Arrogant Christian's Definitions Are So Circular They Make You Dizzy | Matt Dillahunty & Eric (S&S)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лют 2024
- Jared calls in to argue that denying the existence of the Triune Christian God entails a logical contradiction, since God serves as the necessary reference point for truth and intelligibility. He employs modal logic to claim that if God's existence is not proven impossible, then it is necessarily possible and actual.
The hosts push back against Jared's assertions. They argue that simply failing to show a contradiction does not make something possible. They also question his basis for ascribing particular attributes to God, given humanity's fallible knowledge. The discussion grows increasingly tense as Jared fails to directly answer their questions.
Original Episode: ua-cam.com/users/livetLM_UHsnTTI
SUPPORT THE NETWORK
---------------------------------------------------
Patreon: / calltheline
Become a Channel Member:
SUPPORT PRODUCTION
---------------------------------------------------
Paypal: www.paypal.me/mratheist
Cashapp: cash.app/$jimmyasnow
Amazon Wishlist: www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls...
MORE LIVE SHOWS & CLIPS
---------------------------------------------------
/ @callthelinex
CONTACT US
---------------------------------------------------
contact@qnaline.com
HOSTS
---------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Snow: @JimmySnow
Matt Dillahunty: @SansDeity
Arden Hart: / theardenhart
Katy Montgomerie: @KatyMontgomerie
Forrest Valkai: @RenegadeScienceTeacher
Dr. Ben: @FamilyDrBen
Aron Ra: @AronRa
Shannon Q: @ShannonQ
John Gleason: @godlessengineer
Dave Warnock: iamdyingoutloud.org/
ADDRESS
---------------------------------------------------
The Line
110 N Interstate 35
Suite 315-1027
Round Rock, TX 78681
United States
SHOWS ON THE LINE
---------------------------------------------------
Sundays: The Sunday Show
Monday: Skeptalk
Tuesday: Dying Out Loud
Wednesday: The Hang Up
Thursday: The Trans Atlantic Call In Show (TACIS)
Look out for “HOSTility” and “Cus I Wanna” any day, any time
#CallTheLine - Розваги
"If this thing that I've defined exists it would exist as I've defined it" is one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard.
In the same vein, the only infallible knowledge this “being” ever seems to impart is whether it exists or not and what pisses it off.
It's the only argument they have left , lol
The “no shit” answers are the funniest
Yet it forms the basis of most religions
This is just another idiot who, after their first day in Philosophy, never came back, figuring "Hell, this is easy, I already know this shit!"
“He’s real.”
“How do you know?”
“Being real is just one of his characteristics, DUH.”
...and suddenly, just like that, a gazillion imaginary friends popped back into 'reality' (whatever the hell that word means anymore).
St. Anselm defined God as "the greatest conceivable being" and argues that if one can conceive of such a being, then it must exist in reality, because existence is greater than non-existence.
@@rclrd1 which is the dumbest argument yet. “Greater” is a useless word. Nonexistence isn’t an attribute of something that can be compared to other attributes- it’s a declaration of falsehood. His god is also definitively inconceivable and unknowable by most Christian conceptions, and there are multiple different conceptions of a supreme being depending on who you ask so God couldn’t possibly be defined by all of them simultaneously.
This is foundationally flawed on a few different levels, and you see that a lot from the words of saints. Why? Because people were too scared and uneducated to bother arguing with them back then.
@@rclrd1
We studied this Ontological Argument in one of my philosophy classes, rather in-depth. While that was close to 3 decades ago, I do remember there being a rather witty reply from a MONK (Gaunilo of Marmoutiers) who made a "Perfect Island" analogy/parody. I'd recommend people look it up, especially if they're the least bit persuaded by this bit of sophistry from Anselm:
"Parodies of the Ontological Argument
One problem with this argument is that it invites parody. Parallel arguments purporting to prove the existence of any perfect thing at all can be constructed.
This objection was first raised by one of Anselm’s contemporaries, the monk Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, who constructed an ontological argument for the existence of the perfect island in his On Behalf of the Fool.
The perfect island, this argument goes, is the island than which no greater can be conceived. Any island that does not exist, though, cannot be the island than which no greater can be conceived, for it could be conceived to exist which would be greater. Anyone who thinks that the perfect does not exist, then, is confused; the concept of the perfect island entails that there is such a thing.
Similar arguments for the existence of the perfect baseball pitcher, or the perfect husband for the existence of any perfect thing at all can be constructed. If any of these arguments is sound, it seems, then they must all be sound.
Clearly, though, these arguments are not all sound; the perfect baseball pitcher does not exist, and neither does the perfect husband. There is something wrong with the logic of these arguments. Each of these ontological arguments, though, uses the same logic. They must therefore all be unsound.
The fact that there is no perfect island, and no perfect baseball pitcher, then, shows that the logic of the ontological argument for God’s existence is flawed."
We can pretend anything exists, there is nothing we cannot pretend does not exist.
As Matt says, it is just absurd.
Is such a claim not diametrically apposed to logic?
We can claim bananas can talk, they just don't want to.
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”
Charles Bukowski
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity." Yeats
Dunning-Kruger Effect to the max.
This is the essence of the Dunning-Kruger effect .
The less you know, the more you think you’re right.
The intelligent doubt because of their intelligence, the stupid have confidence because of their ignorance.
@@DeludedOne
Nice words.
"Why won't you just assume that my god is real!? If you do then it's VERY easy to see how I'm right!"
😂😂😂
Well said.
😂😂
😂😂😂 this one took me out, it's so perfectly laid out
It's fucking wild the amount of shit we have to grant these dorks for the sake of conversation just to get to these dumb arguments
This guy has regularly failed with his sophistry and doesn't seem to have bothered to improve. He is obviously not listening and is just reading from his script.
Isn't Sophistry the current state of republican 'Christian' congressman view
Because it’s designed to not improve. It’s the same stupid nonsense that Darth Dawkins used before he got banned everywhere.
that sounds like one of those theists, doesn't it ?
@@jeffbrammer1082
=Isn't Sophistry the current state of republican 'Christian' congressman view=
They rarely even rise to the level of Sophistry; most of them can't even spell it.
@@romankvapil9184who wants to bet that Darth Dawkins thinks he got banned everywhere because he must be onto something? Memememe
The pastor that gave this script to Jared is liable for the embarrassment that Jared should feel. This is the most painful caller you've ever had. Someone made this dude in ChatGPT.
I know who this caller is (and you may know also), so I agree with you 100%!
He isn't a pastor. His name is Gary Milne and he runs his own little cult of angry, white men. Most of them likely habing blown up their own personal lives in the same way their master did. Although you'd likely be more familiar with him by the nom de guerre Darth Dawkins.
They are all incapable of embarrassment.
You are aware that Jared thought he won that argument, right? And he's going to boast to everyone he knows that he stumped Matt Dilahunty. And since few if any of those people will watch or listen to the show, they'll all assume Jared is right that he won and scared Matt away.
Of course, they'll believe that even if they do watch the show, because they're Theists and need to believe that the evil Atheist has been slain, because no one is more frightening to a believer than a non-believer.
I think most Christians would gladly join hands with Muslims, Jews and Hindus against Atheists, because of the saying "enemy of my enemy is my friend" and at least those other religions believe in a god.
@@AGodlessLife oh I totally understand that Jared thinks he won. The great thing about all of those religions is that they cry about atheist but they're all killing each other instead.
These Darth Dawkins minions are so frustrating. They think they're being clever while being so gloriously ignorant.
I keep seeing the phrase ‘Darth Dawkins’.. but don’t understand what it means. Surely it’s not a slight on Richard Dawkins is it..? I love Richard Dawkins & his calm way of discussing Evolution & Atheism, etc.
@@glennhall8665 He's one of the "famous" Presuppositionalist on youtube, you can check out his debates here. The name is a mocking of Richard Dawkins.
@@glennhall8665 no, darth dawkins is an internet personality apologist who sends dorks to these shows with bad scripts.
@@glennhall8665 Darth Dawkins is a guy named Gary Milne, he's a presup apologist (read=person who argues from incredulity and never backs up ANY claims) on Discord. He's an arrogant troll who is convinced he can't be wrong because his magical, invisible friend told him so.
Presup apologetics is complete garbage, it's made 2 claims from the start, that their worldview is correct and no one else's worldview can be, yet they won't even attempt to justify either claim.
Except they’re too dumb to realize they’re not clever. It’s the same as flat-earthers using “science” to prove the earth is flat, while completely misunderstanding and misapplying their bizarre notion of what science is.
This arrogant caller is filled with assertions and gets angry when the hosts don’t fall for it. He gets his ugliness from Darth Dawkins. You throw a wrench with a question that’s not in his script and he gets nasty 😂
The moment he threw out "intelligibility" in the first few seconds I knew he'd be a Gary Milne disciple. He's probably hated by his family like his prophet Gary. I refuse to let Gary hide behind the Darth Dawkins moniker. The man and his abusive history should be public knowledge because he belongs in prison rather than on the internet.
Exactly this
Nervous laughter and non sequiturs - how proud your parents must be 😂
Sadly, that is what a narcissist would do.
‘How dare you not recognize my superior brain by asking a question that shows how my reasoning is flawed.’
Because Matt's not arrogant at all
"Could a unicorn drop his horn for me to pick it up?"
"Yes, I see no contradiction in that"
This random guy: "Alright, then unicorns exist. Have a nice day"
HA, are you serious?! Unicorns don’t exist, so obviously that’s way different. Honestly, there’s a contradiction in the word “unicorn” if we’re being real
-that guy, probably.
Just remember: he’s not really trying to convince you, he’s trying to shut you up or piss you off so he can claim to have won the argument. This is the only play in the presup playbook.
Yeah, he's as dishonest as most theists that call into this show. They're so disgusting
Exactly.
I'm so glad Matt didn't play into it!
This is what bugs me the most with the pre-suppository peeps. They are extremely arrogant, petty, and dishonest. What happened to your Christian values? Jesus said turn the cheek not be an asshole. (then again Jesus said he wasn't here for peace but for war....but who cares what he says anymore, the dude was made up from a bunch of different dudes and none of the collective makes any sense) Anywhos I'm having a great day and life now that I'm free of this crap.
Who, Matt?
Smugness plus ignorance= Darth Dawkins disciple.
Yep. Gary Milne seems to manufacture them in a lab somewhere. . . Well no. That's a lie. Gary is just an uneducated, unemployed janitor who should be in jail for what he did to his wife and kida for yeara before they fled from him. Now he just spews his rage and vitriol onto the internet.
Smugnorance?
Jared, I really hope you read this. I’ve met several people like you in my life and it’s honestly really sad. You sound articulate enough to have the capability of understanding how arrogant you are being and where your “arguments” fall flat. If you were put into a college classroom with that line of logic, you’d get laughed out of the room. The biggest disservice you could do yourself is to keep telling yourself that anything you presented qualifies as a coherent or meaningful argument.
He’s not reading this. He’s only interested in gotchas.
The arrogance of an adult who believes a 600 year old man built a giant wooden boat to save two of every animal from a global flood.
My favorite question to the Noah myth is how they stored clean water for millions of animals on a wooden boat for 150 days?
@@leastworstgamerMagic🤦♂️
@@leastworstgamerit was raining.
@@leastworstgamer Unfortunately, they do have an answer for that one. They can say that God magically produced so much water that not only did it cover all the mountains of the world, but it was also good for drinking. There was so much water they could even pee and poop in it. Anything is possible in the magical world of a superstitious mind. Ask them how Noah fed all of those animals and they have answers for that one as well. It's crazy.
And built it in seven days.
The arrogance of ignorance is really trippy
Agree💯💯💯💯
POOR PATHETIC JARED!!!!!!!!!
This is how I THINK about Sky Faires, Say any of them are REA, I DON'T CARE. THEY ARE EVIL PSYCHOS
If this guy's not a troll he's an outstanding example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
The caller doesn't understand that something being logically valid does not make it sound. Assigning God with abilities X, Y, and Z and then proving how it is logically valid that God can have those abilities does not make it true that God has those abilities. This was what Jared was unable to grasp because he was so pompously arrogant he couldn't even understand what the conversation was about.
Yep, nailed it.
Would an example of this be something like
* People have parents
* Tom is a person
* Tom has parents
= Tom's patents are John and Sue
@@Esteban45696 Valid but unsound argument:
-If astrology is true, our lives are determined by the stars.
-Astrology is true.
-Therefore our lives are determined by the stars.
It's of a valid structure (Modus Ponens, if X then Y, X, therefore Y) however premise 2 is not an established fact, so simply assuming it is makes the argument unsound as that premise is not backed up by actual facts.
Valid and sound argument:
-If mammals have warm blood, they can metabolize food and regulate their body temperature.
-Mammals have warm blood.
-Therefore they can metabolize food and regulate their body temperature.
The premises are true and backed up by facts, the structure is also valid. This makes the argument both valid and sound. A valid argument may not be sound, but a sound argument MUST be valid.
@@Esteban45696 Nah. More like:
People have feathers.
Tom is a person.
Therefore, Tom has feathers.
This is a valid but not sound argument, since the conclusion follows from the premises, but the premises are not all true.
The argument in the video is more or less:
An omnipotent being can grant infallible knowledge.
The triune God is an omnipotent being.
Therefore, the triune God can grant infallible knowledge.
And this is a rather unhelpful argument to make if you can't demonstrate that both of the premises are true, or that an omnipotent being exists( or can exist), or that infallible knowledge exists, or that the triune god exists.
I liked his first thrust that if you don't accept the claim of yahweh (to keep it simple), you're inherently saying he's not necessary." Then they got off track. He ended up asserting that yahweh can grant perfect knowledge 'because I say so and there's no contradiction entailed' without affirming what the conditions are that can even be contradicted in the 1st place, which was disappointing.
I'd have to call this a good debate, even though the caller failed, because there were some interesting ideas thrown around and I like when Matt deals with someone skilled in logic. It gets boring constantly hearing people like my grandmom with repeat questions
In 2nd grade there was always that kid who constantly changed the rules mid game to fit his current situation.
This conversation is that kid who just got taller but grew in no other way.
To be fair we don't know for a fact that he got taller. He may assert he has gotten taller but until he can bring some proof... ;)
I disagree...
He definitely got fatter, too.
Next, he argues if you can't show God isn't impossible, it is possible. If possible, it must be true because my definition of God says so.
The Darth Dawkins script is being used a lot lately.
Well Gary Milne has formed his own little cult with himself at the center. It shouldn't be shocking his disciples go out and proselytize. . . poorly.
Who is this guy Darth Dawkins? There's only one Dawkins as far as I'm concerned and he s an English gentleman..
@@vegass04 Also Angelo Dawkins, an athlete of some fame (but not at darts.)
He was extremely annoying.
Well most Gary Milne cultists are.
Is annoying.
Presups are....
Agree💯💯💯💯💯
Presuppers are the philosophical equivalent of flat earthers.
No, they aren't.
I have yet to meet a Flat Earther who believes the Earth is flat simply because the idea of a flat Earth is not self-contradictory.
They give arguments. Bad ones, sure, but they give arguments.
Presups don't even do that. They just insist that they're right.
This sounds almost exactly like the argument that darth dawkins used
he is a darth follower, i have heard his voice on discord. he is a great creator of circular reasoning and straw man creation. he is as bad a circular sye. his assertion is his evidence
It is.
The moment he threw out rhe word "intelligibility" I knew this was going to be a childish whinefest from a Gary Milne fluffer.
Because it is.
"Gary Milne fluffer" 😂😂😂😂
Jared keeps whining that he's "explained this # times, now," but the fact is that he keeps having the same three things explained to him more times than he thinks he's explaining other things.
By his own ruleset, he is losing and by a lot.
Like most religious apologists, Jared keeps explaining when he should be proving his claims.🤤
Presuppositionalism is the philosophical equivalent of Calvin Ball.
Presuppositionalism is the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling LALALALALALALALALA I can't hear you LALALA I'm right my OMNIBOY is real HAHAHA I win and now Darth will notice and love me and I won't feel so empty and pathetic inside anymore woo hoo!!!
"I don't know if you know much about modal logic."
I genuinely lold
Definite spit take moment 😂
Why? What's the problem with modal logic?
@@matthewphilip1977 given the number of discussions Matt has had about modal logic, it's like asking a fish of they're familiar with water.
@@magicofjafo Ah, thanks. But did the caller know that?
@@matthewphilip1977 it doesn't matter the humor comes from us knowing how much Matt knows of it and how ridiculous asking him that question sounds to us when we have knowledge of how much he knows of it.
His argument is defeated because you substitute another god, gods or non-supernatural agent with the same characteristics, and reach his identical assertion.
Problem is, they don’t argue, they just presuppose that they are right, so nothing can ever defeat that from their point of view. A different god isn’t in line with their presupposition, so it is necessarily false. It can only ever be their god because that is the starting point.
Yep. You can make the argument that Satan exists, or 10 gods exist, all using the same logic. Doesn't make them real.
Matt gave this guy too much credit in trying to have an intelligent conversation with him. He should have just used the Tinkerbell analogy and called it a day.
If I define my invisible sky daddy as necessary for existence then my sky daddy must be real because we experience existing.
Wow well done. A perfect example of how to define something in to existence 😂😂😂
Argument from Look at the Mees.
(I exist. Therefore Jehovah)
This guy's mother probably threw a block party when he finally moved out.
She may have enabled him.
What makes you think he’s moved out?
Just like the existence of his god, we have no reason to believe that
Haha! Indeed.
No fkn way he doesn't live at home
Why does Jared keep presuming the triune Christian god instead of Leith, Destroyer Of Triune Gods? Apologetics is the sorriest field of philosophy, and presuppositionalism is the sorriest form of apologetics.
Because he is a heretic, all praise leith
That's the most confusing part for me. I think he just hopes that big words will either intimidate or confuse the people listening
Agreed. Apologetics is only regarded as a valid field in "Christian" clown colleges.
The simple existence of apologetics for any given god proposition is more than enough evidence to disprove that god character's existence, or at least it's ability/desire to keep its "creation" confused, stupid and at each others' throats.
Wow, Jared's delusions make him quite arrogant.
He’s insufferable.
God is necessary because without it, nothing is possible. That's the whole nonsensical argument.
Cthulhu exists because he is defined as being extant, and having the ability to eat gods and take on their powers.
Cthulhu has eaten god, and therefore exists without contradiction.
In other words, just another stupid word game trying to define stuff into existence.
It's honestly even more arrogant than the ontological argument.
@@kentonbaird1723 Truly this caller has proven the existence of Cthulhu
Which suggests that the most parsimonious definition of God is "that without which nothing is possible". Which is very different from the various (and often contradictory) descriptions found in the Bible.
@@NovaSaber I'm pretty sure this is an ontological argument and that "the ontological argument" isn't a single argument, but a class of arguments. I think any metaphysical presuppositional argument is an ontological argument.
If my god exists, he can do anything. I just proved it exists. You don't understand logic.
Saved you from listening to this drivel.
When will apologists learn that you can't just define things into existence
Who wants YWH or any Sky Fairy. They are ALL EVIL PSYCHOS
Or word game people into believing in their god?
You drill down a layer or two - and callers nonsense reveals it self
The nonsense was right there on the surface with this one!
This entire conversation seems to be reducible to "I learned about modal logic and really want my assertions to go unquestioned."
Jared thinks he's so smart but he doesn't even understand his own argument.
He was arrogant too. Ugh
Matt was incredibly patient.
The usual presup garbage. Gets old
they really think these arguments are good
after 5 seconds of listening to him talk, i knew he was a presup. perhaps they're common. i'm not familiar with darth dawkins, although i've seen atheists discuss him. suprisingly i haven't seen any atheist takedown videos of this darth guy.
@@jimmythebold589 You ought to watch the Shannon Q vs Darth Dawkins debate. She figured out his spiel almost immediately, and then figured out his motives, and spent the rest of the time dissecting his asinine arguments.
modal logic (made up possibilities and probabilities) and arbitrary presuppositions are the last resort of desperate bible believers when they realize they can not prove anything about their belief in magic.
Good point. I find it laughable that in their attempts to prove the reality of 'god' all they're using is sophistry, rhetoric and philosophical musings. To me, it is like the last scrapings of apologetics.
💯
That was me at one point,the desperate bible believer. But at some point you have to stop fighting when your the one that's making no sense. How could we possibly know the maker of all reality when we understand so little about so little.
@@totalspoof8344 i understand. i was also indoctrinated into the 'orthodox' flavor of the judaic heresy of christianity. adopting the israelite tribal mythology as reality is absurd just as jumping to the conclusion that the universe was 'created' by a will (male with a penis no less) because ancient tribes thought so.
I lost it when he asked what "impossible" means. hahaha The amount of condescension, arrogance, and assumed "smartness" is pretty rich when they have to go to places like not knowing what the word/concept "impossible" means.
"Claiming to be agnostic"
😂😂😂😂😂
These goofball callers are ridiculous.
Matt: ten minutes of explaining why he's not agnostic about this dudes God.
"Oh I got you! You're agnostic!"
Dude is fresh off of reddit
The confidence/arrogance of their ignorance never ceases to amaze me.
Did this caller just create a new peak on the dunning-kreuger scale?
He is his own mountain of stupidity.
This caller has the same vibe as hyper-arrogant flat earthers and sovereign citizens. He has scripted responses to given questions, but doesn't understand how each response is logically inconsistent with each other. "Are you saying that if you can't demonstrate something is impossible, then it's possible?" Absolutely not. "If you can't find a contradiction in something, then it's possible?" Emphatically Yes! Lmao
It seems that they are attracted to the idea of holding special knowledge, known to only a special few and including them in an exclusive club. You can't convince them they're wrong, because that would require them leaving their special select club. It's self reinforcing, when there is any push back on their assertions, they flail and respond personal attacks or uncomfortable laughter.
Matt's patience lasted longer than mine would have. I do not suffer fools easily or for a very long duration.
It was painful.
His opening statement announced he was full of it and full of himself.
This guy just likes to smell his own farts 🤣
Everyone secretly does don't they?
It's just intellectual masturbation. These guys want to appear to be smart, so they use convoluted arguments that people don't want to engage in, then they claim a win.
But this guy does it in public, over and over again.
@@richtraube2241 And demands that everyone else should also enjoy the smell of his farts. And insists that it is illogical to not enjoy the smell of his farts
@@pointbreak8646 Hell on! Maybe white boys.
How do you know what the characteristics of god are?
"I define it as the thing with the characteristics I say it has."
Ew, how did all this pigeon crap get on my chessboard?
Defining God into existence as a last resort.
That's not what he did. The characteristics of God were laid out millenia ago.
@@matthewphilip1977 Yes, millennia ago, people had all kinds of gods, with all different characteristics. We call that mythology.
@@nmappraiser9926 Some call it mythology, some believe it. Either way, the God in question here has supernatural powers so ark maintenance etc would be child's play.
@@matthewphilip1977 As would removing sin without the need for genocide.
This guy doesn't know what a truth table is if he thinks he can prove a god with one.
Ironically enough, I had this very same argument regarding Leibniz with a philosophy professor of mine. It was a lot faster than this one because he eventually admitted that he had to define "god" that way or else the argument collapses.
Christian's hate to say I don't know.
Many children do. They don’t like not getting everything they want, like answers to all their questions.
Christians hate to say I don't know.
vs
Christians hate to say "I don't know".
Be careful there. Those are 2 different sentences with totally different meaning. And believers LOVE quote mines and trolling.
Standard unimpressive modal logic presup stuff, but the part that will make me lose sleep tonight is how smugly proud of himself he was for how well he thinks he did. It’s mind boggling and disturbing to me
Typical presup/darth dawkins' minion attitude.
He thinks he's beating "the final boss," blissfully unaware that he's not even playing the same game.
Triune was said so much it doesn’t even sound like a real word anymore.
Scuba... scuuuuba scuba scuba
Apparently.
"Listen, i just got an A in my intro to philosophy class, so i know way more than you, matt dillihunty who gets paid to do this across the country for 20 years." people crack me up
These kinds of presuppositional arguments are so exceedingly silly. They can be defeated with a simple question:
"How many gods are there?"
And the answer will inevitably be ONE (although the caller is arguing for a triune god, so perhaps the answer is both ONE and THREE simulaneously!).
Thus, your god is ontologically dependent on the number ONE.
You cannot have ONE god without ONE.
And since numbers depend on logic, it follows by transitivity that god must also necesarily require logic as a basis. QED.
Thus logic and reason are more fundamental than your god, so let's just cut out the middle man.
The entire argument fails in a really stupid manner. But what else is new?
I'm going to probably use a variant of this from now on.
That's a very good point if they are willing to grant numbers relying on logical concepts. So you might have to at least agree on that front first
@@RPGgrenade I've found that nearly all apologetic arguments fundamentally assume there is only ONE of something. It's usually wrapped up in specific words like "the" or "a", but once you see it you can never unsee it.
"THE creator of the universe" - Implying there can't be multiple creators? Prove it.
"Everything that comes into existence has A cause" - Everything has precisely ONE cause? Nope.
"Design implies A designer" - Have you forgotten about the concept of teamwork?
"THE foundation of logic and reason" - There's only one? Prove it.
Seriously, it's everywhere, and if you challenge that, the apologist is utterly flustered.
@@tan_x_dx I meant in the sense of them accepting that numbers come from logical underpinnings, and not, say, directly from god, and maybe they think logic comes from numbers or whatever.
Just saying it's possible it can be rejected for dumb reasons like that. If you've established they agree with you on that concept, you have them stuck and they'd have to admit to faulty reasoning or look foolish.
@@RPGgrenade It's irrelevant as to what a number is.
You cannot have ONE god without ONE. So where did this ONE come from?
Every time one of them tries that lame “Design implies a designer.” nonsense, I explain basic logic to them. Design doesn’t imply anything until you prove design exists.😈
Logic bros are so annoying. It's just circles and circles and they never admit that their logic is deeply flawed.
The part they miss is that if you want your logical arguments to apply to reality, you need to have at least some premises related to reality, and demonstrate that they are true. You can't define or argue real material things into existence.
Wait, wait. Jared is not Christian. Hold on. He demonstrated no virtuous kindness. Yeah. OK. Right. Um. To be clear. Modal logic. No contradiction. Wait. Basic modal logic.
When writing a story the author(s) can have the characters do whatever the author(s) decides. When there are plot inconsistencies...Apologists do not apologize.
Thank you, you nailed Jared’s annoying conversational tics
Highly recommend watching Secular Rarity and Armin Navabi's interaction with this guy on their last AE episode too. They had interacted with him before but the last call was chef's kiss on handling his condescending word salad.
They shut him down immediately, if I remember it right
.
Do you have a link. I love Secular Rarity.
It's like he didn't even understand his own argument. He really thinks he wasn't just saying, "if I can prove it's possible for my definition of god to do what I believe it can do, that means it's more probable and technically 100% true.
I’ve said it million times already. Presuppositionalism is the lowest form of argumentation. It’s the equivalent of saying “I’m right, you’re wrong…NaNaNaNaNa”
So basically “my definition of god includes the statement that he needs to exist for you to know anything.
You claim to know things, therefor god exists.”
Jared: "wait, hahaha" . Most dishonest caller yet
Playing chess with a pigeon. LOL
😮 when you think convoluting a subject matter is a debate
If we assume my God exists & does what I say it does, that proves God exists & does what I say it does. That's his second useless argument.
Maybe I’m stupid, but why can’t this argument be applied to any fictional being? Thanos or Cthulhu or Thoth?
Even if the logic works out, how does it get you anywhere near the truth of its actual existence?
Exactly! Thats precisely the question the called was dodging the entire time with his presuppositional circular logic.
Love it when matt keeps his calm and is resonably humble. Makes me think of when axp used to be good. Good clip. Thanks!
Could Spiderman give me a swing made of webs? Yes. And Spiderman got access to the Enigma Force which made him omnipotent, therefore he must exist.
I think we found the case study of Dunning-Kruger
Santa Claus, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, the great pumpkin and finally god.
Take a shot every time he says "triune christian god"
"Matt"Not to sound to extreme but Your videos and podcasts saved my life dude,I have Borderline personality disorder, the worst mental condition to live with and iv lived a suicidal life and made many attempts.This man made
Belief system was literally killing me,but you tought me basic critical thinking skills and now im loving and appreciating my new atheist life...Thank you🙏🙏🙏
Awesome! Great to hear you're doing so much better and enjoying the good things life has to offer.
So, he just DEFINED god into existence? Wow, such a new low.
"New low"? Christketeers have been trying to define their Bronze Age tyrant into existence since the early medieval period, if not earlier.
Christians have been diving to new lows every day since their cult began.
I wish you were this patient with every caller Matt. That guy deserved your rage, and instead you absolutely nailed it and didn’t get pissed.
Cuz Matt got humbled and owned. He only gets mad at people he thinks he's smarter than
Matt is so patient with this caller. He deserves a medal.
if harry potter exists, could he fly on a broom?
Well you cannot prove that he cannot.
Of course Harry Potter exists. I’ve seen train stations in London.😜
This is such an underrated comment. It underpins the absurdity of what the caller is saying perfectly.
Sure, an all-knowing being would be all-knowing. A thing is the thing it is and not the thing it is not.
But that is nothing more than a hypothetical. Until it can be demonstrated to be anything other than that, this is a pointless exercise.
"Hang on, hang on... I just read 'Modal Logic for Dummies' and ergo according to my calculations vis a vis this logic chart I just wrote up in purple crayon, I should have you over a barrel... This can't be right..."
He’s too egotistical to understand that they are asking him questions to build a structured argument using his responses. I love that Matt said, “You’re going to have to do the work in front of us.” Yeah, dude. You don’t get to just assert your goofy little word games as unimpeachable. He literally doesn’t understand his own argument, because he’s reading from a script.
Trying to apply logical certainties to a magical mythical being is about as useful as fitting a spare tire to a fishing boat.
Couldn't you just apply all that he has said to any religion as well?
Yes, his extremely bad presuppositional argument could be used to poorly attempt to justify the existence of any god, triune or not. What really gets me is how he thought he was really doing a good job. That the gentlemen he was speaking to were just stupid and didn't get his brilliant logical trap that he had set for them. Except, Matt had absolutely figured it out where he was going, and he just didn't want to admit it. I would actually be truly delighted if someone came up with a cogent logical unfalsifiable Argument for the existence of God that would be fascinating! I would like to have my worldview expanded by something new and exciting like that, but it has yet to happen.
You can apply it to a flaming unicorn....🤣🤣🤣
@@pyroblast3000 it exists. It's called Rapidash.
@@ttthecat Yeah he left that convo thinking he is a genius.
Yep. And therein lies the problem with most religious arguments. You can insert pretty much anything else into the argument and it works perfectly fine.
When I was a kid I played Dungeons and Dragons and defined a wizard who could cast spells, therefore that being exists.
What was his name? I might have run across him at a Council meeting.
@@wizardsuth Fick the Ticous. Nominated Most powerful wizard of 1984, but didn’t win. Now that I think of it, the election may have been rigged.
I've explained my irrational position several times now. You're just not listening! 🤓
I’m fed up with people trying to define something into existence.
Jared is talking out of his arse. He cannot, or will not, see the difference between his position - that a very specific god *IS* necessary - and Matt's position - that he is not convinced that *any* god exists.
Jared first has to demonstrate that god is in fact necessary, not just presuppose it and expect everyone else to accept his presupposition. Then and only then could it follow that not being convinced that a god existed becomes irrational, but *only if* the necessity extends beyond creating the universe but also applies to persisting after that point. Even then, it doesn't establish the christian god - Jared would need to demonstrate that not only is _a_ god necessary but that only the christian god fits the bill.
He was nowhere near even beginning to do this. And never will be, since it seems inconceivable that there could be any argument other than direct physical proof that could link a causation that is outwith space and time to a specific set of characteristics inside space and time, given that such an argument could also apply to almost any other random set of characteristics for such a thing. Not only is any god hypothesis _unfalsifiable_ in this sense, all god hypotheses are also _indistinguishable_ from each other.
Personally, I choose Roland.
You could insert 'bigfoot' every time this caller says 'christian god' and it wouldn't alter one thing about his argument.
Gotta love that frat boy "hoh hoh wait wait hoh"
I am surprised at how patient Matt was
Jared wasn't just asserting the necessity of a grounding for reason, he was asserting a specific grounding for reason, and was so up himself in terms of how clever he thought he was being that he completely failed to even explain what his argument actually was. As far as I could tell it was based around the following:
It is customary to take the language of modal logic to be that obtained by adding one-place operators ‘□’ for necessity and ‘◇’ for possibility to the language of classical propositional or predicate logic. Necessity and possibility are interdefinable in the presence of negation:
A is a necessity iff it is not possible for not A to be true
A is possible iff it is not a necessity for not A to be true
where iff = if and only if.
While these are self-evidently the case, and define necessity and possibility in line with the common meaning of those words, other axioms need to be added to get to actual modal logics, including S5 that Matt mentioned. It is not a trivial matter to just add axioms, since by definition they are essentially presuppositions, so *even if* modal logic led to the conclusion that god was actually a necessity - it doesn't - the reasonableness of that conclusion would still be based on the reasonableness of the additional axioms.
The modern development of modal logic has been criticized on several grounds, and some philosophers have expressed scepticism about the intelligibility of the notion of necessity that it is supposed to describe. S5 is a very expressive system, allowing for many logical deductions about possibilities and necessities. This can be useful for formalising complex philosophical reasoning, but it can also lead to counterintuitive results depending on your initial assumptions.
In particular, the extra axiom that underpins S5 (Global Barcan Formula) states that any true statement is necessarily true in every possible world. This is particularly controversial as it implies a kind of absolute truth independent of specific possibilities, and, in this particular case, this is where Jared smuggles god into his argument without actually demonstrating anything about it: he seems to be trying to argue from characteristics that he asserts that this god *must* have that god exists in every possible world and therefore exists in this one.
It's nice when you can say "this thing exists because I have defined it to exist", it avoids the need for all that inconvenient evidence stuff.
You should be a host on the show dude, that is a masterclass of an explanation. Admittedly all this convoluted presup nonsense goes over my head but now I understand. Thank you
.
What sucks is this dude thinks he just blasted yall and won and will be even more of a jackass because of the false feeling if superiority the more he thought he had a point the more manic he got
Let him think that. Let him take his "victory" back to the circle of sad sacks that care and let them get a tiny bit of goodness in their tragic life.
Caller: Thinks he's thinking SO much faster and farther than everyone else.
Also caller: Prefaces every blurt with "wait, wait, hold on".
Not interjecting while matt spoke. Matt left many reply gaps. Uncharacteristically many.
Caller was literally commanding us to change our "speed". Over and over and over.
Imagine sharing the road with another driver doing that.
You could play a recording of this caller back to himself and he’d laugh at you and say “that’s not what I’m saying”
Jared suffers from believing he is clever. I know a kid (twenties) that talks exactly like this, no matter how clearly you define his statement he laughs at you and says you got it wrong, it's a BS tactic.
Guy sounds like a db in love with his own voice.
No matter how many times he repeated himself, I never figured out what he was trying to say. It sounded like, "Are you agnostic about the triune god? Well, then, checkmate!"
I'm so tired of yet another word salad discussion using various forms of logic to try and somehow invent a god using thought and logic. Let's actually provide some actual tangible evidence as opposed to wishful thinking disguised as an intellectual argument.
"Do you understand truth tables?" 🙄
For the ten thousandth time: Being able to rationalize your superstitions is not the same thing as rational thought.
Matt hanging up on that dolt felt like a boulder being lifted off my crushed leg.
Until we have a way to investigate God we can't know it exists.
Just another condescending, holier-than-thou presup. These people aren't worth debating.
every time he says “that’s gonna be” instead of “that is” kills me inside a little bit
Surprising that Matt was able to keep his cool with such a smug caller. Well done!
caller from Kentucky, say no more