Questions athiests can’t answer: When was the last time you showered? How many hours have you spent on Reddit? Why can’t you stop watching Christian content 24/7?
@@Theo_Skeptomai”I don’t watch Christian channels 24/7” *proceeds to comment on almost every fucking Christian video on UA-cam from Jimbob, Bob from Speakers Corner, SOCO films to IP strawmanning and asking the same questions and getting debunked every single time* 😂
Alex O'Connor seems to think theists believe we can get an ought from an is because we have God. That's not the claim. The "is-ought gap" is only a problem for atheists because they only believe in the "is", in other words they only believe in material facts. But he acts like it's some kind of dunk that theists can't get an ought from an is. Yeah we're not trying to, you are.
@@BlueEyesDY the overwhelming overlap between the two groups. Can you give me an example of a common atheist argument that relies on something that rejects materialism?
@sullainvictus Nothing in my question implies the two concepts are incompatible (in fact, I accept that they are). That was not the point of the question. Let me rephrase: You appear to be referencing some type of equivalence principle between atheism and materialism. If that is the case, what motivates such a principle?
@@BlueEyesDY I just told you: the overwhelming overlap between the 2 theoretical groups. This is how language works. If basically every atheist you encounter is a materialist, then people are going to make that association. In the same way that people will make an "argument against Christianity" that talks about the age of the earth. There's nothing inherent about Christianity that absolutely requires you to believe in a young earth, but people notice the overlap between the two and just run with it. And there's probably WAY MORE overlap between atheism and materialism, so we run with it. Why can't we?
@@sullainvictus 1) You appear to be invoking the more fundamental principle _if a set of otherwise unrelated beliefs are widely held together by a large number of people, those beliefs can be equivocated._ If I’m understanding this correctly, what motivates that principle? 2) If I have in fact correctly identified the principle you are invoking, the same equivocation between Christianity and YEC is equally validated. Do you affirm that arguments targeting YEC specifically carry equal weight against Christianity in general?
Pointing out a theory that is not committed to the existence of objective teliology does not identify any teliology in its proposed objects is not a criticism of that theory.
@MadebyJimbob Sorry, I suspected that might be a bit too wordy😅. Let me try an analogy. Say I have a metaphysical theory of boxes, but that theory makes no commitment as to the contents of boxes. Then, when i invoke the existence of a box, you respond _you can't invoke extant boxes because your box metaphysics can't answer the question,"What's in the box?"_ that's not a valid criticism of my box metaphysics. It's basically saying _your theory can't do something it's not committed to doing._ The same thing applies to atheistic theories. If the theory makes no commitments to extant objective teliology, pointing out that it can't identify extant objective teliology is not a valid criticism.
@@BlueEyesDYthe argument is prior to the point you’re trying to make. The possibility of making an argument necessitates epistemic justification of anything you use in the argument.
At about 54:10 you seem to invoke an equivalence principle between subjective personal values and normativity. That seems incompatible with Christian normative principles to me. Have I misunderstood something?
@@MadebyJimbob sorry, I don’t proof read. I was trying to say that your ought/is talk around 55:00 is essentially the same as Sefan Molyneux’s theory of secular ethics called universally preferable behavior.
@@andrew8614 ohhh. I see what you mean, yeh it’s likely flawed because we can look at truth at a fundamental level, but it doesn’t entail valuing any and all truths.
The universe was created at the big bang......but since things cannot come from nothing, something must have existed before the creation of our universe.
@@scottholder4431 nice red herring, but that doesn't address how the past *can't* be infinite when today literally *can't* come into existence if it was. unless you are conceding God was the something that existed before our universe as that is the literal only qualifier that is timeless so you don't have an infinity paradox
@@mike16apha16 but that doesn't address how the past can't be infinite when today literally can't come into existence if it was." Well that's your problem. Assuming that it CANT......because in order for an infinite regress argument to be valid, you have to show how it's vicious. Why haven't you read up on infinite regress? If you did, you would know this tidbit of information.
@@mike16apha16 unless you are conceding God was the something that existed before our universe as that is the literal only qualifier that is timeless so you don't have an infinity paradox" I concede that something(natural processes) existed......but Im not stupid, so Im not going to assume that something was a god, especially when we only have evidence of natural processes, which do not need a god. They occur without the need for a god. And that something is "natural processes"......since religions cannot provide any supernatural processes.
1) Who cares if atheists can or can't answer your questions? It comes down to one point: I'm an atheist because no theist has met their burden of proof. 2) How about you give the questions so we can answer them and don't have to listen to 3 hours of your word salad?
@@anthonymitchell9793 “burden of proof” assumes an epistemic standard, What’s your epistemic standard for justified belief or what’s considered reasonable?
@@MadebyJimbob If I can show it is not sound, a misrepresentation of the facts, or isn't actually evidence but a claim, I reject it. Let me make it easy for you: I searched for your god for 3 years in order to support my wife. It let me down. I am open to the concept of a god but like everything | believe and decide I base it on the quantity and quality of evidence and apportion my confidence on the same. Since nobody has been able to provide evidence I can't show is flawed, I don't believe. I'm not claiming there isn't a god. I'm saying there is no evidence that I find convincing. And I can tell by your questioning that you are going to go all presuppositionalist apologitics on me which I reject. You trying to pokeholes in my personal philosophy and beliefs does nothing to advance your god claim other than being a God Of The Gaps.
When Jesus used the word "Truth" in the bible to describe himself, He used that word for a reason. You can take him at His word. John 14:6 KJV Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
@@Theo_Skeptomai I'm sorry but you can't be so stupid as to think you are gonna get a satisfying answer to this question in the fucking youtube comments. For that reason I think you are just trying to be a dick or make yourself feel smarter than you probably really are. It can take a lifetime of searching for some people to realize the truth. Others just accept it outright. If you actually care, then you will be searching instead of trying to catch people off guard in the youtube comments. It's pretty easy to ask retarded questions in order to make the naive think you are somehow clever.
@@Theo_Skeptomai Extrapolate. I believe the historical accounts of Jesus. You believe very different ones. I'm not going to argue with you about it. What it ultimately comes down to is a trust issue. Skeptics fail to understand this. I don't trust modern scholars in their white robes.
Atheism ≠ Naturalism. If your critique is against naturalism you simply have no critique against atheism. Edit: And, it's debatable whether you even have a challenging critique against naturalism haha
@@jacobleith6369 I disagree, atheism does reduce to naturalism. You haven’t addressed any position or argument I’ve made. Call into my stream, see if you can defend atheism against critique
@@MadebyJimbob Why would one need to defend atheism? Other than to point out it isn't equivalent to, or logically entails, naturalism. And yes, of course I didn't engage your critique of naturalism (the thesis that only physical things exist), I was pointing out it is irrelevant to the thesis of God's non-existence (atheism). You can disagree all you want, given that atheism doesn't logically entail naturalism, any criticism against naturalism will not be a criticism against atheism.
@@MadebyJimbob Alright, I've given that a week now. Of course you could be busy, but I believe I've been charitable there. I'll just answer my question, and then I'll give some closing remarks. I don't take pointing out naturalism is not entailed by atheism to require a defence of atheism. That would be very odd. Perhaps I need to defend logical entailment relations, but that's trivial; you should not disagree that naturalism is not entailed by atheism. Of course there are dozens and dozens of non-naturalist formulations, and zero logical contradictions therein with atheism. If you genuinely don't appreciate that you're obviously compromised as a philosopher. Sorry, gotta be blunt; denying that would just be a game at the atheists' expense. Again, insofar as you have an objection against naturalism, you can not have an objection against atheism! How can it be? The objection would have to use the conceptual apparatus of naturalism, that's why it is an objection against naturalism haha. The objection is not going to be using the conceptual apparatus of atheism! You're obviously not computing that, and that's just to your detriment; it doesn't affect atheism at all, only your competence as a philosopher. Maybe one day the penny will drop, but I won't hold my breath. Adios.
He said you should call in to defend atheism against the critique that it reduces to naturalism. You saying "but I don't have to since it doesn't" assumes your position. He's not running from you, but just typically doesn't engage youtube comment essays unless you call in to a stream.
@@nousquest That's not quite what I said, I said I wouldn't need to defend atheism itself. I would only need to defend that it is not logically equivalent to naturalism, nor is naturalism entailed by atheism. Perhaps you would consider that a defence of atheism itself, but that's just semantics. I would consider that a defence of conceptual and logical entailment relations, but, like I said, it would only be semantics at that point. And, I did defend that in my follow-up. There doesn't seem to be anything I missed, if you care to engage it.
@@MadebyJimbob It's true though. You rationalise your beliefs for a strong human reason. There's no point in steelmanning what you say, as you'll only rationalise away what I say for the same reason.
The "why" topic is nonsense currently. Why is about intent. It would require we had reasonable evidence (A) a mind was involved in causing everything and (B) that mind caused everything for an intent. Only with A and b can we know there's an answer to "why is there something". Because we lack A and B, it's nonsense to focus on that question. Also, to fully answer the question of "why" also requires (C) evidence of what the intent was. So we'd need A+B+C in order to know there's a sensible answer to "why", and to know what that answer is. Jimbob's offhand comments about logic are nonsense, because logic is simply a set of rules humans developed as a result of observing which arguments (about reality) were reliably true. The reliable methods we call "logic". The unreliable ones are errors (often called "fallacies"). So the basis is reality itself (observing reality to confirm whether or not arguments ended up reliably knowing/predicting reality), and that's all the basis which is needed. Nothing about atheism implies belief in miracles, so why would Jimbob even say that? Maybe he just doesn't have an actual understanding of the topics involved? (That would also explain his rush to insults rather than dealing with their arguments and their actual position.) Jimbob if you can prove we're able to reliably know truth *without* evidence, then surprise everyone by proving it. When you can't, understand why we aren't shocked that your position -- which appears to be pure baseless assertion floating on no foundation whatsoever -- lacks a foundation.
@@majm4606 “Logic is a set of rules humans developed” “Developing” something must abide by and appeal to the laws of logic. Call in my stream tomorrow with this nonsense. Atheism entails a miracle. Call in and find out. I’ll have your comment up on screen, hopefully you can call in when I rip it into particles
@@MadebyJimbob So did you just not read the comment, because I called it developed and then immediately described how it was developed: by humans observing which arguments were reliably true about reality. So those are the "abiding" forces if we were to use that unusual term: reality and humans observing it to know it. As for "appeal to the laws of logic" what do you even mean by that? We're talking about _the development of logic._ The formation of the laws. So at that point nobody's appealing to the laws, we're just watching what arguments are reliably true and then agreeing to create rules based on those observations. Reality itself is the underlying foundation to it all.
@@majm4606 you can’t develop the laws of logic if they are required to develop any concept of them, the laws of logic precede your ability to develop and describe anything. The laws of logic were in effect before your mind came into existence kid You’re confusing the linguistic descriptors with what is being described, referent vs reference. “Reality” is a metaphysical term, saying it’s the foundation of all things is a meaningless statement
@@MadebyJimbob They weren't required to develop the concept of them. As I've explained, we simply observed what types of arguments people made that were and weren't reliably true. Person A argued there would be berries over the next hill, and most of the group agree, but when they reached the destination there weren't berries. And so we created a rule "argumentum ad populum" (argument from popularity) where we agree that arguments aren't necessarily true just because they're popular ideas. ...and so on for all the other rules. At no point are the rules of logic required to get things off the ground. Reality must exist, and people must care about accurately knowing reality. Those are essentially the two requirements to begin the process of developing logic. I didn't call reality the foundation of all things. I called it the basis for logic, and it is. We wanted to be more precise in knowing reality, so we learned what arguments didn't reliably work, and called those "fallacies" (errors).
@@majm4606 dude, language and communication preceded the descriptions of the laws of logic “At no point are the rules of logic required to get things off the ground “ Haha what the fcuk does that mean. The law of identity must hold true for anything to “get off the ground”. nonsense machine. Logic comes before arguments dude, we aren’t talking about formal arguments, we’re talking about the laws
where's your god, what does he/she/it look like or what is ''it''? why doesn't it interact with us ? what is it made out of? these words are man made, you make yummy word salad, yum yum, next time i will bring balsamic vinaigrette
@@MadebyJimbob yes, im asking you a question, that you should know.. i don't think you know what ''begging the question'' is, it's not ''asking a question'', begging the question is circular reasoning like saying ''god is real because the bible says it's real'' it's not about asking you a question you can't answer because there's no evidence...
@@kristopherfisher2517 no, you’re presupposing naturalism/physicalism and asking me to commit a category error I do know what question begging is P1. Naturalism is the basis for truth claims P2. God isn’t real because it doesn’t fit into a naturalist epistemic system. That’s question begging, and is exactly what your initial comment does: I never argued God is real because the Bible said so. Thats a strawman. You’re a pigsnake Call in today
@@MadebyJimbob asking questions aren't presuppositions, making statements that have no evidence because you have to abide by them because of a religion are, i wasn't making a statement, im simply asking you a question you can't answer because you have no evidence, it's your fallacy, your whole worldview is a fallacy and claim
@@MadebyJimbob i mean specifically there was a time before creation since it has a beginning, where only the trinity existed. Then the trinity created. First this, then that. Isn't that change?
@@THESMARTERMAN555 prior to the creation, God exists; God creates; the state of not creating is distinct from the state of creating; so God undergoes change. My question is, doesn't change require time?
2:22:22 Jay comes on
Questions athiests can’t answer:
When was the last time you showered?
How many hours have you spent on Reddit?
Why can’t you stop watching Christian content 24/7?
I think you can do better than this...
@@DarkAesthetics33 Debate if atheist shower?
@@Theo_SkeptomaiWhy should we grant any of that?
@@Theo_Skeptomai”I don’t watch Christian channels 24/7”
*proceeds to comment on almost every fucking Christian video on UA-cam from Jimbob, Bob from Speakers Corner, SOCO films to IP strawmanning and asking the same questions and getting debunked every single time* 😂
@@eazy-cheez-e8033Yep! I have seen them everywhere
Jaybob and Jimdyer cringe core album!!!!!!!!
nerd mc's with the illest style
great discussion with jay. Very enlightening. More of this.
Jimbob,
Ready to buy the TAG 4 Tards book.
Or, a paid series going through the arguments using role play scenarios.
I'm sure you'll make millions!
Loved the astronaut at the intro!
Alex O'Connor seems to think theists believe we can get an ought from an is because we have God. That's not the claim. The "is-ought gap" is only a problem for atheists because they only believe in the "is", in other words they only believe in material facts. But he acts like it's some kind of dunk that theists can't get an ought from an is. Yeah we're not trying to, you are.
You seem to be implying that atheism implies materialism. If that's the case, what motivates such an understanding?
@@BlueEyesDY the overwhelming overlap between the two groups. Can you give me an example of a common atheist argument that relies on something that rejects materialism?
@sullainvictus
Nothing in my question implies the two concepts are incompatible (in fact, I accept that they are). That was not the point of the question.
Let me rephrase:
You appear to be referencing some type of equivalence principle between atheism and materialism. If that is the case, what motivates such a principle?
@@BlueEyesDY I just told you: the overwhelming overlap between the 2 theoretical groups. This is how language works. If basically every atheist you encounter is a materialist, then people are going to make that association. In the same way that people will make an "argument against Christianity" that talks about the age of the earth. There's nothing inherent about Christianity that absolutely requires you to believe in a young earth, but people notice the overlap between the two and just run with it. And there's probably WAY MORE overlap between atheism and materialism, so we run with it. Why can't we?
@@sullainvictus
1) You appear to be invoking the more fundamental principle _if a set of otherwise unrelated beliefs are widely held together by a large number of people, those beliefs can be equivocated._ If I’m understanding this correctly, what motivates that principle?
2) If I have in fact correctly identified the principle you are invoking, the same equivocation between Christianity and YEC is equally validated. Do you affirm that arguments targeting YEC specifically carry equal weight against Christianity in general?
Jimbob, I would love you to respond to Graham Oppy and his positions.
Pointing out a theory that is not committed to the existence of objective teliology does not identify any teliology in its proposed objects is not a criticism of that theory.
@@BlueEyesDY you may have to rephrase that, it’s very hard to follow for me
@MadebyJimbob
Sorry, I suspected that might be a bit too wordy😅.
Let me try an analogy. Say I have a metaphysical theory of boxes, but that theory makes no commitment as to the contents of boxes. Then, when i invoke the existence of a box, you respond _you can't invoke extant boxes because your box metaphysics can't answer the question,"What's in the box?"_ that's not a valid criticism of my box metaphysics. It's basically saying _your theory can't do something it's not committed to doing._
The same thing applies to atheistic theories. If the theory makes no commitments to extant objective teliology, pointing out that it can't identify extant objective teliology is not a valid criticism.
@@BlueEyesDYthe argument is prior to the point you’re trying to make. The possibility of making an argument necessitates epistemic justification of anything you use in the argument.
Ben can get an ought from an is rael
Heh
nice talk, but who is this Hermann Nettigs?
2:39:35 its like blaming Newton for inventing gravity lmao
At about 54:10 you seem to invoke an equivalence principle between subjective personal values and normativity. That seems incompatible with Christian normative principles to me. Have I misunderstood something?
@@BlueEyesDY ignore that section, it was a sloppy inquiry to whether or not the is ought gap can be involuntarily bridged by merely existing
30:09 the sixth sense maaaaaaannnnn
@@squarepegroundhole8211 pretty much
Your out from is talk at 55:00 is essentially Stefan Molyneux’s Universally Preferable Behavior
@@andrew8614 I don’t understand your sentence
@@MadebyJimbob sorry, I don’t proof read. I was trying to say that your ought/is talk around 55:00 is essentially the same as Sefan Molyneux’s theory of secular ethics called universally preferable behavior.
@@andrew8614 ohhh. I see what you mean, yeh it’s likely flawed because we can look at truth at a fundamental level, but it doesn’t entail valuing any and all truths.
I cant for the life of me figure it out, but Jim Bob hits way harder as a handle for a Christian apologist than Jay Dyer.
@@harlowcj cute, but that’s a basic betch Reddit level association between Christian and southern Baptist l.
@@MadebyJimbob I'm saying that if somebody told me that Jim Bob died for my sins, and Jay Dyer also died for my sins, I'm following Jim Bob everytime.
Nice
missed it
Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo 😂
🤣🫖🏴
the universe isn't eternal otherwise the today could never have come to pass so the past *must* be finite
The universe was created at the big bang......but since things cannot come from nothing, something must have existed before the creation of our universe.
@@scottholder4431 nice red herring, but that doesn't address how the past *can't* be infinite when today literally *can't* come into existence if it was. unless you are conceding God was the something that existed before our universe as that is the literal only qualifier that is timeless so you don't have an infinity paradox
@@Theo_Skeptomaiyou do understand how infinity works mathematically right? yes or no
@@mike16apha16 but that doesn't address how the past can't be infinite when today literally can't come into existence if it was."
Well that's your problem. Assuming that it CANT......because in order for an infinite regress argument to be valid, you have to show how it's vicious.
Why haven't you read up on infinite regress? If you did, you would know this tidbit of information.
@@mike16apha16 unless you are conceding God was the something that existed before our universe as that is the literal only qualifier that is timeless so you don't have an infinity paradox"
I concede that something(natural processes) existed......but Im not stupid, so Im not going to assume that something was a god, especially when we only have evidence of natural processes, which do not need a god. They occur without the need for a god.
And that something is "natural processes"......since religions cannot provide any supernatural processes.
1) Who cares if atheists can or can't answer your questions? It comes down to one point: I'm an atheist because no theist has met their burden of proof.
2) How about you give the questions so we can answer them and don't have to listen to 3 hours of your word salad?
@@anthonymitchell9793 “burden of proof” assumes an epistemic standard,
What’s your epistemic standard for justified belief or what’s considered reasonable?
@@MadebyJimbob If I can show it is not sound, a misrepresentation of the facts, or isn't actually evidence but a claim, I reject it.
Let me make it easy for you: I searched for your god for 3 years in order to support my wife. It let me down. I am open to the concept of a god but like everything | believe and decide I base it on the quantity and quality of evidence and apportion my confidence on the same. Since nobody has been able to provide evidence I can't show is flawed, I don't believe. I'm not claiming there isn't a god. I'm saying there is no evidence that I find convincing.
And I can tell by your questioning that you are going to go all presuppositionalist apologitics on me which I reject. You trying to pokeholes in my personal philosophy and beliefs does nothing to advance your god claim other than being a God Of The Gaps.
When Jesus used the word "Truth" in the bible to describe himself, He used that word for a reason. You can take him at His word.
John 14:6 KJV Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
@@Theo_Skeptomai History is never science.
@@Theo_Skeptomai I'm sorry but you can't be so stupid as to think you are gonna get a satisfying answer to this question in the fucking youtube comments. For that reason I think you are just trying to be a dick or make yourself feel smarter than you probably really are.
It can take a lifetime of searching for some people to realize the truth. Others just accept it outright. If you actually care, then you will be searching instead of trying to catch people off guard in the youtube comments.
It's pretty easy to ask retarded questions in order to make the naive think you are somehow clever.
@@Theo_Skeptomai- the Shroud of Turin
@@Theo_Skeptomai Extrapolate. I believe the historical accounts of Jesus. You believe very different ones. I'm not going to argue with you about it. What it ultimately comes down to is a trust issue. Skeptics fail to understand this. I don't trust modern scholars in their white robes.
Atheism ≠ Naturalism. If your critique is against naturalism you simply have no critique against atheism.
Edit: And, it's debatable whether you even have a challenging critique against naturalism haha
@@jacobleith6369 I disagree, atheism does reduce to naturalism.
You haven’t addressed any position or argument I’ve made. Call into my stream, see if you can defend atheism against critique
@@MadebyJimbob Why would one need to defend atheism? Other than to point out it isn't equivalent to, or logically entails, naturalism.
And yes, of course I didn't engage your critique of naturalism (the thesis that only physical things exist), I was pointing out it is irrelevant to the thesis of God's non-existence (atheism).
You can disagree all you want, given that atheism doesn't logically entail naturalism, any criticism against naturalism will not be a criticism against atheism.
@@MadebyJimbob Alright, I've given that a week now. Of course you could be busy, but I believe I've been charitable there. I'll just answer my question, and then I'll give some closing remarks.
I don't take pointing out naturalism is not entailed by atheism to require a defence of atheism. That would be very odd. Perhaps I need to defend logical entailment relations, but that's trivial; you should not disagree that naturalism is not entailed by atheism. Of course there are dozens and dozens of non-naturalist formulations, and zero logical contradictions therein with atheism. If you genuinely don't appreciate that you're obviously compromised as a philosopher. Sorry, gotta be blunt; denying that would just be a game at the atheists' expense.
Again, insofar as you have an objection against naturalism, you can not have an objection against atheism! How can it be? The objection would have to use the conceptual apparatus of naturalism, that's why it is an objection against naturalism haha. The objection is not going to be using the conceptual apparatus of atheism! You're obviously not computing that, and that's just to your detriment; it doesn't affect atheism at all, only your competence as a philosopher.
Maybe one day the penny will drop, but I won't hold my breath. Adios.
He said you should call in to defend atheism against the critique that it reduces to naturalism. You saying "but I don't have to since it doesn't" assumes your position. He's not running from you, but just typically doesn't engage youtube comment essays unless you call in to a stream.
@@nousquest That's not quite what I said, I said I wouldn't need to defend atheism itself. I would only need to defend that it is not logically equivalent to naturalism, nor is naturalism entailed by atheism.
Perhaps you would consider that a defence of atheism itself, but that's just semantics. I would consider that a defence of conceptual and logical entailment relations, but, like I said, it would only be semantics at that point.
And, I did defend that in my follow-up. There doesn't seem to be anything I missed, if you care to engage it.
So, you believe because you met and married a girl who believes. That's the only thing that accounts for what you're saying here.
@@Whatsisface4 so, you didn’t steelman anything I said but think it’s worth engaging with
@@MadebyJimbob It's true though. You rationalise your beliefs for a strong human reason. There's no point in steelmanning what you say, as you'll only rationalise away what I say for the same reason.
@@Whatsisface4 Then by the same token we can dismiss anything atheists have to say by diagnosing their psychological reasons for being atheists.
@@Whatsisface4how do you know that?
@@VainFriggus I don't for sure, but it does seem to be a classic reason for a man to convert.
The "why" topic is nonsense currently. Why is about intent. It would require we had reasonable evidence (A) a mind was involved in causing everything and (B) that mind caused everything for an intent. Only with A and b can we know there's an answer to "why is there something".
Because we lack A and B, it's nonsense to focus on that question.
Also, to fully answer the question of "why" also requires (C) evidence of what the intent was. So we'd need A+B+C in order to know there's a sensible answer to "why", and to know what that answer is.
Jimbob's offhand comments about logic are nonsense, because logic is simply a set of rules humans developed as a result of observing which arguments (about reality) were reliably true. The reliable methods we call "logic". The unreliable ones are errors (often called "fallacies"). So the basis is reality itself (observing reality to confirm whether or not arguments ended up reliably knowing/predicting reality), and that's all the basis which is needed.
Nothing about atheism implies belief in miracles, so why would Jimbob even say that? Maybe he just doesn't have an actual understanding of the topics involved? (That would also explain his rush to insults rather than dealing with their arguments and their actual position.)
Jimbob if you can prove we're able to reliably know truth *without* evidence, then surprise everyone by proving it. When you can't, understand why we aren't shocked that your position -- which appears to be pure baseless assertion floating on no foundation whatsoever -- lacks a foundation.
@@majm4606 “Logic is a set of rules humans developed”
“Developing” something must abide by and appeal to the laws of logic.
Call in my stream tomorrow with this nonsense.
Atheism entails a miracle. Call in and find out. I’ll have your comment up on screen, hopefully you can call in when I rip it into particles
@@MadebyJimbob So did you just not read the comment, because I called it developed and then immediately described how it was developed: by humans observing which arguments were reliably true about reality. So those are the "abiding" forces if we were to use that unusual term: reality and humans observing it to know it.
As for "appeal to the laws of logic" what do you even mean by that? We're talking about _the development of logic._ The formation of the laws. So at that point nobody's appealing to the laws, we're just watching what arguments are reliably true and then agreeing to create rules based on those observations. Reality itself is the underlying foundation to it all.
@@majm4606 you can’t develop the laws of logic if they are required to develop any concept of them, the laws of logic precede your ability to develop and describe anything. The laws of logic were in effect before your mind came into existence kid
You’re confusing the linguistic descriptors with what is being described, referent vs reference.
“Reality” is a metaphysical term, saying it’s the foundation of all things is a meaningless statement
@@MadebyJimbob They weren't required to develop the concept of them. As I've explained, we simply observed what types of arguments people made that were and weren't reliably true.
Person A argued there would be berries over the next hill, and most of the group agree, but when they reached the destination there weren't berries. And so we created a rule "argumentum ad populum" (argument from popularity) where we agree that arguments aren't necessarily true just because they're popular ideas.
...and so on for all the other rules.
At no point are the rules of logic required to get things off the ground. Reality must exist, and people must care about accurately knowing reality. Those are essentially the two requirements to begin the process of developing logic.
I didn't call reality the foundation of all things.
I called it the basis for logic, and it is. We wanted to be more precise in knowing reality, so we learned what arguments didn't reliably work, and called those "fallacies" (errors).
@@majm4606 dude, language and communication preceded the descriptions of the laws of logic
“At no point are the rules of logic required to get things off the ground “
Haha what the fcuk does that mean. The law of identity must hold true for anything to “get off the ground”. nonsense machine.
Logic comes before arguments dude, we aren’t talking about formal arguments, we’re talking about the laws
where's your god, what does he/she/it look like or what is ''it''? why doesn't it interact with us ? what is it made out of? these words are man made, you make yummy word salad, yum yum, next time i will bring balsamic vinaigrette
@@kristopherfisher2517 your question begs the question for physicalism/naturalism.
Try again
@@MadebyJimbob yes, im asking you a question, that you should know.. i don't think you know what ''begging the question'' is, it's not ''asking a question'', begging the question is circular reasoning like saying ''god is real because the bible says it's real'' it's not about asking you a question you can't answer because there's no evidence...
@@kristopherfisher2517 no, you’re presupposing naturalism/physicalism and asking me to commit a category error
I do know what question begging is
P1. Naturalism is the basis for truth claims
P2. God isn’t real because it doesn’t fit into a naturalist epistemic system.
That’s question begging, and is exactly what your initial comment does:
I never argued God is real because the Bible said so. Thats a strawman. You’re a pigsnake
Call in today
@@MadebyJimbob so then everything is a presupposition and nothing is true, gotcha
@@MadebyJimbob asking questions aren't presuppositions, making statements that have no evidence because you have to abide by them because of a religion are, i wasn't making a statement, im simply asking you a question you can't answer because you have no evidence, it's your fallacy, your whole worldview is a fallacy and claim
There was a time prior to the trinity creating the world, and a time after. Doesn't this necessitates God undergoing change?
@@Noetic-Necrognosis there is no time prior to the Trinity.
@@MadebyJimbob i mean specifically there was a time before creation since it has a beginning, where only the trinity existed. Then the trinity created. First this, then that. Isn't that change?
@@Noetic-Necrognosis If there is no space there is no time...... If there is no space there is no material or substance.
@@THESMARTERMAN555 prior to the creation, God exists; God creates; the state of not creating is distinct from the state of creating; so God undergoes change. My question is, doesn't change require time?
@@Noetic-Necrognosis Time is our perception of the universe right?