7:39 - Chase opening 13:55 - Nikki opening 17:51 - justification for the Laws of Logic | 'TAG is valid but not sound, demonstrate God exists' 49:50 - Zen resets 🕊 'TAG is valid but not sound, demonstrate God exists' 53:08 - Zen resets 🕊'justification for the Laws of Logic' 57:58 - non-empirical vs empirical evidences demonstrations 1:05:05 - empirical justification for historical people and events 1:31:15 - how does TAG justify Jesus Christ is the divine Logos? 1:38:10 - Nikki closing 1:41:10 - Chase closing 1:44:10 - Zen Shapiro moderator questions: what exactly is wrong with appealing to usage of something for it's existence? 1:46:33 - Zen Shapiro moderator question for Nikki: wouldn't any truth claim in your worldview require empirical demonstration in order to be believed? what about demonstrations of Love? 1:49:48 - caller#1 (will) 1:55:25 - caller#2 (killborg) 2:00:02 - caller#3 (catherine) 2:08:50 - caller#4 (daniel) 2:14:10 - caller#5 (mythological hero) 2:25:28 - caller#6 (exposing powerful lies) 2:29:53 - caller#7 (nada) 😂- the sarcasm here is 💯
They are not thinking at all. Their words amount to fart noises out of their mouths. They're all just mindless monkey puppets who could throw their feces at any time. Who's to say what the laws of physics will make them say or do.
at least we're not drowning in the crap you people have in your heads , you know we already RULED OUT ANY god , about 150+- years ago , right ??? when we found out that EVERY god , is a delusion , our minds make up things all the time , it's WHY we invented science , to differentiate BETWEEN reality and IMAGINATION , like gods we KNOW that our brain makes up 10.000+ of these errors DAILY ... , and out of those 10.000+ DAILY errors , we put ''making up gods'' at Nr.1 , we ACTUALLY CALLED IT THE FIRST ERROR IN philosophy , for a good reason , why ? because it's the MOST PROMINENT ERROR WE HAVE , ALL OF US , even atheists !! i talk to the universe too , when things go wrong i yell at it , when things go my way , i can be thankful to it , i just don't give it a name and a face , like a little retarded child that doesn't KNOW any better , WE KNOW BETTER , we've KNOWN BETTER for the last 150+- years now , you religious fools are STILL running behind that dead rabbit , in an empty stadium , no lights on , in the darkness , while the ''race'' has been OVER for the last 150+- years , THERE IS NO GOD , IT WAS ALL A DELUSION THE BRAIN MAKES UP , it always was ... but YOU think you have some ''higher level'' of thinking ... , THAT's the LIE NATURE TELLS YOU , basically YOU telling YOURSELF that you have an explanation for things that will NEVER HAVE an explanation ... scientist/atheists KNOW we will never get to the endpoint of the foundation of the universe , quantum fields COULD BE the foundation , but we don't know , which is just fine with me , YOU seem to have the knowledge OF a god , to be able to understand the foundation , but you can't present ANY evidence for it , while WE DO HAVE evidence that quantum fields EXIST , so they , at least , ARE A POTENTIAL CANDIDATE to use AS an explanation ... we KNOW they're THERE , at least ... WITH evidence ... what do you have ??? a little storybook that tells you your morals come from a being that destroys the entire world and the people in it , that CALLS itself a moral being ??? are we even living in the same REALITY , friend ? cause i don't THINK SO ...
another quick thing , decrees , dictations and commandments are NEVER going to be ANY FORM OF morality , those are all words associated with SLAVERY and having a master above yourself , the word OBJECTIVE , as in objective morality , means = mind INDEPENDENT , any mind involved makes morality SUBJECTIVE , which makes it arbitrary but you don't need to worry about that , because you don't even HAVE a morality to be subjective or objective , all YOU have ... are decrees , dictations and commandments , like the slaves back in the day and the slave You are now ... i hope you understand that little fact in life some day , friend apparently you don't even see how deep the cup is we atheists Drink From ... you've never even SEEN the cup or the spoon , because the spoon lives IN reality , not outside of it , like your invisible sky daddy
I knew of Chase before but this is the first time I have heard his debate approach. I like the way he argues TAG, very precise yet understandable, wish I discovered him earlier when I was first learning the argument. But good upload Jiub, I really like your clips and I appreciate your timestamps on Jay Dyer's livestreams.
Girl you already mastered Dillamonkey style of debating. Just keep repeating "i dont know" "thats not true" " no empirical evidences" "im not convinced" as much as you can
There should be a law of religious debate that if an atheist has to defend their beliefs by switching to agnosticism, they’ve conceded the debate. Chase at least gave this debate many things of worthy substance that are worth rewatching.
She refuses to debate the basis for logic and moves to saying you have no evidence for your specific God, then denies having any historical knowledge for/against Jesus. Seems like her actual argument is I don’t have any evidence for anything you are discussing because I don’t know anything except that I’m right.
That’s every atheist argument. Literally everyone. One of the primary reasons I have always accepted and believed in the reality of God is because atheists always sound so stupid. Seriously since I was a kid watching debates on PBS.
You have to treat this debate as the conclusion of a three part series (like Star Wars) culminating in Nikki’s downfall. Nikki’s prior debates were somehow victorious in her favour (the first interlocutor not being equipped to debate TAG properly and running, the second being so abstruse as to be unintelligible), building a false sense of confidence. At the pinnacle of her career, where she thinks she’s a decent debater, Chase utterly destroys her self image, collapsing all of her inanity and absurdity found in her atheist worldview. It’s a glorious saga.
She knows the lingo, not much else. People claim to use logic all the time who are demonstrably and profoundly wrong. So the fact that logic is useful in some cases doesn’t prove anything about it having obvious utility. Logic when misused or not used but claimed is decidedly counterproductive.
@@MaximusWolfe his argument is, knowledge exist therefore God, and when you ask, where did God come from, he goes: it's logically interior, because of the concept of a knower. I could make the same arrangements with, writing, building and so on, how do you even get from knowledge equal god to Christianity
@@bigerrol6943 Christianity can account for the grounding of knowledge insofar as its theological precepts express a coherent account of an uncreated creator in whom knowledge can be bound together in such a way as to make the human mind cognize universal claims (metaphysics). Short of the Christian conception, truth claims can only be considered epistemically dubious. The dynamic quality of Christianity (the trinitarian capacity) is what makes it coherent vis a vis the problem of induction.
1:03:09 One hour in and she is still asking for empirical demonstrations of God. She also refuses to empirically demonstrate the abstractions she uses. Nikki simply doesn’t understand the argument but insists on claiming she does.
2:28:12 “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, says Nikki. Also says Nikki: LOGIC(an immaterial, invariant abstraction we are all governed by) “just is”. Is that her extraordinary evidence?
That “axiom” is the worst thing Sagan ever devised. Extraordinary is an entirely subjective statement. To the point of it being a meaningless red herring.
2:37:39 Chase points out her ontological problem left unaddressed once again here.....and her sighing “I know” sounds like she is finally admitting she realizes her foundation is built on sand.
I think so, I don't think there's anything in here that's inappropriate for YT. I guess we will wait and see 🤞If anyone finds anything that would, let me know and I can scrub it out.
The justification isn't its repeated reliability. Its repeated reliability justifies its continued use, not the justification of the thing itself. This is what she's missing.
Zen, please do better. She doesn't listen to understand, she listen's to respond - & it's not even with intelligence.. She keeps interrupting him & it's so freakin' frustrating... Chase squashed her in this debate 🙌🏽👌🏽🙏🏽
Kinda true, but not a good argument because in that case the opponent could answer, "many husbands fare well by denying that their wives aren't cheating on them, but that doesn't make it true". Is also grants too much. It cannot be merely empirical because evaluating the use of something presumes categories by which to evaluate. It just puts you right back where you started. That's why metaphysics are necessary for any worldview that wants to coherently include empirical information, which (Orthodox) Christianity can. Epistemology and metaphysics precede any kind of empirical knowledge, which is why every Philosopher until the late 19th century presented those aspects of whatever philosophy he wanted to sell.
@@helpIthinkmylegsaregoneHe’s actually not too far off. Early in her opening statement, she said their reliability is what matters with logic. So it isn’t truth but their pragmatic application.
@@deadalivemaniac He's absolutely right regarding her argumentation, but it's not an argument I'd use for apologetics, ever, because it's not a serious argument. Although him replying that way might have backed her into a corner, who knows.
@@lolsing2205 it wouldn't have helped against her, because she would have said it's basis cannot be proven (i.e. religion might work but it's a lie) and they would have spiraled again achieving nothing
Short summary: 1) Chase makes transcendental argument 2) Nikki refutes transcendental argument due to "lack of evidence". mentions how she does not claim that god does not exist, thus concedes the debate in her opening statement 3) Nikki claims she can justify logic itself because she is using logic. Chase clarifies that use of a thing is not the same as the thing (repeat this about 500 times) 4) Nikki finally admits she cannot justify logic after having wasted half the open dialogue time 5) Nikki requires empirical evidence for jesus christ and his miracles. Chase clarifies there is no empirical evidence for the past except scriptural transmission 6) Nikki accepts this claim with other historical figures, but rejects it with Jesus ("because he is claimed to be divine"), thus betrays her own standard. repeat this about 100 times 7) Whenever Chase gets at the point, Nikki distracts with some side discussion, probably because she realizes she is out of options 8) Nikki successfully wastes the remaining open dialogue with her non-arguments and circular "logic" 9) Callers try to explain to Nikki that she blew up her own point on both logic AND empirical evidence, she slowly begins to understand
Nikki repeating the naturalist fallacy all the time lol. With the same standard of evidence Christianity has a rock solid case. Peace from former Atheist. She simply cant move beyond empiricism, cannot even justify it yet insists we meet the criterion. This folks is an arbitrary argument.
Aww this reminds me of when I edited all the clips of her slugging whiskey and then later blaming her poor performance on being drunk (cope) 😢 on, of course, one of the many channels UA-cam deleted.
2:40:49 The number 2 EXISTS when she applies it?? Romans 1:25 - They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.
1:10:40 She doesn’t even seem to realize she is trying to move away from her folly. She says she is not, yet continues to move. Is this true self deception?
1:25:36 Chase repeatedly explains this point. She refuses to receive her lack of justification and CONTINUALLY skips to “usage of the abstract thing”. ARBITRARY
2:53:00 👈🏼perfect nonsense answer😂 Nikki goes back to looking for empirical evidence for an immaterial being. She uses toilet paper and she is going to need it to wipe up that poop.
2:12:37 this literally explains the whole disconnect throughout the debate 😂 just like matt dilamonkey the mentor of her , couldn't grasp basic 💩 in the jay dyer debate , the student is also completely stumped just like the mentor. ig we all were unaware of Matt's great philosophical brilliance, solving the problem of induction, is ought gap etc 😆
Id enjoy these debates more if the atheists were capable of following an argument. I dont know if shes dumb or dishonest, but that was painful. God bless Chase for staying patient, i couldnt have done it.
Nikki needs to understand how confused her objection is to TAG. Heres an analogy. Lets say im eating a nice fried fish dinner. And i decided to make an argument All things considered, lets say water is a precondition for this fish to be on my plate. Why? For this fish to be on my plate it must be a fish. To be a fish it mustve existed as a live fish at some point. To exist as a fish it mustve had a body of water to exist in where it grew into a fish. The fish is on my plate. Therefore some body of water that this fish once swam in exists. Nikkis response is "you first need to prove that body of water exists for the argument to be sound". What she fails to understand is the key term PRECONDITION. If this fish exists then NECESSARILY a body of water exists that it once swam in. The fish is the evidence that proves the existence of a body of water. The reason she doesnt want to concede this is because on her view she either needs to deny the existence of the fish on my plate or simply claim fish do not swim in water and can solely exist on land. Similarly, on her worldview she needs to deny logic is necessary for knowledge or she needs to give some other epistemic justification that grounds logic outside the mind of God. Chase knows she accepts that logic is necessary for knowledge and so is pushing her to give her justification for logic outside the mind of God. She gets this but spends this whole debate traumatized by the realization that she actually doesn't have a justification lol. Painful is an understatement
Taking the Law of Identity for example, what does Chase think needs accounting for, the statement A=A or that to what it refers? (What it refers to are that things are what they are.)
Nikki is out of her depth here. Doesn’t realize her own inconsistency. She claims Chase has not say that God can do something without demonstrating he exists yet she is claiming that logic “does something” without demonstrating it exists.
Religious people can reflect deeply on illusions of God, just as atheists can reflect on illusions of 'modern science'. However, let's admit that both perspectives are based on subjective ideas. So, can truth in this context be considered objective within the framework of intersubjective human reasoning?
"using logic justifies it" "no it doesn't" "yes it does" "saying 'it does' doesn't justify it" "b-but you agreed that we are in a room together" ??????????????????????????????????????????????
Nikki said morality is what is of the most benefit to the most people. If this is put into action then she would have to accept slavery as a benefit to humanity and therefore moral if the majority of people voted for it. This is what she is saying.
@@GP2837-o4s Nikki said morality is what is most beneficial to the most people. What if belief in God and a divinely ordained moral code was found, through scientific research, to be the most beneficial thing for the most people, would you accept it as moral? Would you adopt the Christian moral code?
All TAG is to say it is necessary for a god to exist for logic/knowledge to exist then say logic/knowledge exist and therefore god. Then they switch to the atheist and say, now ground your belief in logic. Logic just works, atheists do not need to justify anything. Just because atheists may not know why logic works doesn't mean it doesn't work and it doesn't mean their worldview doesn't make sense. There are many things that are true that we still can't explain. it doesn't mean a thing.
No one said that it did not work, what was argued was the why, logic cannot be arbitrary otherwise it would be a defeater for knowledge, therefore would refute even the concept of true or falsity. How can you claim something is true if you don't even know how or why it works ? If you argue that logic, a metaphysical concept exists and is universal independent of God, you have to give justification for it to refute that argument and show that it can be justified without God, because materialism cannot explain the why. If you refuse to give justification for it, I can just say God just works, and I don't need to justify it.
@@jyachuo.org1 Again, you can say whatever you want but it doesn’t mean it’s true. You will have to prove your god regardless of whether or not I give justification for logic or knowledge. I may give no justification or the wrong justification yet it doesn’t have anything to do with YOU proving god or proving that he grounds knowledge or logic. It’s like saying if you can’t explain why or how gravity works, I’ll just say unicorns works and I don’t need to justify it. Makes zero sense.
@@Penndreic Your answer shows, much like Nikki, that you don't understand TAG. It's not an explanation for logic, but a philosophical argument for God's existence. If you actually thought about it, you'd understand that making such claims shifts the paradigm of the debate from justification to materialism and empiricism. If you can't disprove P1 and show how your worldview can account for an immaterial thing like logic, you don't even have the bagage to make any metaphysical truth claim. You can cope and sperg out however much you like, it will not change anything.
Good debate from both sides. Ultimately, I think Nikki might actually have a slight edge because Chase was just kind of question begging. You cannot use gods existence as a premise for concluding he exists, its tautological. Overall, though, they both had some great points.
7:39 - Chase opening
13:55 - Nikki opening
17:51 - justification for the Laws of Logic | 'TAG is valid but not sound, demonstrate God exists'
49:50 - Zen resets 🕊 'TAG is valid but not sound, demonstrate God exists'
53:08 - Zen resets 🕊'justification for the Laws of Logic'
57:58 - non-empirical vs empirical evidences demonstrations
1:05:05 - empirical justification for historical people and events
1:31:15 - how does TAG justify Jesus Christ is the divine Logos?
1:38:10 - Nikki closing
1:41:10 - Chase closing
1:44:10 - Zen Shapiro moderator questions: what exactly is wrong with appealing to usage of something for it's existence?
1:46:33 - Zen Shapiro moderator question for Nikki: wouldn't any truth claim in your worldview require empirical demonstration in order to be believed? what about demonstrations of Love?
1:49:48 - caller#1 (will)
1:55:25 - caller#2 (killborg)
2:00:02 - caller#3 (catherine)
2:08:50 - caller#4 (daniel)
2:14:10 - caller#5 (mythological hero)
2:25:28 - caller#6 (exposing powerful lies)
2:29:53 - caller#7 (nada) 😂- the sarcasm here is 💯
Can you believe this guy posted the video AND THE TIMESTAMPS? keep the work man
3:10:12 “I don’t understand what people mean when they say justification”
A rare moment of clarity
2015 new atheists called, they want their baseless pre-suppositions back
Lol these things are properties of the universe. Simple as.
@@Detson404 You're such a deep thinker
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
One of the top tag debates.
The depth of atheists thinking is a teaspoon level
They are not thinking at all. Their words amount to fart noises out of their mouths. They're all just mindless monkey puppets who could throw their feces at any time. Who's to say what the laws of physics will make them say or do.
at least we're not drowning in the crap you people have in your heads ,
you know we already RULED OUT ANY god , about 150+- years ago , right ???
when we found out that EVERY god , is a delusion ,
our minds make up things all the time , it's WHY we invented science , to differentiate BETWEEN reality and IMAGINATION , like gods
we KNOW that our brain makes up 10.000+ of these errors DAILY ... ,
and out of those 10.000+ DAILY errors , we put ''making up gods'' at Nr.1 ,
we ACTUALLY CALLED IT THE FIRST ERROR IN philosophy , for a good reason , why ? because it's the MOST PROMINENT ERROR WE HAVE , ALL OF US , even atheists !!
i talk to the universe too , when things go wrong i yell at it , when things go my way , i can be thankful to it ,
i just don't give it a name and a face , like a little retarded child that doesn't KNOW any better , WE KNOW BETTER , we've KNOWN BETTER for the last 150+- years now ,
you religious fools are STILL running behind that dead rabbit , in an empty stadium , no lights on , in the darkness ,
while the ''race'' has been OVER for the last 150+- years , THERE IS NO GOD , IT WAS ALL A DELUSION THE BRAIN MAKES UP , it always was ...
but YOU think you have some ''higher level'' of thinking ... , THAT's the LIE NATURE TELLS YOU ,
basically YOU telling YOURSELF that you have an explanation for things that will NEVER HAVE an explanation ...
scientist/atheists KNOW we will never get to the endpoint of the foundation of the universe , quantum fields COULD BE the foundation , but we don't know ,
which is just fine with me ,
YOU seem to have the knowledge OF a god , to be able to understand the foundation , but you can't present ANY evidence for it ,
while WE DO HAVE evidence that quantum fields EXIST , so they , at least , ARE A POTENTIAL CANDIDATE to use AS an explanation ...
we KNOW they're THERE , at least ... WITH evidence ...
what do you have ??? a little storybook that tells you your morals come from a being that destroys the entire world and the people in it , that CALLS itself a moral being ???
are we even living in the same REALITY , friend ? cause i don't THINK SO ...
another quick thing ,
decrees , dictations and commandments are NEVER going to be ANY FORM OF morality ,
those are all words associated with SLAVERY and having a master above yourself ,
the word OBJECTIVE , as in objective morality , means = mind INDEPENDENT ,
any mind involved makes morality SUBJECTIVE , which makes it arbitrary
but you don't need to worry about that , because you don't even HAVE a morality to be subjective or objective ,
all YOU have ... are decrees , dictations and commandments , like the slaves back in the day and the slave You are now ...
i hope you understand that little fact in life some day , friend
apparently you don't even see how deep the cup is we atheists Drink From ...
you've never even SEEN the cup or the spoon , because the spoon lives IN reality , not outside of it , like your invisible sky daddy
That's what I'm here for.
I think that's being generous. Teaspoon at least has a minimal level of depth
"I can explain this car: I drive it." - Nikki
lmao y is that exactly wut she was saying tho 🤣
Nikki has not yet entered the debate.
I knew of Chase before but this is the first time I have heard his debate approach. I like the way he argues TAG, very precise yet understandable, wish I discovered him earlier when I was first learning the argument. But good upload Jiub, I really like your clips and I appreciate your timestamps on Jay Dyer's livestreams.
She contradicted herself in the first 20 minutes. She has no idea what it means to justify your worldview
Girl you already mastered Dillamonkey style of debating. Just keep repeating "i dont know" "thats not true" " no empirical evidences" "im not convinced" as much as you can
Exactly she’s e the female dillamonkey
That’s not true!
@@monolith94 you didint demonstrated its not true!!111oneone
Aktuly
I’m not convinced of empirical sense data being able to justify epistemic claims
There should be a law of religious debate that if an atheist has to defend their beliefs by switching to agnosticism, they’ve conceded the debate. Chase at least gave this debate many things of worthy substance that are worth rewatching.
Agreed. They think it’s clever to come to a debate and basically not have a position and to them that means winning.
"you have to empirically prove god" ok sure man, anything else you'd like?
She refuses to debate the basis for logic and moves to saying you have no evidence for your specific God, then denies having any historical knowledge for/against Jesus. Seems like her actual argument is I don’t have any evidence for anything you are discussing because I don’t know anything except that I’m right.
That’s every atheist argument. Literally everyone. One of the primary reasons I have always accepted and believed in the reality of God is because atheists always sound so stupid. Seriously since I was a kid watching debates on PBS.
You have to treat this debate as the conclusion of a three part series (like Star Wars) culminating in Nikki’s downfall.
Nikki’s prior debates were somehow victorious in her favour (the first interlocutor not being equipped to debate TAG properly and running, the second being so abstruse as to be unintelligible), building a false sense of confidence. At the pinnacle of her career, where she thinks she’s a decent debater, Chase utterly destroys her self image, collapsing all of her inanity and absurdity found in her atheist worldview.
It’s a glorious saga.
What a great analogy lol. Btw you ask some great questions in the call-ins
@@saint-jiubCheers king. The call ins are fun.
Mrs. “actually” cannot account for her abstractions. Game over.
She knows the lingo, not much else. People claim to use logic all the time who are demonstrably and profoundly wrong. So the fact that logic is useful in some cases doesn’t prove anything about it having obvious utility. Logic when misused or not used but claimed is decidedly counterproductive.
I used a hammer when I built my fence therefore you can build a fence using only a hammer
she was the only one tryna actual make a productive conversation
@@bigerrol6943
That’s not true at all.
@@MaximusWolfe his argument is, knowledge exist therefore God, and when you ask, where did God come from, he goes: it's logically interior, because of the concept of a knower.
I could make the same arrangements with, writing, building and so on, how do you even get from knowledge equal god to Christianity
@@bigerrol6943
Christianity can account for the grounding of knowledge insofar as its theological precepts express a coherent account of an uncreated creator in whom knowledge can be bound together in such a way as to make the human mind cognize universal claims (metaphysics). Short of the Christian conception, truth claims can only be considered epistemically dubious. The dynamic quality of Christianity (the trinitarian capacity) is what makes it coherent vis a vis the problem of induction.
Jiub kilin it today with 3 uploads🥶
1:03:09 One hour in and she is still asking for empirical demonstrations of God. She also refuses to empirically demonstrate the abstractions she uses. Nikki simply doesn’t understand the argument but insists on claiming she does.
But she did eat breakfast
@elbrad02 yeah, I'm gonna need someone to provide empirical evidence of that.
@@ImaTurninToABug I know you say the chirp means the battery needs to be replaced but you haven't actually demonstrated that to be true
I'm Still Waiting For Evidence, Proof, A Demonstration Of God, 76 Years and Counting!!!
@@phoenixrising4172 Look to philosophy buddy... 😂
I didn’t know an inability to comprehend the argument could be a strategy to win a debate. Victory through ignorance.
One of my all time favs. Chase crushed it! Thanks for reuploading
2:28:12 “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, says Nikki. Also says Nikki: LOGIC(an immaterial, invariant abstraction we are all governed by) “just is”. Is that her extraordinary evidence?
That “axiom” is the worst thing Sagan ever devised. Extraordinary is an entirely subjective statement. To the point of it being a meaningless red herring.
@@deadalivemaniac exactly
2:37:39 Chase points out her ontological problem left unaddressed once again here.....and her sighing “I know” sounds like she is finally admitting she realizes her foundation is built on sand.
That second woman caller had me dying lol 😆 the pure insanity lol
Loved the troll 😅
TLDR: You have no justification. Actually I do. Demonstrate that. Actually I have. How? Actually you have to.
😂
Her refusal to address historical figures shows her dishonesty.
Awesome that you got this posted. Is it safe to keep on for the public though? Not sure if Andrew had a good reason to make it private.
I think so, I don't think there's anything in here that's inappropriate for YT. I guess we will wait and see 🤞If anyone finds anything that would, let me know and I can scrub it out.
Atheistic worldviews makes my head hurt.
This channel is awesome ty! Keep it going
The justification isn't its repeated reliability. Its repeated reliability justifies its continued use, not the justification of the thing itself. This is what she's missing.
Thanks for the re-upload!
Thank you for the uploads Jiub, I love these atheist smackdowns.
Zen, please do better. She doesn't listen to understand, she listen's to respond - & it's not even with intelligence.. She keeps interrupting him & it's so freakin' frustrating... Chase squashed her in this debate 🙌🏽👌🏽🙏🏽
52:38 "Environment is objective and unchangeable" HAHA
That may actually be the worse thing she said in this entire debate. It was so insanely bad
“The usage is demonstrated empirically”
Ok, billions of people use religion to fulfill their lives. Boom. Religion is empirical.
Kinda true, but not a good argument because in that case the opponent could answer, "many husbands fare well by denying that their wives aren't cheating on them, but that doesn't make it true". Is also grants too much.
It cannot be merely empirical because evaluating the use of something presumes categories by which to evaluate. It just puts you right back where you started. That's why metaphysics are necessary for any worldview that wants to coherently include empirical information, which (Orthodox) Christianity can. Epistemology and metaphysics precede any kind of empirical knowledge, which is why every Philosopher until the late 19th century presented those aspects of whatever philosophy he wanted to sell.
@@helpIthinkmylegsaregoneHe’s actually not too far off. Early in her opening statement, she said their reliability is what matters with logic. So it isn’t truth but their pragmatic application.
@@deadalivemaniac He's absolutely right regarding her argumentation, but it's not an argument I'd use for apologetics, ever, because it's not a serious argument.
Although him replying that way might have backed her into a corner, who knows.
@@helpIthinkmylegsaregone 100% bet would have worked against her lol
@@lolsing2205 it wouldn't have helped against her, because she would have said it's basis cannot be proven (i.e. religion might work but it's a lie) and they would have spiraled again achieving nothing
Short summary:
1) Chase makes transcendental argument
2) Nikki refutes transcendental argument due to "lack of evidence". mentions how she does not claim that god does not exist, thus concedes the debate in her opening statement
3) Nikki claims she can justify logic itself because she is using logic. Chase clarifies that use of a thing is not the same as the thing (repeat this about 500 times)
4) Nikki finally admits she cannot justify logic after having wasted half the open dialogue time
5) Nikki requires empirical evidence for jesus christ and his miracles. Chase clarifies there is no empirical evidence for the past except scriptural transmission
6) Nikki accepts this claim with other historical figures, but rejects it with Jesus ("because he is claimed to be divine"), thus betrays her own standard. repeat this about 100 times
7) Whenever Chase gets at the point, Nikki distracts with some side discussion, probably because she realizes she is out of options
8) Nikki successfully wastes the remaining open dialogue with her non-arguments and circular "logic"
9) Callers try to explain to Nikki that she blew up her own point on both logic AND empirical evidence, she slowly begins to understand
Nikki repeating the naturalist fallacy all the time lol.
With the same standard of evidence Christianity has a rock solid case. Peace from former Atheist.
She simply cant move beyond empiricism, cannot even justify it yet insists we meet the criterion. This folks is an arbitrary argument.
So dense that she doesn't know how broken her system is...
her system is really great she just "can't articulate it good"
Amount of words + confidence = i won
also using "actually no" a lot
2:55:55 And the cherry on top. Chase gets Nikki to contradict herself about her evidence regarding logic itself.
Aww this reminds me of when I edited all the clips of her slugging whiskey and then later blaming her poor performance on being drunk (cope) 😢 on, of course, one of the many channels UA-cam deleted.
I wish that was still available
I remember
Why is everyone allowing her to be so confidently wrong?
2:40:49 The number 2 EXISTS when she applies it?? Romans 1:25 - They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.
This one is so good.
This one was ROUGH to listen to. I remember when this first aired and it wasn’t any less cringe the second time around. Easy W for Mr. Haggard.
Just found this channel, I subscribed.
You should upload the Dyer vs JF Gariepy debate. I remember watching it live back in the day, it was fantastic.
The thing that bothers me, is she hasn't even shown a logical argument that isn't sound as an example.
Dude looks like St Tsar Nicholas II great great grandson.
Nice work, Chase. Gigachad for sure ☦️☦️☦️
This debate was a massacre
1:10:40 She doesn’t even seem to realize she is trying to move away from her folly. She says she is not, yet continues to move. Is this true self deception?
Love the intro music!
She’s literally gonna walk away from this thinking she did something.
She seems very disingenuous every time her feet are held to the fire
She's a woman
This wasn’t even a debate. Nikki was completely outmatched
3:10:12 Nikki finally admits she doesn’t understand justification.
She’s not even following the conversation…
classic ⚡️⚡️
Is chase haggard the brother of the man who runs a vegan rescue facility in South America?
What is the debate Zen is referring to in the beginning?
This chick trusts the science
Most educated demographic
Lmfao
Lowkey though shes probably the top 2% of the most educated demographic.
Wow, that was quick, she lost that in the first question.
1:33:40 this is a line of questioning that makes these people short-circuit.
"I don't need to account for the laws of logic" *uses logic*
"if you cant account for god you cant use it"
i laughed every time BTC said she understood but clearly didn't.
1:25:36 Chase repeatedly explains this point. She refuses to receive her lack of justification and CONTINUALLY skips to “usage of the abstract thing”. ARBITRARY
2:53:00 👈🏼perfect nonsense answer😂 Nikki goes back to looking for empirical evidence for an immaterial being. She uses toilet paper and she is going to need it to wipe up that poop.
how to debate: whenever your opponent says something, say either "actually it is" or "actually it isn't" depending on what serves your case. end.
Is this Chases channel??
2:12:37 this literally explains the whole disconnect throughout the debate 😂 just like matt dilamonkey the mentor of her , couldn't grasp basic 💩 in the jay dyer debate , the student is also completely stumped just like the mentor.
ig we all were unaware of Matt's great philosophical brilliance, solving the problem of induction, is ought gap etc 😆
One day I hope Nikki discovers this one vital thing that will help her develop her arguments. Its called Philosophy.
Id enjoy these debates more if the atheists were capable of following an argument. I dont know if shes dumb or dishonest, but that was painful. God bless Chase for staying patient, i couldnt have done it.
Nikki needs to understand how confused her objection is to TAG. Heres an analogy.
Lets say im eating a nice fried fish dinner. And i decided to make an argument
All things considered, lets say water is a precondition for this fish to be on my plate.
Why? For this fish to be on my plate it must be a fish. To be a fish it mustve existed as a live fish at some point. To exist as a fish it mustve had a body of water to exist in where it grew into a fish.
The fish is on my plate.
Therefore some body of water that this fish once swam in exists.
Nikkis response is "you first need to prove that body of water exists for the argument to be sound". What she fails to understand is the key term PRECONDITION. If this fish exists then NECESSARILY a body of water exists that it once swam in. The fish is the evidence that proves the existence of a body of water.
The reason she doesnt want to concede this is because on her view she either needs to deny the existence of the fish on my plate or simply claim fish do not swim in water and can solely exist on land.
Similarly, on her worldview she needs to deny logic is necessary for knowledge or she needs to give some other epistemic justification that grounds logic outside the mind of God. Chase knows she accepts that logic is necessary for knowledge and so is pushing her to give her justification for logic outside the mind of God. She gets this but spends this whole debate traumatized by the realization that she actually doesn't have a justification lol. Painful is an understatement
Taking the Law of Identity for example, what does Chase think needs accounting for, the statement A=A or that to what it refers? (What it refers to are that things are what they are.)
She just can't fundamentally conceptualize TAG.
These people hurt my heart. There denial of reality is scary.
1:26:14 she was not supposed to say that, she just conceded. She couldn't mask her dishonesty in the end
1:19:19 500 people is now nobody
😅
I see the problem, here. Even though Chase demonstrated, he failed to dimmonstrate.
The question is: what would be the empirical evidence Nikki needs that would demonstrate Gods existence?
Jay don’t know when he’s talking to BHI , this is where some link ups with vocab Malone would be fruitful.
Glory to God. Pray this lady comes to God.
the ''knower'' ... yeah , we called it REALITY
REALITY IS the ''obtainer of knowledge''
51:38 bookmark
*Chase Haggard WTF emoji*
The Presup is so silly. I can't think of a way you could justify blabla without god. therefore, god. It's literally an argument from incredulity.
She wasn't so bright
Nikki is out of her depth here. Doesn’t realize her own inconsistency. She claims Chase has not say that God can do something without demonstrating he exists yet she is claiming that logic “does something” without demonstrating it exists.
Religious people can reflect deeply on illusions of God, just as atheists can reflect on illusions of 'modern science'. However, let's admit that both perspectives are based on subjective ideas. So, can truth in this context be considered objective within the framework of intersubjective human reasoning?
"using logic justifies it"
"no it doesn't"
"yes it does"
"saying 'it does' doesn't justify it"
"b-but you agreed that we are in a room together"
??????????????????????????????????????????????
How would she know what divinity is if it slapped her in the face? Cuz its been slapping her throughout this debate.
Her worldview is based on miracles. How can she not see this?
She is describing dark matter in her closing statement
Ahhhhh classic
Nikki said morality is what is of the most benefit to the most people. If this is put into action then she would have to accept slavery as a benefit to humanity and therefore moral if the majority of people voted for it. This is what she is saying.
But if god commanded you to own slaves then it would be morally good?
@@GP2837-o4s Nikki said morality is what is most beneficial to the most people. What if belief in God and a divinely ordained moral code was found, through scientific research, to be the most beneficial thing for the most people, would you accept it as moral? Would you adopt the Christian moral code?
Im an athiest. People say magic and gods exist. Im not convinced. Its that simple.i have nothing to prove or argue lok
All TAG is to say it is necessary for a god to exist for logic/knowledge to exist then say logic/knowledge exist and therefore god. Then they switch to the atheist and say, now ground your belief in logic. Logic just works, atheists do not need to justify anything. Just because atheists may not know why logic works doesn't mean it doesn't work and it doesn't mean their worldview doesn't make sense. There are many things that are true that we still can't explain. it doesn't mean a thing.
No one said that it did not work, what was argued was the why, logic cannot be arbitrary otherwise it would be a defeater for knowledge, therefore would refute even the concept of true or falsity. How can you claim something is true if you don't even know how or why it works ? If you argue that logic, a metaphysical concept exists and is universal independent of God, you have to give justification for it to refute that argument and show that it can be justified without God, because materialism cannot explain the why.
If you refuse to give justification for it, I can just say God just works, and I don't need to justify it.
@@jyachuo.org1 Again, you can say whatever you want but it doesn’t mean it’s true. You will have to prove your god regardless of whether or not I give justification for logic or knowledge. I may give no justification or the wrong justification yet it doesn’t have anything to do with YOU proving god or proving that he grounds knowledge or logic.
It’s like saying if you can’t explain why or how gravity works, I’ll just say unicorns works and I don’t need to justify it. Makes zero sense.
@@Penndreic Your answer shows, much like Nikki, that you don't understand TAG. It's not an explanation for logic, but a philosophical argument for God's existence. If you actually thought about it, you'd understand that making such claims shifts the paradigm of the debate from justification to materialism and empiricism. If you can't disprove P1 and show how your worldview can account for an immaterial thing like logic, you don't even have the bagage to make any metaphysical truth claim. You can cope and sperg out however much you like, it will not change anything.
Good debate from both sides. Ultimately, I think Nikki might actually have a slight edge because Chase was just kind of question begging. You cannot use gods existence as a premise for concluding he exists, its tautological. Overall, though, they both had some great points.
That's not exactly what he did, I'll explain his argument in a different way. How do you account for the possibility of knowledge in your Worldview?
What the hell happened to his hair?
Zen shapiro...the one moderator that actually listens to the debate
First
🍪