atheist 'Jmike' vs Chase Haggard | Axioms & TAG
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- @chasehaggard161 Chase Haggard calls into the atheist experience show to run an internal critique & TAG; Jmike and his friend MD Aware concede knowledge is impossible to justify, Chase then presents TAG & Jmike quickly fumbles saying it's not an argument and once they both realize that they are out of their depth, they start muting Chase for damage control.
source: • The Atheist Experience...
Special thanks to my buddy 'Headache' for finding this clip for me.
“Our atheist axioms are universally self evident without justification, now convince us they aren’t”
Then Christians can also say God is axiomatic FACT. We can just assert that. You have no justification for your claims.
I don’t believe them to be true therefore they aren’t universal unless you have a justification lol
You think axiom that logic exists is an atheist axiom? :) not surprising you buy into this crap.
@@gk4y4 that it exists, no? That axioms have to be justified in a way that isn’t circular is the contention. Quit coping and be like the physicist Brian Green the worlds most consistent atheist who admits he can have no true knowledge of the world.
@@steviewonder417Your starting axioms cannot be proven, and if they can be then that means you picked a bad axiom. You can make up a story to account for why an axiom might be true based on your ontology but that’s always going to be circular. “Logic is an outflowing of god” is an account. “Logic is a property of the universe” is an account. Clearly if my axioms are true then I can have knowledge. If they’re not true than I can’t. Welcome to epistemology.
'My worldview cannot justify the essentials; therefor asking is spholisism'
'We just derive it from our experience'
If an "academic says "right" more than twice in a 1 minute conversation , ignore everything they say....its always "wrong".😅
Why should we trust sense data😮 problem of the external world😉
Let's just take for granted that my answers to your questions are bad ones.
Maybe TAG will look something like this:
Premise 1: Discernible is wrong
Premise 2: !?!?!
Conclusion: God is the necessary precondition for (whatever)
@@MrWatchowtnowseriously this trait is the most insidious and obnoxious habit a lot of holier-than-thou people have, or midwits who think they’re geniuses and talk down to everyone. the ‘right?’ is so patronizing, and it sounds like they’re just agreeing with themselves
@@DiscernibleInferences Lmao, you didn't even get the order of the premises right. You made the first premise the conclusion. You're a clown.
Oh man I want Jay Dyer to call into this show some time...
didn't he already destroy their leader
He's busy making pay piggy part two.
It's kind of pointless because these two won't change their mind, even if they can't defend their position
This is child’s play for Jay lol
Jay destroyed JMike
"Caller: Kevin (he/him)" lmao
It boggles the mind how many "rational" skeptics believe that men can be women.
@@dtphenomWhen they arbitrarily make axioms their gods, and everyone chooses his own axioms/gods, why would you expect them to presuppose the identity of anything, including of a man or a woman?
Caller Kevin: (He/Shim) would have been far superior
@@Itasca1 You're being incredibly regarded by equivocating axioms as gods.
They're just the logical principles that initiate others.
@@Wabbelpaddel I think you missed the point. You have to give a reason to PREFER one axiom over another. OR you are simply being arbitrary. And that is the point.
"No no that's not the Platonism I'm talking about" 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣
Platonism covers more than one thing. 🤦🏻♂️
Theres no way people can watch and think these people are smart if they have to mute someone and speak over someone. Then claim you have no argument after hearing it. Arent atheist supposed to be so much better than theist? Ironic
Atheism is a dead meme. You hardly see any staunchly atheist zoomer, it's all boomers, gen x, and millenials.
I hardly watch the atheist/theist debates any more because it's tedious and we seem to outgrow it anyway.
I mean they admitted total defeat at the start where they said they're okay with unjustified presuppositions
And yet with that presup say "true" things. Pray for them...they are possessed.
Have you pooped in the streets today brother??@@ACReji
@@23Butanedionelow IQ racism is what you have to offer😂😂
@@johan_liebert2385 our butts will spray stinky liquid onto the hot Indian streets together one day brother
@@23ButanedioneI dont think hes from America
The crazy thing to me about all this philosophical wankery - not Chase or TAG, the stuff which is considered “philosophy” by the atheists and zoomers who study it at university and online like this - is the fact that they think that thought and argument is just the conglomeration of certain views with infinitely malleable definitions and configurations which can be adjusted at any point.
If chase was given the opportunity to keep talking and explain himself a paradigm comparison between atheism and Christianity would have come up showing how atheism is insufficient to ground the transcendentals. Christianity may not have been true, but at the very least atheism is certainly false.
Would any of these guys honestly accept it though? No, because they’re disingenuous and arrogant, and think that because a university system homogeneously teaches a viewpoint it must be true.
Hey, I saw your comment, and I raise you a partial book as a reply.
You're right, but....
I would diagnose it worse than wankery, because this may qualify as "Wonkery" though I'm admittedly a bit uncertain how severe of a term "Wankery" is in comparison to the former, oh well, hope I'm right, but still, this type of modern philosophy is merely commandeering the name of sound philosophical grounding and logical consistency because they're fed their conclusion of Gods nonexistence up front and are either taught or perceive any supporting arguments to their conclusion as though they're unassailable, and unbeatable arguments likely formulated by Aristotle himself and handed down to them through the ages like some bright hot torch that they now carry through the darkness. Something that usually people who've been all-in for the losing side and were forced to come to terms with their bad decision can fully appreciate as a default human cognitive bias。 One of the bad ones, the bias that biases us against unbiased awareness of our obvious bias。
This is feelings-based argumentation that they often use unconsciously, I say that as someone who once took the same thought paths but just has had enough time and consistency to follow these main atheist points of argument to their logical end points, and I can say that their pot-shot style critiques, and self-proclaimed refutations of Gods existence are not as powerful as they feel they are while their making them。 If they're intellectually honest with themselves, they begin to see that their own double standards for what they can classify as strong or weak evidence or argumentation against any claim, are being relied upon overwhelmingly generously to their own prejudiced post hoc rationalizations and then they may see themselves consciously applying the strict and proper standard of validation/justification to those only on the other side of the debate. They may have an "Are we the Baddies?" moment fleetingly at first, but likely they'll dismiss it.
You can see the psychological evasion in this clip, when TAG is first beginning to be explained, instead of first waiting to get the holistic understanding of the argument, Jimke has with lightning quickness zeroed in on what he perceives as a weak point in the argument, but why so fast？ He expressed that this was causing him inability to understand, before the argument was ever made to him from the callers mouth。 It's likely that he didn't follow the line of logic due to the focus on active dismantling of the argument at a speed greater than that of the spoken arguments expression。 Within that small bit of time, no "considering" of arguments could possibly have occurred。 It's near certain that this is the case, unless his brain is capable of predicting every nuance possible from his opposite debater's argument, which is more likely to happen when listening to atheist arguments according to my anecdote.
In being taught to be zealous in defense of Haitian Cannibals for example, they're being deprived of their skill needed to consider whether or not they "Should" be zealous in this case, or any case. They're not taught to listen, and it's easy to spot people who have deficit in that skill, that bad habit. It can be used to determine whether you've got someone who is debating with the purpose of "winning" instead of the purpose of actively trying to be beaten by another debater。 That is what an honest debater should desire, to be beaten fairly with principles of logic as the arbitrator, with as few cheap paths toward victory as manageable, because it means there is more to learn, and you know where it lies now.
Have a good evening.
Granting the bare falsehood of atheism, can you give an argument for premise 1?
@@DiscernibleInferences I replied to this on your other comment to me
Demonstrate that you need to “ground the trancendentals?” That’s not a real thing. Just something the Christian rapists say.
Chase isn't on the video Because the physiognomy difference would be too strong, no argument would be necessary
Physiognomy is based and truthpilled. That's why the rockefeller soyentists discredited it as "pseudoscience".
Chase: Literally gives a textbook syllogism as an argument
JMike: "I'm not hearing an argument."
"I'm too proud to say I have no clue what you're talking about, so I'll just snidely say that you are incoherent to save face."
They simply cannot engage without overtalking, being uncharitable, allowing for back and forth. What a joke man. It's amazing people think that that program is somehow intellectually stimulating.
I mean, doesn’t Jay kind of do the same thing?
@@Spookyjordan jay always gives people a chance to present their arguments. He has no patience for people who call in with unintelligible arguments or silliness. The atheist experience does this with almost every single caller I've seen them interact with, because they can't content with the arguments.
@@stevendouglas3781 Notice how spooky didn’t deny the claim about the overtalking behavior, he just decided to tu quo que. ❌❌
@@stevendouglas3781 fair. I’m just trying to be unbiased in how I compare the two. Dillahunty infuriates me with his obvious rhetorical tactics, but Jay annoys me when he cuts short a conversation that is actually very interesting because he sees them as trolls or stupid.
@@Certaintystillexists I’m Orthodox. And this isn’t a debate.
I’ve come to realize when someone criticizes something as word salad, it’s just a arrogant way of saying I don’t understand
Well what do you expect from people who use childish insults like muh sky daddy
Thats precisely what is....
There is nothing to understand when people talk about souls, magic, essence, supernatural claims.
@@Theophan123not a daddy, a monster perhaps.
@@ACReji No, it isn’t. We should point out when Christians are talking bullshit and lying. Which is all the time.
All I got from this is that they think you should choose the fewest number of axioms unless that means choosing Christ.
God instantiating logic and the regularity of nature is an additional link in the chain of assumptions...
Why would you choose Christ as an axiom? You can live a good life without assuming Jesus.
So the timeless spaceless very powerful disembodied mind that created the universe and was incarnated in ancient Palestine… is the most parsimonious explanation?
It’s not an assumption sweetheart, it’s the only justification. Logic exists we know this, where is it? No where it’s not empirical, physical or able to be seen. We analyzed it and defined it but it already existed. If you claim that it’s just a construct for example then you just refuted yourself because what is the point of holding logical or rational discourse if what you say has no meaning and it’s arbitrary? The point of Tag is Not X is the justification for X, the point of tag is X is a necessary precondition for Y even being rational or coherent, or grounded or justified, Y therefore X.
Y = Transcendentals, Immaterial, Invariable, Universal things, that are consistent and unchanging.
X = an immaterial being that is also invariable, universal, etc, GOD
The existence of such concepts requires something like them to be grounded. We can’t ground them we can only analyze their existence. If you reject the meaning or significance of any of the concepts you automatically refute yourself because there would then be no reason to continue argument. It’s arbitrary, so if you’re an honest atheist, you take it to its natural conclusions
@@TatevosN. Demonstrate that it requires grounding in syllogistic form, please.
"Atheism is not a paradigm" 🤤
its not, its simply a position for a single proposition. it has no tenets, no framework or anything. I'm confused when people try to equivocate it to some paradigm or treat it like its a religion when its literally not.
@@pyrotek45 One doesn't arrive at a conclusion disparadigmatically free from any presuppositions. We arrive at beliefs based on something, not on nothing. Nobody can say that nothing lead oneself to a non-belief; rather, one says that there's no evidence for a belief, or that the evidence; i.e., the _something,_ which itself is interpreted according to the framework of one's paradigm, disproves said belief.
@@JunkyJeeMaili called into the atheist experience their past livestream and asked about justification for axioms, it was funny
“X is the necessary precondition for Y; Y, therefore X”
GrEaT, buT wHAt’s the ARguMenT?
Do you understand what begging the question is? The person he is arguing with is an atheist, which means he doesn't even believe "X" exists. Therefore, he can't use X in his premise to demonstrate that "X" exists, it's tautological. It's no different than me saying "The tooth fairy exist because she created teeth. Therefore, since we have teeth, the tooth fairy exists."
@@keyyloww4918 Demonstrating something exists based on a-priori metaphysical necessity is not begging the question. All the atheist has to do is demonstrate an alternative grounding for transcendentals, rather than “Wow just wow”ing about people not buying into materialist presuppositions.
@@Noetic-Necrognosis That absolutely is begging the question. You cannot use the very thing your trying to prove in order to prove your argument. But even if I were to grant you that that was not the case and, for simplicity sake, rephrase the argument as "Logic exists as a transcendental element of the universe; therefore, god must exist," it's still a non sequitur argument. You can literally substitute any abstract idea you come up with in place of god.
@@keyyloww4918Do you allow for logical fallacies when explaining your worldview?
@@keyyloww4918 The laws of logic are universal invariant concepts. They are, like all concepts, proper to a mind. If the laws of logic are universal and invariant, then they are necessarily proper to a universal and invariant Mind. This is what is meant by a-priori metaphysical necessity. You can’t ground universal invariant concepts in particular, fluctuating instances of matter. The theist can make sense of transcendentals and coherently ground them; the atheist arbitrarily grants them to himself then turns around and plays skeptic.
That question is legendary: "What standard are you gonna use to delineate between what axioms people CAN hold, and you CAN'T hold ..."
Then they rambled about experience ... oof. Bye bye atheism.
it really is a great question
@@saint-jiub It is a good question. What do you think about properly basic beliefs?
@@Detson404 Let me guess the atheist beliefs are properly basic but theists are not... lol
@@arnoldvezbon6131 I don’t think “no god exists” is properly basic. I think “the real world exists” and “my senses are generally reliable” would be. There are some things we can reason towards based on the evidence, and some things we need to assume. If you want to claim that “there’s a timeless spaceless immaterial very powerful mind that created the universe and was incarnated as a first century Palestinian carpenter” is on the same level as “other people are real and aren’t NPCs,” more power to you.
It would be so simple If theists actually presented evidence for their beliefs and even better if the God they believe show it self ...
Plenty of god definitions can be proven. You're not really interested.
They muted him several times while he was explaining his point, who's surprised??
They're liberals. Anybody who go against them, they shut them down
Leftists will always do this. Someone has opposing views, they'll get angry and mute people
I respect their worldview but damn are they arrogant assholes. The times i've been frustrated with Dillahunty for example, he just keeps shouting, muting, booting people off.
It doesn't show him in a good light.
@@lm7338why? Nothing to respect
@@BrodyAleksander-YOB
It's an understandable POV. (Ex-atheist)
Clipping game is growing in strength. Thanks Jiub
They wouldn’t even let him get past the premise of the argument😂
What if X is not god but bobo ,, this is why u guys sound so dum lol
@@jubalance6343 You don’t understand the argument, we aren’t just positing God arbitrarily to justify our worldview. The transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG), not to be confused with a God of the gaps fallacy, simply removes all objections/excuses for not believing in God. It’s a presuppositional argument aimed at critiquing other world views. By showing via the impossibility of the contrary, without the Orthodox Christian notion of God, we are incapable of epistemically justifying any truth claims we make. Everyone has a pre-commitment in using logic, reason, evidence, argumentation.etc), its aim is to show, what are the necessary conceptual preconditions for the “possibility” of knowledge acquisition. This is the premise of the argument…the actual format of the argument itself is as follows, X is the necessary prerequisite for Y, such that Y cannot be obtained without X. There is a lot more to this argument, I’m not going to right five paragraphs…lol I recommend reading Father Deacon Ananias article, (An Orthodox Theory of Knowledge: The Epistemological and Apologetic Methods of the Church Fathers.) Thanks for reading btw “Christ is Lord” hehe 😉
Because it wasn’t an argument. It was the rambling of a moron.
@@Elite_Orthodox He gave the argument. He then proceeded to repeat it over and over while they asked him to justify the premises.
he said "knowledge therefore god" imagine if they replies "knowledge therefore not god", claims have to have substance or else they wont have any real purpose
Only about halfway done so far, but I really like that you included their statements on top. Really helps to show their inconsistency and better learn how to argue against atheism.
Seconded. The annotations are great
jmike wasn't inconsistent.
@@42Oolon Literally just read the notations. They're right there in the video. Or can you not even do that?
Love when our guys debate them on their own platforms! Chase Haggard W
this is the perfect example of why internet debates have become ret@rded.
jay wipes the floor with this guy, shows how unserious he is, and he just keeps lurking around the internet pretending he has anything useful to say.
These two guys are unbearable. Faux intellectuals. JMike is clearly out of his league, demonstrated by the fact he doesn’t understand an argument doesn’t have to be something he agrees with. And he doesn’t use word salad correctly.
If the argument is meant to be an internal criticism, then yes, it certainly would have to involve claims he believes.
I dont understand why atheists have to argue for positions they don't hold. This happens so often. They'll grant you something then argue as if they hold that position (in this case Platonism) but start saying you're speaking gobbledegook when you give them an explanation for the Christian God.
@@saint-jiubit hasn't down on them that abstract objects are ideas, as in, from a mind lol
Looking for any kinda gotcha. It’s not about proving anything but rather an attempt to at discrediting their interlocutor.
Once you understand that atheism is just lite Marxism (and that they're pushing their own version of the culture war in Christianity vs secularism for a longer time) you'd realize why it seems second nature to them to never subject their own worldview to scrutiny while demanding the same from their opponents
Because the presup is making a claim that the God they believe in is an epistemological necessity which opens the door for any and all views. Most atheists are atheists because we see a number of possible scenarios that lead to us being here. Much in the same way I am not a physicalist, I am not a theist. Neither option seems better than the other. Nothing wrong with pointing out one of those options against a deductive argument.
@@guyjoseph5113 How does that open the door to any and all views??
The Reality is they don't seek Truth. So, when they encounter Him, they back-pedal and reject Him using the tactics of their father...
COLLDDD
@@IAMHarryMK I'm sorry, I have no idea what the acronym means🥴
@@Itasca1 what you said was cold 🥶
@@IAMHarryMK OHH!!! Sometimes I don't see the simplest meaning...😵💫 Thanks for interpreting for me🧐👍
Romans 1:18
This is what I never understood from these types of atheists. On one hand, they want us to prove God exists through the scientific method or empirical means and are skeptical of God not meeting that criteria yet at the same time they believe in various things (such as knowledge or the laws of logic) that cannot be proven by their own standards. This is hypocrisy or selective skepticism at a higher order.
It's really not hypocrisy because of the fact that axioms accepted as presuppositions are wholly necessary to exist or traverse the world in any way. There isn't a contradiction in the idea that there could be a universe in which there is uniformity of nature and the laws of logic but we wouldn't be capable of accounting for them, therefore there is no way to rule that possibility out. How can you possibly demonstrate that only universes in which these axioms can be justified or accounted for are capable of existing? As long as you can't, which I bet will be forever, you don't just get to shoehorn in your God concept as this ad hoc extraneous explanation, with the sole justifaction being that "well you presuppose stuff too!"
@@timcollett99 You can account for axioms by stating they are self-evident, which is an epistemic account. And I'm not sure why you're appealing that there is no contradiction in saying the universe and the laws of logic aren't capable of being accounted for since consistency is only one virtue and plausibility and explanatory power plays a bigger hand alongside consistency. Just because something is a possibility doesn't mean it is plausible or probable. Just like if I see a bird, it's always a possibility that it is a government drone spying on me, does this imply I should be skeptical of said bird or all birds? There's no contradiction internally in this view but so what?
For me to know something, it isn't necessary to rule out every possibility since you can always come up with alternative explanations for any single thing which just leads to an unmitigated skepticism.
So, given that we know we are in a universe through experience (epistemic account), we want to know where the universe came from or what it is grounded in (metaphysical or ontological account).
It seems the atheist-meta is to appeal to simplicity and brute facts this only works if theism and naturalism are equally plausible. I think theism is more plausible and has more explanatory power when it comes to consciousness, fine-tuning, morality, on why anything exists, and the list goes on.
The only alternative explanation that is offered is: "bro it just exists, no explanation, we just don't know bro".
And that's the reason why the majority of us theists laugh because it almost seems like this is just a way to avoid God, a prejudice.
@@tuav You have it precisely backwards. You seem to be making the argument that whilst an intelligible reality that includes the uniformity of nature, in which we are unable to account for, or ground such things, whilst not logically inconsistent, doesn't have the same explanatory scope. So what?! How can you rule out that the fundamental nature of reality and its origins are something we are unable to 'know'?!
So you would prefer it if there were an explanation, so that means you're justified in believing there is?!
And you want to claim that atheists are choosing their axioms on a preferential basis?!
Also, as an aside. The God proposition doesn't even have any explanatory scope or power in regards to the things you mentioned. Everything in your laundry list; morality, why there is something rather than nothing, etc, is not actually explained by a God. You would then need to explain why all of them are the case for this newly proposed entity. For instance, why is there a God, rather than nothing?
You're just kicking the can down the road.
@@tuav at the end of the day, sooner "bro, it just exists, there is no explanation" than "bro, it just exists because a God did it, and there is no reason or explanation for this God he just is"
You know why?
Because "it" meaning reality, is something we have good grounds to think actually exists, seeing as we experience it. If the buck has to stop somewhere, it makes far more sense for it to stop before we need to start defining mystical beings in to existence.
@@timcollett99Can you explain which atoms gave us moral laws and how.
These people are clowns.
"Axioms aren't justified"
I wonder if he chose that position. If he didnt, then he only believes that because the laws of physics FORCED him to believe a proposition. NOT because its actually true. It could be false. I guess these people would believe the puppet and not the puppeteer.
Also, WRONG.
That claim is a universal, meaning hes making a positive claim that theres no possible world where they even CAN be justified.
WRONG.
Hes incorrectly conflating proof and justification. Atheists do this all the time.
Justify means you need to support a statement with proper explanation. For eg, 'Slow and steady always wins the race'-Justify this statement giving proper examples. Prove means you need to show that something is true.
Justifications do not have to be "true." A justification can be based on mathematical reasoning.
On some views, axioms do not admit FURTHER justification since they are self-evident. But the fact they are self evident does not mean they are not justified by the initial justification. These clowns clearly believe in brute facts, which are comically devoid of reason. But it also makes them hypocrites.
"I dont choose things, I dont hold that position."
Self refutation. If you don't choose things, there is no "you" in that distinction. The proposition "I dont choose X" and "I choose Y" are false. Because this presupposes you DID choose some sort of alternative. Being "I believe i chose NOT X and NOT Y." And he thinks thats true.
Boom. Atheism Roasted.
Does your God exist anywhere other than your word games?
For those wondering, when Jmike said he is an "epistemic error theorist" (or is at least sympathetic to it), this means there are no objectively correct (or incorrect) epistemological truths.
For example:
"Consistent beliefs are better than inconsistent beliefs"
"Believe in true things, and not false things"
"If the premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows"
He would cast doubt on all these propositions or deny that they are objectively correct.
Wow. It is one thing to be a moral error theorist, but an epistemic one? Rational my ass. Proverbs 9:10 remains undefeated.
Aren’t epistemology and morality inseparable?
@@Certaintystillexists I don't see why they would be inseparable. One can hold that knowledge exists and that all moral facts are false.
@@Certaintystillexists They are better understood to be as "companions-in-guilt". They seem to be similar in the sense they are "external reasons to count in favor of something".
Of course, a great way to defend moral realism is by advancing this type of argument. Cuneo's book "The Normative Web" makes a good defense of such a thing.
Sort of. But its more like "epistemic error theorist" would point out that we don't know if any of those statements are "objectively correct," we just know that we are convinced of them because we find them useful. So it doesn't matter if they are "objective" or not and speculating on such matters is epistemological useless. So its not so much that statements are or aren't "objective" as much as that "objectivity" is an incoherent concept that is better left ignored.
“I never have to mute people on this show” lol yeah cause most people aren’t educated and as soon as someone is they can’t take this
Common atheist L
the caller was an L
So your ok with unjustified assumptions?......uh, no, well.....I’m ok with MY unjustified assumptions😂
Cooked!
6:25 they’re just admitting they make unjustified assumptions to even get their worldview off the ground.
Every worldview starts with assumptions. The only self-evident thing is maybe “I think therefore I am” and I’m sure that’s been challenged too.
This is spectacular, as sad as it is that they basically admit choosing to believe in an arbitrary irrational worldview, at least they were as clear as possible with this admission. The whole we determine axioms by "experience" bit was pretty funny considering they just said they totally don't.
12:03 they aren't even agents in their view. They're incapable of getting to a basis for the distinction between objects and subjects.
Nah bro he granted himself agents now move on. The problem with the whole philosophy bro stuff is they often lose a real conception of the basis that they're working from, just haphazardly granting themselves things like agents and calling it trivial when it is a core thing in question. They see a bunch of philosophers use the term agent and presume it's just a given, not realizing that we aren't willing to grant what they view as trivial to them.
@@anthonyantoine9232excellent
@@Stevenmulraney Five gets you ten you’re also a believer in determinism. How can we be an agent under your god world with determinism but not under the materialist worldview?
@@Detson404 how high do you have to stack atoms before they gain volition? Or maybe you have to organize determined matter in a special arrangement?
@@Stevenmulraney Well there’s these things called “brains.” They’re pink, spongy things made of oxygen, carbon, a few other things. But ok, let’s pretend brains don’t produce volition. Presumably thoughts arise by some process, whether it’s meat fizzing or fairy clockwork or god magic or whatever. If that process is deterministic I don’t see how this helps anything. The result is also deterministic.
The guy on the left talks about how questioning the epistemic status of axioms results in solipsism, meanwhile his cohost expresses sympathy to epistemic error theory, which is even more extreme than solipsism lol. Epistemic error theorists must admit, by their own standard, that even THEY have no reason to believe epistemic error theory! Insanity. Dude says he's sympathetic to it, not even realizing that saying he's sympathetic to it necessarily contradicts with the position that there can be no reason to believe anything. He literally can't make an argument, because to make an argument presumes that there can be reasons to believe things. There's a reason almost nobody in philosophy will touch epistemic error theory, and it's because it is absolute retardation at the highest level.
On the one side of this panel, you've got the classical foundationalist in MD aware, who has had his philosophical ass handed to him since Sellars, and on the other side you've got an epistemic error theorist who had his ass handed to him by his own self-defeating position.
Then they go on to interrupt and avoid the longer explanation of the argument, asking for precisely the thing that was being explained. Then Jmike goes on to magically grant himself the ontology of real agents, calling it trivial. It's not trivial. It is in question, and especially when the interlocutor is a freaking epistemic error theorist! Clearly he does not understand this and gives no chance for Kevin (he/him) to explain. Then proceeds to make a serious strawman in accusing Kevin (he/him) of having proclaimed that logic reduces to a MIND of God, which is a fantastic argument against Christians who hold to divine subjectivism, but not so much against Orthodox Christians. Dude is just LOST at every level.
Huh? Why would an epistemic error theorist need to concede there aren’t reason for believing in things.
What do you think epistemic error theory is?
@@Swifter315 That's literally definitional epistemic error theory lol. It is the denial that there are any epistemic facts, and so any attempt at epistemology is in error. What you're asking is equivalent to asking why metaethical error theorists must concede that there aren't moral reasons to not murder. It's because they hold that moral facts don't have any real ontology, or at least aren't instantiated.
Even academic proponents of the theory accept that this is a valid critique of the theory, but attempt to bootstrap their way out of it by continuing to argue that it's not damaging to the theory, which is a clear performative contradiction.
What do you think it is, oh wise sage? Please do share.
@@anthonyantoine9232 no… epistemic error theory is the denial of epistemic normative facts. Not epistemic facts.
An epistemic error theorist can (and all do afaik) believe that following the laws of logic is conducive to true beliefs. That’s a fact about the world without any normativity needed.
@@anthonyantoine9232 the actual debate is about whether or not epistemic facts can be understood non normatively or reduced to something else like desire which is down to earth normativity so to speak. That’s what Cumeo arteries with companions in guilt.
@@Swifter315 What are you on about? This has nothing to do with companions in guilt. It has everything to do with epistemic error theory independently, as that's what jmike espoused.
Jmike doesn’t know tag. (pin this comment)
It's funny how they use specific terminology and phrasing when regurgitating their word salad, but when they're cornered the language gets all vague and they say things like "I guess" and "feels like" or "seems like" and "sort of" and they introduce subjectivity right away.
“We don’t rly know anything but Occam’s razor which is written by a English Christian centuries ago pertaining to scientific theories is our criteria for some reason”
Sawed the proberbial limb they were standing on right out from underneath themselves.
Sportcoats over t shirts is cringe.
Don't come for DPH 😅
@slowboywhiteboardv4 no exceptions. COTEL's outfits are cringe
@@Stevenmulraney Your fashion opinions are important.
@@Certaintystillexists who wouldn't listen to someone with navy wingtips?
Classic slimy Jmike tactics.
Absolutely love Chase. I wish he'd do more debates.
“It’s an assumption”.....”that’s what we got”
Chase absolutely destroys 👑🔥👑
he destroyed any credibility for himself.
@@pyrotek45 mmkay
Chase really destroyed this guy.
It's crazy that people can listen to these two muppets and think they are saying anything. It's all empty rhetoric.
"I never have to mute people on the show unless they show me I'm wrong"
“Enough word salad to end world hunger”. Excellent !!!😂
they conceded the first point really quick respec
So, here's my take on this topic. We have a lot of material on how logic and other math systems are constructed from scratch. People have debated for centuries over some of these axioms, postulates, and hypotheses. Now, given all the material on math systems and how we construct them, what does inserting god really go for the system? If it can be demonstrated that logic or some other math system(s) need an extra axiom in order to be consistent, then we will include it. Just like we have with other axioms. A good example of this is the Axiom of Restricted Comprehension, in ZFC. Now, I'm not convinced that you can derive these other properties just from inserting god. Atleast not in a rigorous way. I often just hear unsubstantiated claims that require demonstration. Each axiom is supposed to be independent in that it stands on it's own. They're not derived from other or prior axioms. If you are interested in parsimony, empirical adequecy, explanatory power, consistency (Principle of Explosion), falsifiability, coherence, and scope, then it appears that we shouldn't include this god thing into the foundations of our math systems or empirical theories. Unfortunately, I can't reference all of the material in a single comment, but we do have a lot of material on these topics, in case anyone is interested.
If you are interested in arguments against TAG, there is also the reverse TAG argument. Remember that logic goes both ways. One person's modus ponens is anothers modus tollens.
I will never tell someone that they must be committed to a philosophical position. In math and science, we have tools that we use to help us derive a better understanding. All of this can be subjected to scrutiny. I often welcome it. Anyway, I hope that helps.
Tag comes in before axioms. Axioms can't justify themselves because they are defines erroneously as self evident. There is no such thing as self evident. This is the clown atheist position since they cant come out of the little box they put themselves in. You can't have axioms to begin with if there is no God. This is an atheist cope. You can do all the math and science you like built it will never tell you how you ought to live life. It is clear that math and science is your god but your god ultimately has no answers for you.
Guy was letting chase talk his head off thinking he was going to crush him then ends up having to mute him when he begins to get skewered
Bite your lip real hard…😂
TAG is useless, yes, thank you. What does anyone who defends it do differently than anyone else IN THE ACTUAL WORLD. If TAG were forgotten forever, no one's life would be changed.
Atheism is useless
Muting your debater and interrupting him constantly means you lost.
it means they weren't answering the question and kept restating the premise, and not justifying it. i would have muted too. tag argument fails so hard. what an L the caller laid out.
Not only he schooled them, he's also a bloodborne fan. Respect
Bro, this isn’t Chase this is Kevin He/him, remove your false advertising.
Matter is the necessary precondition for knowledge
So mater is necessary for an immaterial thing? Wow next level atheistard logic.
Whats the necessary precondition for matter and spacetime?
Arent Syllogisms arguments?
Yes
1:00 >"we don't actually know what, for instance, physics is like on the other side of the galaxy"
I'm quite sure the speed of light in a vacuum is invariant and general relativity depends on it.
JMike is Aron Ra's stoner metalhead nephew.
Bro was so flustered he was trying any way to shut you down lol, chase is the man
this chase guy has got problems. He completely missed the point as well as the creator of this video. Oh well...
I’m genuinely curious if AXP’s viewership is more atheist or Christian at this rate. If it’s the latter, it doesn’t show. If it’s the former, they better hope they can keep drumming up our attention otherwise they’ll fold in a month.
he calls epistemology word salad
You can see the hippy dude shaking in his chair in anger 😂
I'm surprised that there are theists that think that this shows Christianity in a good fashion. It's embarrassing as hell in reality. Shouldn't require philosophers spouting nonsense to justify or attempt to rationalize that there is a god. There may or may not be a deity somewhere who has no concerns for the comings and goings of life on this planet, but the God of the Bible, not a chance. Simply derived from earlier Jewish beliefs that evolved over time to become the monotheist sick and twisted God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is the most horrific fictional character ever developed. That there are actually still those who believe in such an obviously cruel, sick, twisted and insecure being is just pathetic and sad.
The fruits of Sola Scriptura
Both of these debaters were bad, when the atheist guys kept asking chase to support the premise he did just keep restating the argument over and over again, but then we he did eventually get around to supporting why God is necessary (15 min mark), the atheist guys were like "word salad lmao".
Wait… you think the presup guy won that?
Painful
Jmike performed very poorly in this discussion. Not only did he continuously interrupt but he had an issue with Chases premise where claimed "oh that's just trivial" as if anyone asked. Like no shit dawg premises are supposed to be things we grant and ideally we'd want them to be trivial so that our conclusion is easily accepted.
Also his second criticism had to have been a troll. If the only way someone could negate his transcendental claim was to be a platonist and you yourself are not a platonist then you should accept his claim to be true. Now obviously that's not the only way to reject his claim but the criticism offered was pointless to a conversation with two people who both reject platonism in this way.
Plus if I'm being honest I don't even think platonism about logic is an issue for the theist either.
Nominalist: yo you think logic is abstract right? Ok then how tf did it get there
Platonist: god put it there bruh
The guy on the right is the least atheist looking guy i ever saw.
Most death metal and black metal heads look him, they’re either atheist or satanists
The caller made assertions. With no evidence. He was told several times. When he was called on it, he whined about being cut off. When he’s given time he proceeds to make even crazier assertions…with no evidence. 🤦🏻♂️
No he did not make assertions. This argument is just to much for the atrophied atheist brain to comprehend.
Axioms aren't justified? Axioms are self-evident which are justified by their existence. In order for an axiom to qualify as an axiom, by definition, it must be justified.
Wrong
@@Biblig argue why it's wrong.
"Self-evidence is legitimate justification"
"God is self-evident"
I win.
Ok Buddy, God is self evident. Is that good?
@@nkoppa5332 yes
X is the necessary precondition for Y, Y therefore X
Coherentists cannot justify their web of beliefs
Destroyed him
5:03 I make only 1 assumption, Christ is King od Kings. By his Logic this is the best worldview
Is their any information that can be transmitted without a sender(a mind)? No.
😅
“We can assume things because we like them or they align with our experience but religion is a no no”
18:00 "that shows that these transcendental categories don't require a mind, they just require some kind of abstract object" 😂😂😂😂 so he doesn't understand "abstract objects" aka "ideas" exist nowhere but in a MIND, holy crap ☠☠☠☠☠
💀🤣
Abstract objects are specifically not mental…
@@Swifter315 Where do you ground abstract objects?
@@joshua-l6m
Abstract objects aren’t necessary. Abstract objects are non mental non physical things in the world that are usually meant to account for the things like mathematics.
You can be a nominalist as an atheist or theist and deny such objects.
But an atheist that holds to them will say abstracts objects are necessary things.
@@Swifter315 "Abstract objects are non mental" If you're suggesting they're not grounded in a mind by saying this, then my response is fine as that's what I'm addressing. When I say Theist vs Atheist I'm talking about in context of this video, so I don't see why you're bringing up nominalists. An atheist can hold whatever they want, the debate is still about justification.
Kevin telling fish that it breathes air and not water is not helping the fish to understand that air is a necessary precondition for breathing
I'm pretty sure that if your rebuttal to an argument is to invoke the bare existence of a position (platonism) that you cannot defend and do not believe in, you have lost the debate. Big W for Chase.
"Self evident things are self evident therefore i can think anything without justifications" makes sense if you dont think about it
Love when axp gets dog walked
Good job Chase !
But my axioms
“Start with experience”
Experience which presupposes the preconditions+millions of social constructs which make experience “organized”?
Sense data alone gets us nothing.
You came to that conclusion using sense data, so you just refute yourself. Every presupper starts with their sense data. Which is why the Empirical Method will always be superior to religion of any stripe.
No, because im not an empiricist. I do not subscribe to your axiom that sense impressions are all that are.
We reject that, becuas it leads to the impossibility of knowledge.
You are unaware of the discussion actually tkaing place@@nogoodusernames100
@@nogoodusernames100we aren't saying that using sense data isn't intelligible rather that soley underlying your worldview under the peripatetic axiom leads to a self deafeating position
Your statements can't be found through sense data. Does sense data tell you that knowledge comes through sense data?Is it hiding under a couch? Ofc not so having sense data as your starting point isn't sufficient.
@@johan_liebert2385 It's the only possible starting point. If you deny sense data as the starting point, you go into full blown obscurantism and solipsism. It's ironic, because all the arguments you know saying that empiricism is insufficient are arguments you gathered using your sense data. This is a reductio and you've exposed the absurdity of your own position.
@@nogoodusernames100 you missed the point. We aren't rejecting sense data as a way of assessment or learning things rather, if you were to believe in the perepetetic axiom you would be forced to pressupose things that aren't reducible to the sense.
The statement "nothing is in the intellect that isn't first found through sense data" can't be found in sense data.
The first 3 minutes is the most painfully horrible philosophy I have EVER heard.
The more experienced hosts like Matt won't take TAG calls, they are boring to the audience and go nowhere. There are catching on and these are probably the last two naive hosts you will catch with this.
Some of the greatest Christians like Kierkegaard saw Christianity as a "leap of faith" and that reason was actual the wrong way, that was the pagan way of Socrates. not the way of Calgary.
Reason can only get you so far. Nietcchze said reason is what caused the madman to say "God is dead".
Ya Matt knows to steer clear of devastating arguments to his position. lol
@@arnoldvezbon6131 that sentence doesn’t make sense sorry
" I know what a transcendental argument is"
No he doesn't. He is interpreting it through his worldview. He can't step outside of his own paradigm.
That guy has a 5 second attention span what can you do
They would deny using God as a assumption yet use a ton of assumptions themselves.
P1 is not a self-evident argument. The structure is logically consistent but is not sound.
I can provide infinite counters with a similar structure "IF X -> Y, Y therefore X" and, according to you, destroy "your world view":
P1. Budism is the necessary condition for knowledge
P2. Knowledge
Conclusion: Therefore, budism.
I can replace "budism" with any word I want. From reasonable ones, like "nature", "space time", "sense of self", to the fun ones like "spaguetti monster", "unicorns" or "leprechauns".
The only way to have a rational logically sound debate about this subject is to provide an argument that demonstrates P1 as the CONCLUSION, otherwise you are just engaging in sophism.
Given N premises, you need to provide an argument in the form:
P1. ??
P2. ??
...
PN. ???
Conclusion: Therefore, god is the necessary condition for knowledge.
Note that any non self-evident and SOUND premise in the proposition will return you to step 1.
Will wait, but I doubt anyone can provide the answer.
Except Buddhism is not a necessary condition for knowledge because id does not have the same God. And no you can replace Buddhism with anything you want. This again simply demonstrated that you do not really understand the argument.
Oh look ...a bubble. The comment section sure looks comfy in here
Another presuppositionalist fails to justify the first premise of TAG. You should check out Barry Stroud's 1968 analysis of transcendental arguments for why presuppers can't, even in principle, justify the first premise.