I was thinking the exact same thing. Almost every time he opened his mouth, the grimace on my face intensified. I still can't believe that he began his first response by unironically declaring that Justin's opener was a concession to his arguments. Aside from his abysmal arguments and bizarre opinions, I found his unsavory rhetoric and dogmatic confidence to be quite irritating. For sake of my sanity, I don't think I'll be watching another of his debates anytime soon.
As a theist, I think that many of Eric’s claims in the debate fall utterly flat because he didn’t take the time to walk through why they might be true. I’m a substance dualist in regards to the discussion on consciousness and I’m inclined to agree with him in that sense, but simply declaring in a debate that x position is true without really getting into the weeds of why is pointless, because your opponent will just say “no it’s not” without need for further rebuttal because there’s been nothing given to rebut.
I thought it was so odd how at one point when discussing consciousness Eric seriously said, "I don't understand why you're not a Christian," as though if one didn't think consciousness was an emergent property that necessarily meant Jesus rose from the dead... It was weird.
Hey John, about your thought that it's better to cooperate in discovering God (or his love). Do you think this translates to humans to human interaction as well? Because I don't think we normally go out of our way to do this.
What do you mean by 'translates to human-to-human interaction'? Do I think that it's better for humans to use other humans to communicate there existence to others? Not particularly, no.
Outgoing music was a nice touch. One of the things about arguments from morality, consciousness, reason, and similar are that they don't actually work the way apologists think they do. If my belief in objective morality is grounded in something other than God's existence, then convincing me that God is necessary for objective morality does not get me to God. It only undermines my belief in objective morality. Without an independent argument for God's existence, all you've done is convince me that my belief in objective morality was wrong. The same would go for the kinds of arguments for consciousness and reason that were put forward into the debate. I'm not saying this is novel, but it's not something I ever hear anyone point out in these debates and discussions.
On the EAAN, some of the best ways to counter that argument come from Plantinga himself. In Warrant and Proper Function (p. 227), Plantinga says that if beliefs are causally connected to behavior (which is the common sense belief), then it's reasonable to say that P(R/N&E) is somewhat more than 1/2. In Where the Conflict Really Lies (p. 335), Plantinga says, "Isn’t it just obvious that true beliefs will facilitate adaptive action? A gazelle who mistakenly believes that lions are friendly, overgrown house cats won’t be long for this world. The same goes for a rock climber who believes that jumping from a two-hundred-foot cliff will result in a pleasant and leisurely trip down with a soft landing. Isn’t it obvious both that true beliefs are much more likely to be adaptive than false beliefs? Isn’t it obvious, more generally, that true beliefs are more likely to be successful than false beliefs? I want to go from New York to Boston: won’t I be more likely to get there if I believe that Boston is north of New York than if I believe it’s to the south? Yes, certainly. This is indeed true. But it is also irrelevant." Then he goes on to critique materialism.
Right, that's because his main worry is about the content of beliefs which he claims will be unrelated to behavior. It's for that reason, I found Eric's treatment of what he calls 'the argument from knowledge' to be a mere toy version of the EAAN. I think the EAAN is a far more interesting argument and preferred interacting with it.
At least in this debate he was well behaved. All of the other debates I’ve seen him in he’s been very rude and condescending to his opponent Darth Dawkins style rigidity concerning his presuppositionalist script, and then trying to score gotchas by demanding his opponent define a term on the spot, when the interlocutor was attempting to ask clarifying questions to understand apologetists often proprietary usage of words.
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I think about 95% of the things Eric said in the debate were false
Proof? I need a 12 hour video debunking 95% of the claims he made in detail
Replace “the debate” with “every debate he’s ever participated in”
It might be low hanging fruit but I'd love to see you do a video cataloging all the false things he said in the debate
I was thinking the exact same thing. Almost every time he opened his mouth, the grimace on my face intensified. I still can't believe that he began his first response by unironically declaring that Justin's opener was a concession to his arguments. Aside from his abysmal arguments and bizarre opinions, I found his unsavory rhetoric and dogmatic confidence to be quite irritating. For sake of my sanity, I don't think I'll be watching another of his debates anytime soon.
EMOTIONAL DAMAGE!
As a theist, I think that many of Eric’s claims in the debate fall utterly flat because he didn’t take the time to walk through why they might be true. I’m a substance dualist in regards to the discussion on consciousness and I’m inclined to agree with him in that sense, but simply declaring in a debate that x position is true without really getting into the weeds of why is pointless, because your opponent will just say “no it’s not” without need for further rebuttal because there’s been nothing given to rebut.
I thought it was so odd how at one point when discussing consciousness Eric seriously said, "I don't understand why you're not a Christian," as though if one didn't think consciousness was an emergent property that necessarily meant Jesus rose from the dead... It was weird.
Reasonable Doubts was the greatest podcast of all time.
It really was great. I think it was tied with Conversations From The Pale Blue Dot.
Was that like an April fools of reasonable faith
Bc I think it is reasonable to not be convinced of . Yeah
Was so much fun watching this happen in person. Lot of material left on the cutting-room floor I see, fortunately for Justin!
Hey John, about your thought that it's better to cooperate in discovering God (or his love). Do you think this translates to humans to human interaction as well? Because I don't think we normally go out of our way to do this.
What do you mean by 'translates to human-to-human interaction'?
Do I think that it's better for humans to use other humans to communicate there existence to others?
Not particularly, no.
Outgoing music was a nice touch.
One of the things about arguments from morality, consciousness, reason, and similar are that they don't actually work the way apologists think they do. If my belief in objective morality is grounded in something other than God's existence, then convincing me that God is necessary for objective morality does not get me to God. It only undermines my belief in objective morality. Without an independent argument for God's existence, all you've done is convince me that my belief in objective morality was wrong. The same would go for the kinds of arguments for consciousness and reason that were put forward into the debate.
I'm not saying this is novel, but it's not something I ever hear anyone point out in these debates and discussions.
I was floored when Eric started his debate from “why 3 things that most likely don’t exist, prove the necessity of god!”
On the EAAN, some of the best ways to counter that argument come from Plantinga himself.
In Warrant and Proper Function (p. 227), Plantinga says that if beliefs are causally connected to behavior (which is the common sense belief), then it's reasonable to say that P(R/N&E) is somewhat more than 1/2. In Where the Conflict Really Lies (p. 335), Plantinga says, "Isn’t it just obvious that true beliefs will facilitate adaptive action? A gazelle who mistakenly believes that lions are friendly, overgrown house cats won’t be long for this world. The same goes for a rock climber who believes that jumping from a two-hundred-foot cliff will result in a pleasant and leisurely trip down with a soft landing. Isn’t it obvious both that true beliefs are much more likely to be adaptive than false beliefs? Isn’t it obvious, more generally, that true beliefs are more likely to be successful than false beliefs? I want to go from New York to Boston: won’t I be more likely to get there if I believe that Boston is north of New York than if I believe it’s to the south? Yes, certainly. This is indeed true. But it is also irrelevant." Then he goes on to critique materialism.
Right, that's because his main worry is about the content of beliefs which he claims will be unrelated to behavior. It's for that reason, I found Eric's treatment of what he calls 'the argument from knowledge' to be a mere toy version of the EAAN. I think the EAAN is a far more interesting argument and preferred interacting with it.
@CubanClyde Yeah, they are quite similar.
I thought Eric was in over his head. Is he Frank Turek's disciple or something?
Ichika Nito brings such elegance to this world
Mr. Hernandez is the worst apologist I've ever heard.
Ray comfort , Kent hovind:
Allow us to introduce ourselves
Frank Turek
At least in this debate he was well behaved.
All of the other debates I’ve seen him in he’s been very rude and condescending to his opponent
Darth Dawkins style rigidity concerning his presuppositionalist script, and then trying to score gotchas by demanding his opponent define a term on the spot, when the interlocutor was attempting to ask clarifying questions to understand apologetists often proprietary usage of words.
Great review, thank you!
Ah Hernandez…
🤦♂️
after yours?