns out this is relevant, because the question was asked how it’s any bit valid for a governing body to adjudicate on hypotheticals of law. I would explain similarly to you, but it is my judgement that you lack the motivation and integrity to care whether or not you’re wrong. This, together with your dogmatic style, makes it clear you have no earnest desire to exchange ideas at all. Just consider that arguments are worthless only to you because of how you treat philosophy. Also try to grow up and learn how to function with a modicum of rationality before you bite the dust. This will prevent you from making a bluntly self-defeating argument that arguments are only word games.

Presups are the theists I just can’t stand. They act all smug cause they can throw around some big words that confuse lay people and it’s just not worth arguing with them cause they just presuppose their conclusion. And if they can do that, I just presuppose they’re wrong🤷‍♂️

@oxidize11

Ай бұрын

It's quite literally the most fallacious argument out there. It's just hilarious how many ways people how found to break it.

How do you even know what you're looking at is a cake?

This isn't dense. Before we were able to comprehend our surroundings, we didn't have knowledge. We absolutely have knowledge now and it is not requisite that a god exists.

"first priciples such as self, time, laws of logic, all of those are necessary for logic. so for example, you can't make a proposition, without a person, so to make a statement you'd have to asssume the self for that to be the case. that's an example of a first principle. since first principles are necessary for knowledge, now you can't justify first principles. under autonomous epistomology first principles can't be justified. first principles are necessary for knowledge, and first principles can't be justified, knowledge would be impossible under the atheist worldview." Typing it out is always hilarious. that proposition is saying you can't have axioms without a person, so they wouldn't exist without humans. how can it be the case that laws of logic only came into play when humans did? if their god always existed, but knowledge is contigent with humans, then god isn't the origin of reason, humans are. god isn't needed for knowledge, just a brain of an animal. he just burned his own position to the ground, and doesn't realize it because he's just repeating "nu uh nu uh nu uh" and therefore god.

Yes a stupid comment. If it was true, everyone would sit down for their university degree exams knowing nothing and just hoping god would give them the answers on the spot. No one could write a book without god dictating it which would be pointless because, if all knowledge has to come from god you couldn't print it. I mean, you could buy the cover of a book and hope when you got it home god would tell you what's inside. The simple truth is, if knowledge could only come from god you'd be dead, because you couldn't get up and eat without god's help. You wouldn't know not to stick your hand in a fire without gods direction i.e. You can't say "All knowledge comes from god but you can learn it afterwards" because the vast majority would be getting their knowledge from another person, not god, proving all knowledge doesn't come from god. And the problem remains: If the lecturer or teacher asked a question, no one could answer, they'd all be sitting there waiting for god. That all sounds stupid doesn't it? Well it is stupid, but at least it proves all knowledge doesn't come from god. Once you realise all knowledge clearly doesn't come from god, then you have to ask: "Well what knowledge does come from god?" And as soon as you ask that, a god being required for any knowledge becomes an unsustainable farce. So sorry, you tried and you failed. Your god isn't required for knowledge (been listening to W. L. Craig?) Got any more unsustainable ideas about your god. Love not to hear them. But hey there must be someone out there who requires god for the knowledge you're talking rubbish.

why is armin always screaming so muuuuch 😭

@holgerlubotzki3469

Ай бұрын

Because he gets annoyed by illogical presuppositionists?

The cake is a lie!

@emptybucket1988

Ай бұрын

Sky cake

1:11 - "Premise 1: God is a necessary precondition for knowledge" 2:41 - "You're trying to prove god and using the word god in one of your premises" Logically speaking, is that actually a problem? I don't think the syllogism substantiates that claim, that there can be no knowledge without a god (and the claim is utter nonsense IMO) - but the form is basically "1: If A then B. 2: A is true 3: Therefore B" I don't think the syllogism itself is circular. The circular part I guess would be in trying to establish that the first premise actually is true. How could we know that there would be no knowledge if there were no god?

@Apophatic

Ай бұрын

The issue that should've been covered was the soundness of the argument, I explained the argument for the first premise in the middle of the debate to secular rarity. Armin gave a very bad argument by saying it's not formally valid.

@tetsujin_144

Ай бұрын

​@@Apophatic I'd agree that the syllogism is valid, and it's such a simple question it doesn't seem worth arguing. It's just the first premise that seems completely unfounded, and the truth of the conclusion hinges on whether that premise is true.

@oxidize11

Ай бұрын

​@@ApophaticArmin got a bit flustered because the presup argument is the most fallacious argument out there. It begs the question, defines god into existence, it's an argument from ignorance, commits the black and white fallacy, and is just an elaborate way to shift the burden of proof by "world view comparison" so it doesn't have to demonstrate god exists, by just going "you can't ground facts, and I say I can so I win." It's also pulling a dishonest external critique of the "worldview" by saying "my worldview has this necessary thing to explain everything, so where's your necessary thing? Don't have what I do? You lose.' It's assertion after assertion without any evidence or demonstration. No one takes it seriously because it's just that laughably bad.

@oxidize11

Ай бұрын

​@@Apophaticyou're begging the question by saying you need to have god, to prove god. It doesn't work.

@Apophatic

Ай бұрын

@@tetsujin_144 Yes I'm aware that the argument depends upon the defense of the first premise.

Presupps are so pathetic. It's like a dumb kid on the playground saying "heads I win, tails you lose!"

It's a complete waste of time trying to dance around a supposed 'argument' with someone who builds his case by presupposing a god in his very first premiss. Once he outlined the first point of his case I couldn't be bothered to watch any more... what's the point?

The TRANS argument for god is basically that you can only be convinced that god exists if you already believe in god 😅

John 3 16 invites you to know God's love and promise to you. As you draw near to Him, He will draw near to you.

@davidrexford586

Ай бұрын

An Atheist wants God to draw near them so they don’t have to draw near God. So in effect a person they can relate to and not some Supernatural God that they must come to themselves. And then they will say there is not enough proof for God and in effect saying God must give them more proof beyond they themselves finding God by Faith. Imagine being that way and Wanting more and more proof before they can find Proof of God by the Faith they are already given. But because Faith is not something they are willing to even consider they continuously create more and more goalposts that much be achieved FIRST before they will believe in God by the Faith they already have, second.

@wwlib5390

Ай бұрын

@@davidrexford586 Very good points.

Presups really are the most pathetic and cringe of all apologists. They are so smug yet never grew beyond that playground "nuh-uh I win" mentality.

Is this guy a poe?