Відео

@@SundayVibesmusic it was a pleasure meeting you :-) thanks for those kind words. Many blessings!

One of the reasons I converted from judaism was because the temple I would visit didn’t have very much chocolate. However, in the mormon temple it’s like an all you can eat chocolate buffet. So you see, we’re actually the same you and I. It doesn’t really matter what’s true to us, as long as we find what we’re looking for.

@@jtslev I’ve known a number of Mormons throughout my lifetime and they’ve all been top-notch individuals. I wish I would’ve known about the chocolate, though, as I might’ve considered them more earnestly early on in my many years a Christian.

Are you removing my replies? Is eli? 4 times I've responded to this now!.

@ChessArmyCommander I agree...its not a rebuttal. I neither need or tried to rebutt. I merely asked a question which you avoided 8 times by baselessly claiming something else IRRELEVANT that you can't support I.e. that god is a first principle (which you couldn't support with credible evidence--- only baseless assertion). No god is certainly not a first principle. Your creature from mythology is not even 999th principle when you can't even show it EXISTS! It's a TOTAL IRRELEVANCE ! NOT worthy of a second thought! As irrelevant as you think shiva, odin or the big JUJU at the top of the mountain is! I've tried speaking to you as an adult but your childish games of obfuscation, muddying the waters because you cant be an honest interlocketor are obvious to any independent observer. You LOST the argument! Atheism CLEARLY isn't incoherent. Only your strawman version of atheism is incoherent so you're an irrelevence! You lose! And you can't give a valid and sound sylogism using presupp to show your god exists! You lose AGAIN!..

.I agree...its not a rebuttal. I neither need or tried to rebutt. I merely asked a question which you avoided 8 times by baselessly claiming something else IRRELEVANT that you can't support I.e. that god is a first principle (which you couldn't support with credible evidence--- only baseless assertion). No god is certainly not a first principle. Your creature from mythology is not even 999th principle when you can't even show it EXISTS! It's a TOTAL IRRELEVANCE ! NOT worthy of a second thought! As irrelevant as you think shiva, odin or the big JUJU at the top of the mountain is! I've tried speaking to you as an adult but your childish games of obfuscation, muddying the waters because you cant be an honest interlocketor are obvious to any independent observer. You LOST the argument! Atheism CLEARLY isn't incoherent. Only your strawman version of atheism is incoherent so you're an irrelevence! You lose! And you can't give a valid and sound sylogism using presupp to show your god exists! You lose AGAIN!..

_it_ You're not understanding. Basically, a creator or divine mind means, causality, logic not being meaningless in causality, morality source, truth source, grand law maker, KNOWLEDGE source, etc.. . Do you see how that destroys your atheism? Due to the metaphysical necessity for all that and more! _EXISTS!_ Yeah, it follows from the coherence of that principle I explained. Do you have a rebuttal? _No unpacking required!_ You have A LOT of unpacking and rebutting to do sir. Now get to it. _You yet again ran like a child_ That's a failed characterization by you. You and I both know that. lol Straw man logical fallacy yet again. _from a very simple question YET AGAIN_ No, I answered with transcendental argumentation. Explain why its unacceptable for you? Right? _and merely tried to muddy the waters again._ That's not a rebuttal of my transcendental argumentation. Its another fallacious and wrong headed characterization. Is that all you got? Childish, arbitrary, and obnoxious responses? Like you don't actually care. _BASED ON YOUR CLAIM_ Nice straw man fallacy AGAIN. You're implying that I didn't answer already. I did. You have not yet rebutted the transcendental argumentation that I put forward. _I have no requirement to ask your position_ You need to give a rebuttal. Whining and insulting is not a rebuttal. Do you understand? Look up what rebuttal means. _All I need to do is ask you to back up_ I provided transcendental argumentation. Where is your rebuttal? _your ridiculous claim_ Arbitrary childish responses, are not rebuttals of the support I provided. For my claims. Again, where is your rebuttal? _regarding atheism being incoherent!_ I gave an informal argument for that. Where is your rebuttal?

_Do you understand_ You're the one crashing and burning left and right here. Sorry. _that rebutting something_ Lets have your rebuttal regarding my transcendental argumentation. Put your money where your mouth is. lol Sort of speak. _takes more than merely CLAIMING_ I showed your many fallacies. Very little rebutting from you for some reason. If any! _which you've failed spectacularly_ lol That's not a rebuttal. Arbitrary claims about my side, doesn't help you. It makes you look bad. _to do as you've not even addressed the actual question!_ Straw man logical fallacy AGAIN. I put transcendental argumentation on the table, for supporting my side. No rebuttal from you. Why won't you engage with my transcendental argumentation? _No your god is certainly not a first principle_ That's not a rebuttal of the case I made. How that the creator meaning fundamentally, is in fact comprised of "first principle" like propositional content. Which is a big reason why, it became a principle. Do you have a rebuttal? Look at what I commented about earlier, along with my comment here, and give me a rebuttal. _as you can't even show_ Straw man logical fallacy. I showed that the principle is true based on transcendental argumentation and metaphysical necessity for "first principle" propositional content. Where's your rebuttal?

I agree its not a rebuttal. That's your problem. I neither need That's absurd, I answered you. I gave informal argumentation which shows that you need to abandon the atheistic position, and that you need to be theistic instead, by affirming the very first theistic principle. My argumentation also shows the coherence for the very first theistic principle. It answered you. So, give a rebuttal showing why that's unacceptable to you. Right? If you're an honest player, you'll explain why my argumentation doesn't work, or fails according to you. or tried to rebut Again, that's your problem. I merely asked a question And I argued to an answer. Again, I answered you. So, in your rebuttal you need to show that my response didn't work, or you may as well quit. My argumentation is staying on the table until you explain why its unacceptable. Or can't you do that? I know you can't show its a problem in my theistic worldview, and I don't even think you can coherently show, that its unworthy of your acceptance. which you avoided 8 times Actually, you have made that straw man logical fallacy 8 times or so!!! By FALSELY characterizing my position, by claiming I haven't answered your central question. I did, in my argumentation. Its pretty clear that you don't have a rebuttal, or you'd give it. But maybe you'll surprise me. by baselessly claiming something else Straw man logical fallacy. You haven't shown yet, that my argumentation didn't entail a direct answer to you. And I'm all ears here. What's your problem? IRRELEVANT that you can't support Maybe you'll explain why you think that. You might be getting to a rebuttal here. lol that god is a first principle So far, you're just baldly asserting that I didn't provide ample arguementation, that is sound. That's not a rebuttal yet. which you couldn't support with credible evidence You're not understanding. In argumentation, formal type particularly, sound premises are credible evidence! That's one reason why, "first principles" don't have to come under the purview of science. So, why wasn't my informal support that I gave, enough, for my conclusion which is an answer for you. In my opinion. only baseless assertion You can baldly say my support along with my conclusion, is baseless all you want to. But you're just being arbitrary. Right? WHY does my argument need to come off the table in your view? No god That entails a category error. That you're failing to distinguish between religion generally, and the worldview level of religious people. Those are two categories! And you're lumping it all together, which is fallacious. That comment also implies a bait and switch fallacy. The comment could be used for changing the subject, from the worldview level that we're arguing about, to religion generally, or theology generally. Do you see your problem? You can't lump everything together! is certainly not a first principle. Well, now you should understand that my position is not directly about religions generally. I'm showing that while you have good points to make generally about religion, with all its problems, you crash and burn philosophically. When you claim that all those theists out there, are not only mess generally, but that they don't have anything! According to you. The problem is, skeptics such as yourself over the years, didn't understand that while religion generally is a mess, those believers have fundamental coherence! Its amazing. The theistic model of "first principles" really is, internally coherent. I explained it here, quite a bit. Your creature from mythology No. You made a category error. That's the category of religion generally, while we've been discussing the category of "first principles". See your problem again? And you're baiting and switching, which is fallacious. Whether you realize it or not, your response seeks to change the subject, before we have resolved our differences. You're trying to change from "first principles" to generalities. When you say, "your creature" you're just straw manning theism's first principle. So you're going to have to deal with the ACTUAL propositional content in question here! NOT your fallacious straw men. is not even 999th principle I understand that you don't accept the very first theistic principle. And that you're baldly claiming it doesn't belong in the category of "first principles". But so far, you haven't rebutted my beautiful support, that I provided for precisely that. I explained that principle and what constitutes it, quite a bit. And how it follows, that its in that category, we just didn't realize it before. I came to that realization,(why won't you?) I didn't make it up. It was discovered in the history of philosophy, possibly starting with the late Dr. Til. when you can't even show it EXISTS That's a fail. Pointing out that "first principles" don't come under the purview of an empirical methodology, is no reason for not accepting them. There's something called philosophy sir! Right? As far as I'm concerned, skeptics crash and burn HARD, with an objection like that. First principles are far too powerful, for an objection like that to hold water. Or do you have an argument for why I was wrong about theism's first principle? That's what you need to nail down. Right? It's a TOTAL IRRELEVANCE Sir, that doesn't move me in the slightest! You're not showing why the metaphysical necessity for the principles, especially regarding the theistic very first one, doesn't work. So what's the problem about that? You already self destructed by arguing from empiricistic grounds, I debunked that. And I explained that in virtue of metaphysical necessity that's identifiable, "first principles" are indefeasible and indispensable, in spite of not being empirical. Right? I love making sense! NOT worthy of a second thought! Not at all. So far you have failed to make your case, against mine. What was wrong with my unpacking of, the very first theistic principle? Why is it unacceptable for you? And forget your nonsense where you implied that it needs to come under the purview of empiricism. I debunked you about that. You're being fallacious when it comes to metaphysics or "first principles", and our coherence there. As irrelevant as you think shiva, Category error and a bait and switch fallacy. As I ALREADY explained. We're discussing "first principles" not generalities. And so far, you have failed to rebut the case I made for theism's very first principle. And for how it really is in the category of "first principles". And that we discovered it, as opposed to just making it up. Are you aware of that? In the history of philosophy and science. odin or the big JUJU at the top of the mountain is! Bait and switch fallacy AGAIN. And a category ERROR again. I ALREADY explained. We're discussing "first principles" not generalities. And so far, you have failed to rebut the case I made for the very first principle.

_I've tried speaking to you as an adult_ Try harder ! lol With all due respect. _but your childish games of obfuscation_ Straw man logical fallacy. Because its a false characterization. The truth is, you don't like transcendental reasoning while you have no rebuttal. Lets be honest here! And because you don't like it, and how it characterizes atheistic worldviews, you want to poo poo it. But you can't do that! It'll be an appeal to ridicule fallacy for example. If you just poo poo, or ridicule, WITHOUT a rebuttal. You see that? If you give a good rebuttal to an argument, THEN ridicule might be in order. Depending on the situation. _muddying the waters_ Same problem for you. That holds NO water. Due to how you have to SHOW with a rebuttal, that its the case. If you don't do that you're done, whether you admit it or not. Its how philosophy works. Blathering on and on with no rebuttal, gets you no where. _because you cant be an honest interlocketor_ You NEVER showed that with a rebuttal. That's a bald fallacious assertion until you do. Right? _are obvious to any independent observer._ What's obvious is, you don't like transcendental reasoning for theism and against atheism, WHILE you have no rebuttal. That's it in a nutshell. _You LOST the argument!_ Not at all. That's CLEARLY a non sequitur , with you having NO rebuttal. A rebuttal could be attempted by you to show that. _Atheism CLEARLY isn't incoherent_ Because you don't have a rebuttal, my position remains on the table. About how atheists while seemingly coherent or correct generally about religion, regarding certain things, are not coherent(due to the atheism) when it comes to the more fundamental or philosophical aspect that theists have. Or the worldview level regarding EVERYBODY'S "first principle" presuppositions. I'm still waiting for your rebuttal against that. Right? _Only your strawman version of atheism_ In my last comment here, how is the way I characterized atheistic positions, a straw man of it? Or are you all done? Because I already know its not! You don't know that, but I do. lol Or do you finally? _is incoherent_ Non sequitur , you need a rebuttal to show that. So far you have failed to provide a rebuttal. _so you're an irrelevence!_ Non sequitur. You're going to have to show that. Baldly claiming it is a BIG fat failure, philosophically especially. _You lose!_ Another ARBITRARY claim. How sad. _And you can't give a valid and sound sylogism_ lol Now you ask for a formalization of my informal argumentation! What took so long! lol Not yet. Not after you inappropriately ignored my informal position. If you can do a decent job, informally responding to my informal argumentation, then a formalization of it will actually be called for. We can get to that, after you stop with all the arbitrary assertions! By responding to my informal argument. Formalizing will not work for you, by the way. "First principles" are the conclusions in the formal transcendental arguments! Are you aware of that? That means you'll be all done! Saying its circular is a fail. The necessity of the principles is far too powerful. Right? Causation, LOGIC, morality, laws, etc... . We find that the skeptic's objection about how the formal arguments for those things, are circular, is an incredibly weak and failed objection. If we put logical principles as the conclusions in formal transcendental arguments for example, and there's some circularity, the necessity of and the apparent universality of, logical laws and logic, destroys the skeptic's objection. The skeptic is engaging in RADICAL skepticism at that point! What laws of logic and logic means, in reality upon examination, is what matters most by far. Its radical, for a skeptic to oppose "first principles". The skeptic believes the principles already, generally! Its not coherent to oppose it WHILE its your foundation! _using presupp_ That snarky use of the word presupp, is an appeal to ridicule fallacy. Until you explain why a theist arguing from "first principles" against atheistic models or views on first principles, is the problem you imply. By being snarky. So what's your argument for that? That way you're not engaging in childish arbitrary snarky remarks. lol For me to laugh off. Right? _to show your god_ Wow. That implies your category error of conflating general religion with the category of theism vs atheism about "first principles". That AGAIN, is fallacious sir. You're also implying bait and switch AGAIN, which is fallacious. We're not discussing any old god concept. We're discussing "first principles" a distinct and very important category philosophically. Right? I argued for theism's very first principle of our creator. Beautifully I might add! I love it. _You lose AGAIN!_ Not at all. You're arbitrary with that sir. I don't accept arbitrary declarations. Right? Do you! lol _I guess we should expect it after your spectacular failure_ lol No sir. You must be bluffing! But you're terrible at it, never play poker, it won't work!! lol There's been no responding by you, showing that my informal argumentation is unworthy of acceptance. Can you show that? Stop ducking and dodging here, that amounts to quitting. Its no better. _to support YOUR OWN CLAIM_ AGAIN, that's a FALSE characterization. Straw man logical fallacy. lol My argumentation is on the table here. Whether you like it or not, that doesn't matter. I'm waiting for a response by you, which shows that my argumentation is unworthy of acceptance. _that atheism is incoherent_ Yes. I put that on the table. Do you have a coherent argument against mine? Right? _but its Staggering._ _How weak_ That's Not an argument sir. _pitiful and laughable_ All you have is an appeal to ridicule fallacy? Really? That's truly sad. Until you provide an argument against mine, that I put on the table here, you can't ridicule. Its fallacious. Right? _is presupp_ And another softball. An appeal to ridicule fallacy , by being snarky again about presupp in my presentation or positions. While you've provided no support for that ridicule. What's your argument for that? Right? For that the very first theistic principle should be ridiculed. Right? Do you have an argument for that? What's your argument for that? lol _when you not only can't give a sylogism_ Really? You're ending with an implied straw man logical fallacy? Arguments can be informal or formal. I put informal argumentation on the table here. Its still there, you haven't dealt with it. Show in your rebuttal, that it can't be formalized into a valid/sound syllogism, if you want. Because I'm waiting for you to stop ignoring my informal presentation. Before I'll go formal with a syllogism. Which is entirely fair. You don't get to ignore me regarding the informal. You never even said lets formalize it, because you're not understanding or something. All you did is trash talk, which is a big fail philosophically. _using presupp_ Fallacies left and right! That's another appeal to ridicule. The snarky use of that word, without basis. Until I see an argument from you, for that theism's very first principle, and arguing from "first principles" , is ridicule worthy, any ridicule by you doesn't work. Right? _that your god_ You need to respond about your category error and your bait and switch fallacy, that's implied or entailed with your meaning about that. We're not arguing about any old god concept, generally. Its fallacious for you to comment as if we have been. We haven't been. We're discussing the respective positions in theism vs atheism regarding "first principles". You can't escape that with bait and switch fallacies. Right? _exists but you don't even try?._ Straw man logical fallacy. At least you're consistent. lol My argumentation for theism and against atheism IS on the table here. And you haven't dealt with it yet. That's the problem sir.

_I've tried speaking to you as an adult_ Try harder ! lol With all due respect. _but your childish games of obfuscation_ Straw man logical fallacy. Because its a false characterization. The truth is, you don't like transcendental reasoning while you have no rebuttal. Lets be honest here! And because you don't like it, and how it characterizes atheistic worldviews, you want to poo poo it. But you can't do that! It'll be an appeal to ridicule fallacy for example. If you just poo poo, or ridicule, WITHOUT a rebuttal. You see that? If you give a good rebuttal to an argument, THEN ridicule might be in order. Depending on the situation. _muddying the waters_ Same problem for you. That holds NO water. Due to how you have to SHOW with a rebuttal, that its the case. If you don't do that you're done, whether you admit it or not. Its how philosophy works. Blathering on and on with no rebuttal, gets you no where. _because you cant be an honest interlocketor_ You NEVER showed that with a rebuttal. That's a bald fallacious assertion until you do. Right? _are obvious to any independent observer._ What's obvious is, you don't like transcendental reasoning for theism and against atheism, WHILE you have no rebuttal. That's it in a nutshell. _You LOST the argument!_ Not at all. That's CLEARLY a non sequitur , with you having NO rebuttal. A rebuttal could be attempted by you to show that. _Atheism CLEARLY isn't incoherent_ Because you don't have a rebuttal, my position remains on the table. About how atheists while seemingly coherent or correct generally about religion, regarding certain things, are not coherent(due to the atheism) when it comes to the more fundamental or philosophical aspect that theists have. Or the worldview level regarding EVERYBODY'S "first principle" presuppositions. I'm still waiting for your rebuttal against that. Right? _Only your strawman version of atheism_ In my last comment here, how is the way I characterized atheistic positions, a straw man of it? Or are you all done? Because I already know its not! You don't know that, but I do. lol Or do you finally? _is incoherent_ Non sequitur , you need a rebuttal to show that. So far you have failed to provide a rebuttal. _so you're an irrelevence!_ Non sequitur. You're going to have to show that. Baldly claiming it is a BIG fat failure, philosophically especially. _You lose!_ Another ARBITRARY claim. How sad. _And you can't give a valid and sound sylogism_ lol Now you ask for a formalization of my informal argumentation! What took so long! lol Not yet. Not after you inappropriately ignored my informal position. If you can do a decent job, informally responding to my informal argumentation, then a formalization of it will actually be called for. We can get to that, after you stop with all the arbitrary assertions! By responding to my informal argument. Formalizing will not work for you, by the way. "First principles" are the conclusions in the formal transcendental arguments! Are you aware of that? That means you'll be all done! Saying its circular is a fail. The necessity of the principles is far too powerful. Right? Causation, LOGIC, morality, laws, etc... . We find that the skeptic's objection about how the formal arguments for those things, are circular, is an incredibly weak and failed objection. If we put logical principles as the conclusions in formal transcendental arguments for example, and there's some circularity, the necessity of and the apparent universality of, logical laws and logic, destroys the skeptic's objection. The skeptic is engaging in RADICAL skepticism at that point! What laws of logic and logic means, in reality upon examination, is what matters most by far. Its radical, for a skeptic to oppose "first principles". The skeptic believes the principles already, generally! Its not coherent to oppose it WHILE its your foundation! _using presupp_ That snarky use of the word presupp, is an appeal to ridicule fallacy. Until you explain why a theist arguing from "first principles" against atheistic models or views on first principles, is the problem you imply. By being snarky. So what's your argument for that? That way you're not engaging in childish arbitrary snarky remarks. lol For me to laugh off. Right? _to show your god_ Wow. That implies your category error of conflating general religion with the category of theism vs atheism about "first principles". That AGAIN, is fallacious sir. You're also implying bait and switch AGAIN, which is fallacious. We're not discussing any old god concept. We're discussing "first principles" a distinct and very important category philosophically. Right? I argued for theism's very first principle of our creator. Beautifully I might add! I love it. _You lose AGAIN!_ Not at all. You're arbitrary with that sir. I don't accept arbitrary declarations. Right? Do you! lol _I guess we should expect it after your spectacular failure_ lol No sir. You must be bluffing! But you're terrible at it, never play poker, it won't work!! lol There's been no responding by you, showing that my informal argumentation is unworthy of acceptance. Can you show that? Stop ducking and dodging here, that amounts to quitting. Its no better. _to support YOUR OWN CLAIM_ AGAIN, that's a FALSE characterization. Straw man logical fallacy. lol My argumentation is on the table here. Whether you like it or not, that doesn't matter. I'm waiting for a response by you, which shows that my argumentation is unworthy of acceptance. _that atheism is incoherent_ Yes. I put that on the table. Do you have a coherent argument against mine? Right? _but its Staggering._ _How weak_ That's Not an argument sir. _pitiful and laughable_ All you have is an appeal to ridicule fallacy? Really? That's truly sad. Until you provide an argument against mine, that I put on the table here, you can't ridicule. Its fallacious. Right? _is presupp_ And another softball. An appeal to ridicule fallacy , by being snarky again about presupp in my presentation or positions. While you've provided no support for that ridicule. What's your argument for that? Right? For that the very first theistic principle should be ridiculed. Right? Do you have an argument for that? What's your argument for that? lol _when you not only can't give a sylogism_ Really? You're ending with an implied straw man logical fallacy? Arguments can be informal or formal. I put informal argumentation on the table here. Its still there, you haven't dealt with it. Show in your rebuttal, that it can't be formalized into a valid/sound syllogism, if you want. Because I'm waiting for you to stop ignoring my informal presentation. Before I'll go formal with a syllogism. Which is entirely fair. You don't get to ignore me regarding the informal. You never even said lets formalize it, because you're not understanding or something. All you did is trash talk, which is a big fail philosophically. _using presupp_ Fallacies left and right! That's another appeal to ridicule. The snarky use of that word, without basis. Until I see an argument from you, for that theism's very first principle, and arguing from "first principles" , is ridicule worthy, any ridicule by you doesn't work. Right? _that your god_ You need to respond about your category error and your bait and switch fallacy, that's implied or entailed with your meaning about that. We're not arguing about any old god concept, generally. Its fallacious for you to comment as if we have been. We haven't been. We're discussing the respective positions in theism vs atheism regarding "first principles". You can't escape that with bait and switch fallacies. Right? _exists but you don't even try?._ Straw man logical fallacy. At least you're consistent. lol My argumentation for theism and against atheism IS on the table here. And you haven't dealt with it yet. That's the problem sir.

@@RickPayton-r9d The first premise is NOT “The laws of logic are true,” the first premise is “The laws of logic are truths.” Furthermore, the argument is not circular in the sense that the conclusion is also stated in one of the premises. This is why you need to take care not to confuse the “premise” of an argument, and a “presupposition” of an argument. ;) Hope this helps!

@@RevealedApologetics So a fundamental law of logic concords with reality and makes testable predictions?

@@RevealedApologetics True or truths, we are still talking about justifying reason. I don't see how using reason to prove reason isn't circular.

@@RickPayton-r9d The argument is not trying to prove reason by using reason. The argument is trying to prove that the existence of logic requires God. ;)

@@RevealedApologetics I'm sorry, I assumed you would prove the existence of logic by reason, which involves logic.

@@larrycarter3765 Well, there you have it. If you said it, it must be true.

@@RevealedApologetics 🤣 This assertion seems *strikingly* similar to the one you make! If you want Larry to support his claim, I presume you'll readily accept "...due to the impossibility of the contrary" as justification?

@@jdawsonj 😂…Uh, okay. You make an assertion and then you accuse me of poisoning the well by literally poisoning the well yourself by trying to speak negatively about some hypothetical future video I haven’t made yet. Lol, you can’t make this stuff up 😂

Think carefully about what would happen if logic weren't universal. All men are mortal, Socrates is a man Therefore: Socrates is mortal ... ...unless we're in that one section of the universe where logic doesn't apply. We'd have to change the conclusion to "socrates might or might not be mortal - or maybe he's both mortal and immortal at the same time, since we don't know if logic will hold in this scenario or not..." It would undermine all rational thought. No ... far better to stick to the idea that logic, whatever the truth theory turns out to be, applies universally.

@@Scott_Terry You first said: "Think carefully about what would happen if logic weren't universal". Aristotelian logic only deals with 6 statements types; All, Some, None, Not-All, Not-Some, and Not-None. Thus statements from first order propositional logic: AND, OR, IMPLICATION (If-Then) have no meaning in Aristotelian logic since those types of statements are not within the domain of Aristotelian logic. This is the same for all logical systems. Each are restricted by the statement types they employ within their individual domain. Aristotelian logic and first order propositional logic also have different definitions of "contradiction". Thus, by definition and design, logic cannot be universal nor transcendent. Since each logical system has different definitions of "contradiction", it cannot be invariant. We do not have to think what would happen if logic was not universal. It is already in that state as I have clearly shown. You then said: "It would undermine all rational thought." Clearly logic is not universal, and we still have rational thought. If you insist upon maintaining logic is universal, you have an additional problem. Even if it is universal, we know (from Godel) that your universal logic, it would yield a contradiction as true. That is, it would be inconsistent. In either case, you position collapses and so does you apologetic methodology.

@@manager0175 Name one logician who agrees with you.

@@Scott_Terry Russell, Quine, Tapscott, Copi, Kripke, and many others. This is a very common understanding of logic among professional logicians.

@@manager0175 I know that four on your list would agree that logic is "universal" in the way I described above. I don't know who "Tapscott" is, but I bet I know what he'd say if we pried in to his work...

The Anerson / Welty argument works with any necessary abstracta. It doesn't have to be a specific law of logic, nor does it have to be a law of logic at all.

​@@Scott_Terry So how can anyone tell which ones are "necessary"? Is the law of excluded middle necessary?

@@AlexanderShamov If you don't think there are any necessary truths, then that's one way of avoiding the Anderson / Welty argument. ...try it and see what happens.

​@@manager0175 Yeah, that as well. I was more focused on the first assertions, but something also smelled wrong to me about having abstract concepts referred to as "thoughts". I think it's nothing more than a change of language to smuggle in a thinker. "The number 3 is not a physical object" => "the number 3 is a thought" => "it must be someone's thought". Like, what the hell? You can't just put the rabit into the hat in plain sight and then act like pulling it out is a great magic trick.

How do you prove any statements you just made?? I know right - you can't. "I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am He you will die in your sins.” John 8:24 ESV Trust in Jesus Christ today in the historical fact that He died on a cross, gave Himself up for our sins as the Only propitiation capable of fulfilling all the law we couldn't, and that He rose again on the 3rd day as He told his disciples He would, and who was seen by multiple witnesses through great historical documentation. Without the LORD, you have zero ground to stand on for anything, change your mind today and be set free by GOD and His Christ, the One you know exists and hate. Good news is, Jesus died for sinners like us. Cry out to the LORD today buddy, because He is the Only Savior of sinful humanity doomed to hell. He chose to lay down His life when He did not have to for His people. Jesus paid it ALL, ALL to Him I owe!! AMEN

@@ChristAloneNoRome That's an absurd statement because you don't prove statements. You just assess whether they are reasonable or not. If you can show in any way shape form manner or even a ridiculous Christian argument that God is anything more than a invisible Man in the sky, then I'll retract my true statement which would no longer be so accurate. But it is accurate. If you can believe that arguing about anything other than the invisible Man in the sky, for example. Jesus, is simply an argument to prove that the Bible is a true and accurate history than a retract. My other statements but my other statements are true too. And you're ridiculous in my opinion. But I am open to more conversation if you dare.

​@@ChristAloneNoRomeprove Jesus is god.

@@LuciferAlmighty He already proved He is.. the burden is on you, and so is your denial of the truth. Hahaha, you already know He is God, the Word who became flesh, so repent and trust that He paid for your sins today and be set free and reconciled to God today! He is too Awesome.

@@ChristAloneNoRome prove all that

@@dennisblaul7228 (You said): “For conclusions derived from logic and mathematics to be considered universally objective in relation to the external world, they must be validated through empirical testing. “ Can you validate the truth of that assertion “empirically?? Furthermore, what is the scientific and empirical evidence for the assertion that in order for a fact to be objectively demonstrated, it must be demonstrated scientifically and empirically? 😉

@@RevealedApologetics Empirical testing is the system we use simply because it works well and generally gives us the correct answers.We have no other system that works so consistently well. If your god is our omnipotent creator ,he knows this,he designed it this way,and he chose to make the supernatural emperically untestable for human beings making methodological naturalists like me unable to worship him because there is no demonstrable,verifiable evidence that he exists and he inspired a book that is full of fantastic claims about events that defy the rules of logic,physics and nature.None of which can be verified..Why would he do that..??.

@@RevealedApologetics The assertion that "for conclusions derived from logic and mathematics to be considered universally objective in relation to the external world, they must be validated through empirical testing" is indeed a statement about the methodology we use to acquire reliable knowledge about reality. While this assertion is philosophical, it is grounded in the empirical success of the scientific method. Empirical Validation of Theories: Throughout history, numerous logical and mathematical models have been proposed to describe the natural world. However, only those models that have been empirically tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation have been accepted as accurate representations of reality. For example, Einstein's theory of general relativity was a mathematical formulation that made specific predictions about gravitational phenomena. It wasn't until these predictions were empirically verified-such as the bending of light during a solar eclipse-that the theory was widely accepted as an objective truth about the universe. The Success of the Scientific Method: The scientific method relies on empirical testing to validate hypotheses and theories. This approach has consistently produced reliable and objective knowledge about the world, demonstrating its effectiveness. The fact that empirical methods have led to technological advancements, medical breakthroughs, and a deeper understanding of the cosmos serves as empirical evidence for the assertion that empirical validation is necessary for objective truth. Philosophical Justification: While the assertion itself may not be directly testable in the same way a scientific hypothesis is, it is supported by the pragmatic success of empiricism. Philosophers like Karl Popper have argued that falsifiability and empirical testing are essential criteria for scientific theories, emphasizing that without empirical evidence, theories remain speculative. Avoiding Logical Fallacies: Relying solely on logic without empirical testing can lead to conclusions that are internally consistent but externally false when applied to the real world. Historical examples include the geocentric model of the universe, which was logically coherent within its own framework but was later disproven through empirical observations. Empirical Evidence for Empiricism: The consistent reliability and predictive power of empirically tested theories serve as empirical evidence supporting the methodology itself. In other words, the success rate of empirical science in producing objective knowledge is the empirical validation of the principle that empirical testing is necessary for establishing objective truths. Conclusion: While we cannot empirically test the assertion in the same way we test a scientific hypothesis, the overwhelming success of empirical methods in yielding objective and reliable knowledge about the external world provides strong support for it. The assertion is not merely a philosophical stance but is substantiated by the practical outcomes of applying empirical testing across various domains of inquiry.

@@criticalthinker8007 There are a whole host of things wrongheaded in your comments here. However, I genuinely appreciate the fact that you took the time to offer your thoughts. I am trying to collect some of the more thoughtful responses and do a video response to them in the near future. I will include your comments in that future response. Cheers!

You said: "If nothing else existed include God or the concept of God would laws of Logic still existent.". There is nothing metaphysical nor supernatural about logic. Logic is an extracted model from some subset of existence or reality. Nothing more.

@@manager0175 Is an “extracted model” conceptual or material?

The extracted model is empirical.

@@manager0175 So is the extracted model material or immaterial?

While Dr. Malpass does give some interesting push-backs, there's nothing there amounting to a refutation or a demonstration that the Anderson / Welty argument doesn't work.

@@Scott_Terry Err .. yes, there is. If you want the conclusion of Malpass's response to the argument, it's below. You can find the whole thing on Malpass's 'UseofReason' blog. It's called "Problems with the Lord of non-Contradiction". "It seems to me that there are quite a few problems with the argument presented in The Lord of Non-Contradiction. Some of them are quite subtle, like the final one concerning the precise relationship between the laws and the thoughts of God, and it is entirely possible that they could be cleared up. Some of them are quite technical, such as the details of how possible worlds are cashed out in the metaphysics of modality, and A&W could be forgiven for not realising them. *Some of them, I suggest, are quite a lot more serious, such as the inference from intentionality to mentality. I don’t see this being fixed up with a little revision or by spelling something out a bit more clearly. It is utterly foundational to the argument and it seems to me that it is just fallacious".*

@@russellsteapot8779 ... I'm well aware of malpass' work and I'm also well aware that hoards of internet atheists like hoisting him on their shoulders and parading him around like he's scored major points when, the reality is, he often does very little. This is a case in point. I'm glad you linked to that discussion between Malpass and Anderson on Parker's channel. We can let people decide for themselves if Malpass single-handedly destroyed the argument or not.

@@Scott_Terry For one so 'well aware', you rather curiously seem to be *unaware* of the very issues his objections raise? If you're engaging in *philosophy* , you should try not to let your biases and blind spots impede your understanding. If you're engaging in theology, where you ALREADY accept a particular conclusion, you don't need to worry about that!

@@russellsteapot8779 There's a long line of anti-Christians offering psychoanalysis of Scott Terry ... so, thanks for your observations.