@viasevenvai yes totally... "trans women are women" is an argument that reasonable trans people like Blair White (and many others) would NOT endorse. And I've heard him BLAST people who disagree. I wonder if he'd call Blair transphobic 😅
@@viasevenvaiyes, totally. "trans women are women" is an argument that reasonable trans people like Blair White (and many others) would NOT endorse. And I've heard him BLAST people who disagree. I wonder if he'd call Blair transphobic 😅
Agreed, but we have a problem. I was an educator for many years. We are constantly reminded that we should be teaching students to think critically by parents, by the state, by administrators, and by each other. We know this and we do it. We really do. Not as universally as we should because there is a bug in the machine: magical thinking. This infects even the instructors because they are products of the bug. Magical thinking is taught to children by their parents. Every week, parents take their children (our students) to magic school, sometimes multiple times a week. Their they are told to believe things without evidence, or they are mislead with faulty evidence and falsehoods masquerading as facts disguised behind a wall of fallacies that are dismissed by "it makes sense to me," which is neither reason or critical. All of which work together to compromise the underdeveloped minds of the very children they demand we teach critical thinking to. They blame us. We are told that the education system is in a constant state of failure. So, if you want our lessons in critical thinking to stick, then stop sabotaging us at home. You're asking us to make jam with rotted fruit.
Love it. I've tried to de-jargon my language in arguments lately. I used to call out logical fallacies by name, probably just to show how much I knew, lol.
Something that I think is very important for people to understand is using logical argument does not always make you right. And using a logical fallacy doesn't guarantee you're wrong. But if you are trying to find the best possible explanation for something, without having all the facts, its best to use logical arguments, and stay away from logical fallacies. Just understand, you still may be wrong in your conclusions and you should always continue to seek the best possible explanations, until that explanation is indistinguishable from fact.
I'm not saying that I'm not a intelligent person because I know I am in certain fields, matt is very good at explaining things in a clear and concise manner, and a excellent debater, and knows what it takes to hold his own when he's challenged on his propositions, the point I want to make is if you can be a bright and sharp minded individual like matt and myself that alone can help you make better decisions in life that can contribute to making the world a better place for those around you, the more your in touch with yourself is the better you can understand morals and make those decisions that will distress others around you less, many folks don't seem to put enough emphasis into the fact that mentality is the key and master as to how your life quality can be affected, I"m also aware that many folks that are bright and sharp also use that to try and destroy communities around them and that then spreads to worldwide conflicts, look at individuals that become world leaders and those that work in the pharmaceutical industry they take what they know and help to cause confusion and chaos and suffering for many, 90 percent of time in the name of money, wherever you look in this world people are always going to be exploiting each other and taking advantage in whatever way they can, its been happening from the beginning of time and I don't see no end to it, just as much as people murder others around the world on a minute by minute basis that's the hard cold reality, the og pac rapped "some things will never change" regardless of that I still remain positive in my life and remain optimistic about the future even though I might be fooling myself like "chemical Ali" I just roll up that zoot and carry on, im sure I've wrote things down here that if folks read it they will dismiss it as foolish or whatever but at least Ive expressed myself and my opinions right or wrong and I try and keep a open mind to seek out different views that I can take onboard from other comments.
I really appreciate and respect Matt’s knowledge and insight in this format, and in his debates. I can no longer bear when he’s a host on a show, because his behaviour there is so arrogant and insufferable, especially compared to how he is here. And that sucks, because it was by listening to Matt as a host on AXP that I really learned so much about logic and skepticism, and secular humanism. I don’t feel that I’d learn those things by listening to him as a host now.
Matt, I'm super poor but please know how appreciated you and Arden are. And kudos for you two 'getting' each other. She's a beautiful woman and you're a neat couple. 👍🏼🌊💙💙💙🌊🥰✌🏼
Doubt it. Many times atheists view themselves as winning, as do the apologists. You are often just talking past each other. You are obsessed with for and they are often obsessed with soundness. You need balance between the 2 to make a connection. All men have religion. Ypu worship yourself, the world or God/ gods. There is no way around it. ( for example if you appeal to science you are elevating your own understanding of science to God status within your psyche) be aware or it will be chosen for you.
It might also be helpful to discuss propositions and the type of sentences that have truth value. Validity and soundness hinge on using sentences that have truth value. It might seem intuitive, but it probably isn’t clear to anyone who is unfamiliar with arguments that using something like a question in an argument is not valid.
So, that's what makes believers rational? 1. God is immortal. (Believers agree on this.) 2. Jesus is God. (Believers agree on this.) 3. Therefore Jesus is immortal. However, on the other hand: 1. All humans are mortal. 2. Jesus was a human. 3. Therefore Jesus was mortal. So, now we have a contradiction... Jesus was both a human and God... Is it rational to believe that a contradiction like this can be true in reality? If not, then believers are irrational...
Could just as easily add more contradictions with something such as, God is immortal Allah is God Allah is immortal. Now both Jesus and Allah are immortal, and any number of these so called and labeled "immortal Gods" can be added until there is and endless stream of immortal beings. That's where believers logic leads.
I can't speak for all Christians, but the majority most probably will point out that your first arguments is invalid, due to oversimplifying their view and disagreement with your definitions and that your second argument is not sound. For example someone affirming the trinity would probably reject the idea agreeing with you on the meaning of 'is' in your second premise ("2. Jesus is God") and would argue that sharing one immortal essence, doesn't neccessarily make Jesus' human body immortal. Another example is that Someone who believes that the risen Jesus has a glorified human body, would reject the first premise of your second argument, though they probably would agree with you, that at some point in time Jesus was mortal.
@@derwolf7810 But souls or spirits whatever you want to call, can die? What's an immortal soul/spirit in that view? What it changes from a normal soul/spirit?
Triune math never adds up, but then again the Christian Abrahamic god Jesus tale is a Frankensteinian spirit/human post hoc cobbled together mashup of several cultural special pleadings when it comes to numbers over millennia.
I've used my experience as a computer programmer and education in mathematics to help with learning philosophical arguments. For example if then types of branching statements in code made it easier to understand the structures of arguments.
You are describing one of the barriers to learning i.e. "the misunderstood term" people have trouble listening because they kind of get stuck on the misunderstood term.
Such an impetus of changing people's minds and debating. My advice, don't debate with people, don't feed the trolls. Find your own peace and own your own brand of life.
Belief/disbelief based deductions strike again. Atheist have thrown the baby out with the bath water. Atheists need anatheism. Alan Watts philosophy of atheism in the name of "God" makes great sense. That's the only way back to oceanic feeling. A person has to be a complete disconnected psychopathic/sociopathic moron to be an atheist in this entangled/connected universe that follows mathematical laws. Explain the hard problem of consciousness. Explain math without mind/consciousness. You can't. Most people feel that connection to others, nature, and the universe expressed as a "God" concept. Psychopaths and sociopaths are disconnected and are most likely atheists. History is full of psychopaths that have led religious people to commit atrocities while only portraying a belief in the connection. Intelligent people understand that sentient consciousness doesn't come from a cold dead mechanical lifeless universe. Believing that sentient consciousness arises from a cold dead mechanical lifeless universe is similar to believing that a dust devil can go through an automobile junkyard and assemble a helicopter. Life doesn't come from non-life.
Could you add a link to the 256 (512) types of arguments? I haven't yet finished listening to this - just at the 9 minute mark - but if you wanted to simplify things even more, you could have simply said that logical arguments are just ways of reasoning and thinking things through. So you could have used examples like 1. dogs don't fly 2. Socrates doesn't fly 3. therefore Socrates is a dog. And stressed that most people can recognize when they hear things that don't make sense. OK, video is now over and yes you really have over complicated things. Also to tie into the current hype, you could have mentioned that AI (Artificial Intelligence) is very bad at basic reasoning processes and does not even come close to the understanding that a 6 year old child has. (Example: ask an AI how many r's are in strawberry, or if it is safe to wash a frying pan that you used yesterday to fry an egg.)
So I know The Elliot Arguement is an example of a valid in structure syllogism but the content/claims aren't true statements. I call those types of syllogisms, sillygisms.
Thanks for taking the time to read and write a reply Matt. I am sure I can relate to that perverted sense of love you gave up on. I have met many over-the-top Christian hypocrites too. But honestly, you remind me of my friends and family that I love. So I'm quite sincere. I'm from secular Europe where atheism is the norm, so over here, I stand out and I'm the village fool so to speak :p But since you hope for an evidence-based argument I would love to hear your thoughts on the following: In my opinion, the human neural network with all of its capabilities is the pinnacle of the observable universe, from a naturalistic point of view it took the laws of physics 13.7 billion years to evolve an intelligent consciousness capable of building the large hadron collider and the Pantheon in Rome. I'm sure we can agree that the universe exists and that it's fair to say we simply can't know what caused the universe. Since I'm keeping the naturalistic point of view I assume unknown physics are roaming behind the horizon. Since we both agree that physics can produce intelligent consciousness over 13.7 billion years, it's fair to assume that unknown physics also produced intelligent consciousness over an infinite "timescale" that dwarfs our 13.7 billion years to a futile microscopic level. Do you believe that the human intelligent consciousness is the first to arise?
You're almost there. And yes, truth exists, but it requires a component that's never been discussed... So! What are your rules to keep a debate productive and not just noisy? We're getting there ^__^
We don't have to find a spot on Earth where the sun doesn't set to prove the Earth isn't flat; we just have to ask why the sun doesn't rise or set at the exact same time wherever on Earth you make the observation of it. Anyone opposing should answer two questions: what is the speed of light and what is the diameter of the Earth's disc.
Belief/disbelief is philosophical suicide. Belief/disbelief based deductions end with belief/disbelief based organizations in the control system taking advantage. Belief/disbelief is psychological pathogen mind control, a destroyer of logic, knowledge, and freedom. In a broad sense, philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other. The philosophy of search for truth is the study of reality, which seeks to understand the nature of truth and the ways to discover it. The Standard Conception of Philosophy, philosophy as it is understood and practiced, is and has been generally considered to be the search for truth. Thinking like a philosopher involves thinking critically about alternative possibilities. Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline in the search for truth. Logic is a branch of philosophy that is based on certain fundamental principles like the law of identity, the law of excluded middle, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of sufficient reason. Fundamentally, philosophy is the search for truth. Our best route to truth is the scientific method. Scientific method was born from philosophy and logic, and is intertwined with philosophy and logic. Four goals and three major steps of the scientific method is: Description, explanation, prediction, and control through observation, experimentation, and peer review. In science, engineering, and physics, we use conceptual mathematical/geometrical representation to help describe, explain, predict, and control physical presences. Logistical order is: 1) Philosophy 2) Logic 3) Scientific method 4) Hypothesis 5) Theory 6) Axioms 7) Fact, empirically correct truth. Belief has great power, just look at something like the Placebo effect. The flip side of the coin is, the only barrier to truth is believing you already have it, or that truth is unobtainable. Belief/disbelief has absolutely no credence in the scientific method. A belief can be true or false, it’s an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists, even if it's contrary to the scientific method. A hypothesis has indication of truth that is not known to be true; a hypothesis is a justified belief that is backed up with some supporting evidence of the scientific method having at least observation. A theory in science is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method. A theory is a substantiated explanation for an occurrence that has come to a peer reviewed conclusion; a judgment or decision reached by scientific method with consistent repeatable observations/experiments. A theory still may not be empirically correct; a fact is empirically correct truth. Hypothesis and theory are search for factual truth through the scientific method. The only barriers to truth is believing you already have it, or that truth is unobtainable. Thinking stops were believing/disbelieving begins. There is no reason to believe/disbelieve. We can choose to be reasonable people, or unreasonable people. We don't have to believe/disbelieve in anything, believing/disbelieving is philosophical suicide. When we know something, it's not belief, hypothesis, or theory; it is fact, an empirically correct truth. Belief/disbelief based organizations have agendas in the control system. In that sense belief/disbelief is psychological pathogen mind control. EVIDENCE (1) whether the evidence has been subject to scientific testing and, if so, what methodology was used; (2) whether the evidence has been reviewed by peers or a scientific publication; (3)what is the known potential rate of error; (4) is the evidence generally accepted in the scientific community.
There's a problem with inferring that if premises are true then conclusions will be true, because premises can all be true but the conclusion is still false, an example is research papers that rely on re-expressing numbers found in research to fit the conclusion.
@TheLightlock Not necessarily the case, I can say: 1) 1+1 = 2 2)Elephants are the biggest sized animals From 1,2: The earth is shaped like a dual headed elephant. Premises were real, the conclusion is false, and it's unclear how the structure here is something that caused the false conclusion. I personally think that in this example it's incorrect because the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion although the premises are valid, but this demonstrates that the validity of premises don't ensure any validity of conclusions, and that's why using this as a logic framework isn't faultproof and definitely can set one up for problems
@@yousef446555 it's extremely obvious how the structure is invalid, there are elements within the conclusion that aren't contained within the premises AND the conclusion doesn't contain anything from the first premise. also I'm sure you're using "valid" colloquially when you said "validity of premises" but premises aren't valid and neither are conclusions, validity is a quality of the entire syllogism
Scientists can be susceptible to logical fallacies, such as affirming the consequent. This is when someone argues that if A is true, then X is observed, and then concludes that A must be true because X is observed. It's barbaric that most of our neurologists believe that the brain produces consciousness. This is a logical fallacy that most of society is operating from. That and the logical fallacy of the vacuum of space is nothingness. I think it's these two logical fallacies that are the biggest problem in our crisis in consciousness. OXFORD LANGUAGES Consciousness: 1) the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. 2) the awareness or perception of something by a person. Enlightenment is a high level of consciousness. How you answer these three questions reflects your level of consciousness, awareness, state of consciousness. What are you? What is life about? Where is consciousness? I would be happy to share my best answers. If we are fortunate, we wake up from the delusions of the three fundamental categories of BS (belief/disbelief systems) of theist, atheist, and agnostic to the Maya illusion, and discover that we are "God" as much as any concept of in the universe. This universe is connected in a fashion (entanglement) that if there is "God" in it, we are that also. Co-creating heaven on earth is what's at stake. Namaste. In Lak'ech Ala K'in. Tathata. Shivoham. Ashe. Tatvamasi.
I hate how often it happens that I use some Reductio Ad Absurdum, and then the other person complains about me using a strawman because they disagree with the conclusion. When that happens in the future, I might recommend them to this video so they understand what a Reductio ad Absurdum is. Also, a small suggestion: I mathematics, we call it a "proof by contradiction" (i.e. "Assuming P leads to a contradiction, so P is false"), and calling it that avoids confusing people with Latin.
to the best of my knowledge, there is no math principle known as 'acoids', and 'Assuming P leads to a contradiction, so X is false' doesn't even make sense. however, I am open-minded and would kindly ask you to explain what you meant by that.
@@v.a.n.e. Sorry, those were from my phone keyboard. It's difficult to keep the whole comment edited in a good state when the app only lets me see a small part
Does anybody know if Matt has done a video where he suggests books on philosophy? I would love to get into philosophy to be a good debater, but I'm lost.
I recommend Marianne Talbots book Critical Reasoning For Beginners. Something you should know, but learning logic from philosophy will not make you good at debating alone. You will have to become well versed in the topic, in general, even learning about miscellaneous things related to the topic to become proficient, that you debate with an interlocutor, at least to a well informed amount.
I don’t like debates. They are a competition, a performance for an audience that for the most part is there to cheer for their team and won’t change their mind regardless. I think that if you really want to get good at debating (besides mastering the basics of philosophy, logical fallacies and the specific of the topic)you must look for books and manuals on how to perform effectively to the public. I think already the ancient Greeks had hammered down the principles of being persuasive public speakers: ethos pathos logos, etc. Besides books you should search UA-cam: it’s a huge repository of resources for learning stuff if you just put some effort in searching for it. I have found whole Yale university courses uploaded on it and there’s more and more scholars and experts in all fields putting out content. Even reddit can help. I am not there but a subreddit on philosophy and/or debating is probably a good place to ask for tips and guidance or books advice. Last bit of advice: watch good debates. Before practicing yourself, studying how the masters do it can be extremely instructive. Hope this helps. Good luck and may Hermes bless and guide you ;)👍
The definition of validity I've learnt from a logic book was: an argument is valid if and only if there is no logically possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false. What do you think?
Does anyone have a technique they can recommend for remembering which word goes with which definition? I understand the concept of soundness and the concept of validity, but I am always mixing the two words up in my head.
As a musician "sound is true" helps me :-D Validity refers only to the logical structure. - Argument is valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises - Argument is sound only if it's valid and _all premises are true_ i.e. align with reality Example of an argument that's valid but not sound: P1: Cats are mammals (true) P2: Dogs are cats (untrue) Conclusion: Dogs are mammals (true) All sound arguments are valid, but not all valid arguments are sound.
Probably I should watch this again and give learning this stuff a second try. I took an introductory class in philosophy years ago where they taught these basics. The problem is that my brain refuses to make the effort. Like pouring water on an impermeable surface. It does not get absorbed. That’s because I don’t see the point of wasting memory space when dumb arguments like the ontological argument still have currency after having been debunked for a thousand years. My sense of logic and reason revolts against a system that defines purely theoretical “validity” and “soundness” and fails to require evidence. Sorry for the rant, “me” problem.
I have an adversarial relationship with math. It is very useful so I use it. The discovery of rational/irrational numbers was done by lunatics!!!😪🤪😜 I won't ever forgive them.
What a sad life, very illogical. life is very short, and you spend it on ZEUS, UNICORN, and flying dancing spaghetti monster, very very illogical. Getting older, Matt, very precious commodity, time, is getting shorter. It is appointed for man once to die and then judgment.
Oh he's done for. It's going to be horrific. The terrible thing is his stupidity is all so obvious eg arguing for science logic and reason despite believing our cognitive facilities are products of an undirected blind evolutionary process! Aristotle, leibniz, Cantor, Godel all theists.
The best analogy to explain an infinite God interacting with a finite and isolated creation is that of a computer scientist booting up a simulation that computes an entire virtual world with autonomous AI agents in a split second. It's a bit messy but I don't have the time to write down my thoughts into more comprehensible language. So bear with me. Of course, a computer scientist does not compare to God because God is both the scientist, energy, and processor simultaneously. An interesting question to ask on the side is how the AI would perceive their creation. On the fundamental level, they are just binary code, energy popping in and out of existence, and they cannot comprehend the physical world outside of their hardware. For the sake of the argument let's assume the scientist has superpowers and that he has access to all the data at once and has all the time in the world to interact with the program to achieve his goal. The scientist can interact inside the simulation by altering certain events so that the program instantly computes the altered reality. The AI would have to interact with every change along the route while the scientist maintains all knowledge because he keeps a constant overview. God acting as the conscious processor would be able to reroute switches inside the processor that immediately rewrite the altered reality, leaving us utterly clueless about the changes that are being made because each of us runs our separate pipeline, our perception of time is useful to God as He interacts with our actions before the playhead of time reaches to this exact moment. The simulation would look like a complex tree, branching off by actions taken by autonomous agents, with God being able to reroute and cut off branches, that immediately reroute into other branches and paths. When God achieves His ultimate goal the playhead of time runs through the tree and we perceive what has transpired. Both our own and God's actions. God is the Life: the program itself. God is the Truth: every recorded interaction in the tree that reached His goal. God is the Way: He is the source of energy running through and altereing the branches that we should follow.
'Logical Beginnings' - i completely agree , everything starts from that ..but you atheists got your logical beginnings wrong , that's what i was thinking watching many of your atheists videos ... The correct logical beginning is (imo) : - 'intelligent creator' is logically superior explanation than 'unthinking process' . - your assumptions about the beginning of everything can not be proven in the same way like you state that God can not be proven - why then you are so adamant that there is no God (creator) when the opposite equally could be true ? - is it logical to offend a creator that have 50% probability to exist ? - is it logical to gamble your future when there is 1 in 2 chances you could be wrong ?
Your first premise is unproven (how is an intelligent creator necessarily superior?) Your first question is unfounded (how do you know the odds are 50/50?) Back to the drawing board.
@@MisterG2323 'Back to the drawing board.' - Yes for you . If you can not see the logic in this 'math' then you can not progress to the next level . - intelligent creator is superior logical explanation by reason of comparison : everything that we do is created by intelligent process , machines and structures we build are designed like the organic machines are : these machines need to work in order and harmony and need to be maintained by something or it would all fall apart ,....there is no logic to believe something supports all that 'unthinking natural process' by itself , for no reason , why does it push or care about survival of the fittest ? - this makes no sense to accept such process to be 'unthinking' - ...if you can't see logic in that then you will not progress in proper understanding of God . Things like :who is God , why he does things seemingly immoral etc . should not be on your mind until you can understand and accept the basics of intelligent design . 'how do you know the odds are 50/50' - actually given the superior logic of intelligent design the odds for God is even higher imo 70/30 (for me at least) , for the unbelievers though : since neither us nor you have definite proofs there are equal chances imo ...(and that should make you more careful with your tough stance against God ....) .
@@bobrob6629 Your assertions hold no water without evidence. Your personal incredulity regarding the natural processes of evolution is likewise insufficient for the existence of a creator, and btw these processes do not "care" about survival of the fittest. They are processes, not conscious agents. Claiming that special knowledge is necessary to then understand further assertions that have no evidence is not a logical answer unless the intention is to conceal flaws in the initial assertion.
@@MisterG2323 You don't have any special knowledge regarding the beginning of life either yet you atheists dismiss one of the possibilities like it can not be possibile . 'and btw these processes do not "care" about survival of the fittest' - this apparently 'unthinking process' if not care than it definitely push for natural selection , why ? why the life want to survive so much? .... your explanation that it's just random occurrence is less logical than a creator designing this process . In fact in makes no sense that something pushes evolution for no reason at all , and builds organic machines ...and imbue in them the survival instinct .
How can this guy be talking about logical arguments when callers get "F*CK YOU!" yelled at them when he doesn't want to actual discuss his points of view.
Well, I think you'd have to explain what an anatomical man actually is first. Then I wonder, if someone came up with the perfect argument, would you consider it true.
@@allthingsconsideredaa >"...you'd have to explain what an anatomical man actually is..."< Sidestep. >"... if someone came up with the perfect argument, would you consider it true."< Empty assertion.
@@allthingsconsideredaa >"right you don't even know what an anatomical man is."< Ironic, since it is you casting the doubt. >"A question isn't an assertion."< Okay. Empty question lacking a question mark.
@@ponyboygarfunkel1675 yeah whatever bud. We both don't know what an anatomical man is, and a logical argument wouldn't change your mind anyway. Got it.
Why do you believe it’s so morally wrong to simply question your dogma (Wokism as we atheists including Dawkins call it) but when you criticize other peoples culture and religion it’s ok? How isn’t this a double standard? Just asking the question gets nasty remarks towards me.
Why should anyone care what dawkins has to say? Who are you to presume to speak for all atheists? Why are you using the term "Wokism" like a religious superstitionist? And finally, why are you spamming that silly nonsense?
I appreciate your lectures on logic. I believe they provide genuine fun for all of your followers-except when you are blatantly wrong, of course. my objection is directed at 0:10:17, when you incorrectly referred to ''reductio ad absurdum' (RAA) as a type of argument and even provided an incorrect explanation for it. ' RAA is a method of disputing or supporting other arguments. to disprove or establish the initial claim, you must bring the negation of the conclusion, rather than the mere assumption of its veracity, to the point of absurdity. in this way, you prove that the opposite of the initial claim is inaccurate, irrational, or nonsensical, implying that the initial claim is the only one true.
He's not using it incorrectly. You can do it either way. e.g: the Problem of Evil is a reductio because it assumes God exists is a 'true' premise (for reductio) to ultimately conclude the opposite: that God doesn't exist. i.e. you get a contradictory conclusion - showing the initial premise is not true.
@@christaylor6574 well, I already mentioned that I am aware of RAA is a method of refuting/supporting claims, that is, depending on what you want to achieve. so, I do not consider RAA an argument in itself, but a method of proving/disproving claims. did you follow his RAA example? it is actually a ChatGPT's example, for which, of course, both, Matt and ChatGPT, interpreted incorrectly. how will you reduce a statement, following his instructions @10:18 to absurdity? let's say the claim is 'god exists' that you want to disprove. how will you put it into a valid syllogistic structure?
These types of nuts and bolts videos about the basics are always my favorite.
I'm a simple man, I see a video with Matt, I click
Reward Matt with clicks and likes when it’s an argument for Atheism or Debate or Logic. I avoid the trans stuff and his TDS.
@viasevenvai yes totally... "trans women are women" is an argument that reasonable trans people like Blair White (and many others) would NOT endorse. And I've heard him BLAST people who disagree. I wonder if he'd call Blair transphobic 😅
@@viasevenvaiyes, totally. "trans women are women" is an argument that reasonable trans people like Blair White (and many others) would NOT endorse. And I've heard him BLAST people who disagree. I wonder if he'd call Blair transphobic 😅
Same
That approach doesn't seem very logical....
This is core educational material that every child should have learned by the time they enter high school at the latest.
I very much agree.
Unfortunately, there's enough money in selling obvious fallacies to buy pretty much all the politicians on the planet .
I went to a Catholic school so that was a NO for me. It's a good thing learning carries on and I enjoy playing catch-up.
Agreed, but we have a problem. I was an educator for many years. We are constantly reminded that we should be teaching students to think critically by parents, by the state, by administrators, and by each other. We know this and we do it. We really do. Not as universally as we should because there is a bug in the machine: magical thinking. This infects even the instructors because they are products of the bug.
Magical thinking is taught to children by their parents. Every week, parents take their children (our students) to magic school, sometimes multiple times a week. Their they are told to believe things without evidence, or they are mislead with faulty evidence and falsehoods masquerading as facts disguised behind a wall of fallacies that are dismissed by "it makes sense to me," which is neither reason or critical. All of which work together to compromise the underdeveloped minds of the very children they demand we teach critical thinking to.
They blame us. We are told that the education system is in a constant state of failure. So, if you want our lessons in critical thinking to stick, then stop sabotaging us at home.
You're asking us to make jam with rotted fruit.
Love it. I've tried to de-jargon my language in arguments lately. I used to call out logical fallacies by name, probably just to show how much I knew, lol.
Revisiting basics can never be fruitless, IMO
This is the series I've been waiting for. I would love to see a foundations series on skepticism and humanism, as well.
Something that I think is very important for people to understand is using logical argument does not always make you right. And using a logical fallacy doesn't guarantee you're wrong. But if you are trying to find the best possible explanation for something, without having all the facts, its best to use logical arguments, and stay away from logical fallacies. Just understand, you still may be wrong in your conclusions and you should always continue to seek the best possible explanations, until that explanation is indistinguishable from fact.
I'm not saying that I'm not a intelligent person because I know I am in certain fields, matt is very good at explaining things in a clear and concise manner, and a excellent debater, and knows what it takes to hold his own when he's challenged on his propositions, the point I want to make is if you can be a bright and sharp minded individual like matt and myself that alone can help you make better decisions in life that can contribute to making the world a better place for those around you, the more your in touch with yourself is the better you can understand morals and make those decisions that will distress others around you less, many folks don't seem to put enough emphasis into the fact that mentality is the key and master as to how your life quality can be affected, I"m also aware that many folks that are bright and sharp also use that to try and destroy communities around them and that then spreads to worldwide conflicts, look at individuals that become world leaders and those that work in the pharmaceutical industry they take what they know and help to cause confusion and chaos and suffering for many, 90 percent of time in the name of money, wherever you look in this world people are always going to be exploiting each other and taking advantage in whatever way they can, its been happening from the beginning of time and I don't see no end to it, just as much as people murder others around the world on a minute by minute basis that's the hard cold reality, the og pac rapped "some things will never change" regardless of that I still remain positive in my life and remain optimistic about the future even though I might be fooling myself like "chemical Ali" I just roll up that zoot and carry on, im sure I've wrote things down here that if folks read it they will dismiss it as foolish or whatever but at least Ive expressed myself and my opinions right or wrong and I try and keep a open mind to seek out different views that I can take onboard from other comments.
Really pleased to have this series. Quite a good move to have these videos to be able to be able to point people to.
Thanks for teaching and sharing Matt! This is very helpful, and follows what you hold people to in other content.
These foundational videos are priceless! Thank you, Professor Dillahunty!
But you gotta belieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeve, look at the treeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees!
😂 Love it!
Great topic, thanks👾
Excellent, thanks. Clear & thought-provoking (for a know-nothing like me).
Looking forward to The Final Experiment. TY
Nice beard wizard man.
It's not enough to counter the turtle wax dome. I had to break out the sunglasses.😅
finally, this is what I need.
I really appreciate and respect Matt’s knowledge and insight in this format, and in his debates.
I can no longer bear when he’s a host on a show, because his behaviour there is so arrogant and insufferable, especially compared to how he is here.
And that sucks, because it was by listening to Matt as a host on AXP that I really learned so much about logic and skepticism, and secular humanism.
I don’t feel that I’d learn those things by listening to him as a host now.
Ooh.... this kinda stuff has great value to be put out there; and I'm glad you did!
Please continue! :)
#mattisawesome
LOL
Matt, I'm super poor but please know how appreciated you and Arden are. And kudos for you two 'getting' each other. She's a beautiful woman and you're a neat couple. 👍🏼🌊💙💙💙🌊🥰✌🏼
Thank you! I have been constructing a google doc as a personal project to help my understanding of logic. Took plenty of notes lol, I appreciate it.
this format works for me
I can put any Prostilitizer Apologist in checkmate in 1-3 moves by using the Dillahunty methods. I never tire of it 😁
Doubt it. Many times atheists view themselves as winning, as do the apologists. You are often just talking past each other. You are obsessed with for and they are often obsessed with soundness. You need balance between the 2 to make a connection. All men have religion. Ypu worship yourself, the world or God/ gods. There is no way around it. ( for example if you appeal to science you are elevating your own understanding of science to God status within your psyche) be aware or it will be chosen for you.
@@natedizzy4939 Opinion noted, rejected, and dismissed.
@@Trumpulator Appropriately savage response to claims lacking evidence
So good, thanks so much for doing this
Great, thanks.
Great video, Matt. 👍🏼
Thanks Matt. ❤
It might also be helpful to discuss propositions and the type of sentences that have truth value. Validity and soundness hinge on using sentences that have truth value. It might seem intuitive, but it probably isn’t clear to anyone who is unfamiliar with arguments that using something like a question in an argument is not valid.
So, that's what makes believers rational?
1. God is immortal. (Believers agree on this.)
2. Jesus is God. (Believers agree on this.)
3. Therefore Jesus is immortal.
However, on the other hand:
1. All humans are mortal.
2. Jesus was a human.
3. Therefore Jesus was mortal.
So, now we have a contradiction...
Jesus was both a human and God...
Is it rational to believe that a contradiction like this can be true in reality?
If not, then believers are irrational...
Schrödingers Jesus.
Could just as easily add more contradictions with something such as,
God is immortal
Allah is God
Allah is immortal.
Now both Jesus and Allah are immortal, and any number of these so called and labeled "immortal Gods" can be added
until there is and endless stream of immortal beings.
That's where believers logic leads.
I can't speak for all Christians, but the majority most probably will point out that your first arguments is invalid, due to oversimplifying their view and disagreement with your definitions and that your second argument is not sound.
For example someone affirming the trinity would probably reject the idea agreeing with you on the meaning of 'is' in your second premise ("2. Jesus is God") and would argue that sharing one immortal essence, doesn't neccessarily make Jesus' human body immortal.
Another example is that Someone who believes that the risen Jesus has a glorified human body, would reject the first premise of your second argument, though they probably would agree with you, that at some point in time Jesus was mortal.
@@derwolf7810 But souls or spirits whatever you want to call, can die? What's an immortal soul/spirit in that view? What it changes from a normal soul/spirit?
Triune math never adds up, but then again the Christian Abrahamic god Jesus tale is a Frankensteinian spirit/human post hoc cobbled together mashup of several cultural special pleadings when it comes to numbers over millennia.
I've used my experience as a computer programmer and education in mathematics to help with learning philosophical arguments. For example if then types of branching statements in code made it easier to understand the structures of arguments.
Your the true godfather of atheism
Top 3 definitely. Christopher Hitchens is still #1
@@NegotiableHemingway ill never argue that one
You are describing one of the barriers to learning i.e. "the misunderstood term" people have trouble listening because they kind of get stuck on the misunderstood term.
Such an impetus of changing people's minds and debating. My advice, don't debate with people, don't feed the trolls. Find your own peace and own your own brand of life.
People are wiser because of you. :)
Belief/disbelief based deductions strike again. Atheist have thrown the baby out with the bath water. Atheists need anatheism. Alan Watts philosophy of atheism in the name of "God" makes great sense. That's the only way back to oceanic feeling. A person has to be a complete disconnected psychopathic/sociopathic moron to be an atheist in this entangled/connected universe that follows mathematical laws. Explain the hard problem of consciousness. Explain math without mind/consciousness. You can't. Most people feel that connection to others, nature, and the universe expressed as a "God" concept. Psychopaths and sociopaths are disconnected and are most likely atheists. History is full of psychopaths that have led religious people to commit atrocities while only portraying a belief in the connection. Intelligent people understand that sentient consciousness doesn't come from a cold dead mechanical lifeless universe. Believing that sentient consciousness arises from a cold dead mechanical lifeless universe is similar to believing that a dust devil can go through an automobile junkyard and assemble a helicopter. Life doesn't come from non-life.
I hope Matt publishes a book someday
Logic IS a math credit plain and simple.
Thank you.
Uncomplicated argumentative simplicity: "You lyin'! Prove it!" 🤣
like the old programmer slogan : 'Garbage In, Garbage Out" or GIGO
Thank you Matt.
Could you add a link to the 256 (512) types of arguments?
I haven't yet finished listening to this - just at the 9 minute mark - but if you wanted to simplify things even more, you could have simply said that logical arguments are just ways of reasoning and thinking things through. So you could have used examples like 1. dogs don't fly 2. Socrates doesn't fly 3. therefore Socrates is a dog. And stressed that most people can recognize when they hear things that don't make sense.
OK, video is now over and yes you really have over complicated things.
Also to tie into the current hype, you could have mentioned that AI (Artificial Intelligence) is very bad at basic reasoning processes and does not even come close to the understanding that a 6 year old child has. (Example: ask an AI how many r's are in strawberry, or if it is safe to wash a frying pan that you used yesterday to fry an egg.)
If you search Wikipedia for "List of valid argument forms" you can get a good jumping off point.
Finally
Would like to talk to a screener about being on a live call. Tim said it might be that I am ready for interview stage
So I know The Elliot Arguement is an example of a valid in structure syllogism but the content/claims aren't true statements. I call those types of syllogisms, sillygisms.
Thanks for taking the time to read and write a reply Matt.
I am sure I can relate to that perverted sense of love you gave up on. I have met many over-the-top Christian hypocrites too. But honestly, you remind me of my friends and family that I love. So I'm quite sincere.
I'm from secular Europe where atheism is the norm, so over here, I stand out and I'm the village fool so to speak :p
But since you hope for an evidence-based argument I would love to hear your thoughts on the following:
In my opinion, the human neural network with all of its capabilities is the pinnacle of the observable universe, from a naturalistic point of view it took the laws of physics 13.7 billion years to evolve an intelligent consciousness capable of building the large hadron collider and the Pantheon in Rome.
I'm sure we can agree that the universe exists and that it's fair to say we simply can't know what caused the universe. Since I'm keeping the naturalistic point of view I assume unknown physics are roaming behind the horizon.
Since we both agree that physics can produce intelligent consciousness over 13.7 billion years, it's fair to assume that unknown physics also produced intelligent consciousness over an infinite "timescale" that dwarfs our 13.7 billion years to a futile microscopic level. Do you believe that the human intelligent consciousness is the first to arise?
First 🎉 oh yeah those were awesome those drive along vids.
how come this clip was just released 5 minutes ago and your comment has an 11 day date? 😮
@adidelapatru1466 bc I'm on the patreon so I got it early.
@@MoiraB853 thanks for the reply. have a great day
You're almost there. And yes, truth exists, but it requires a component that's never been discussed... So! What are your rules to keep a debate productive and not just noisy? We're getting there ^__^
We don't have to find a spot on Earth where the sun doesn't set to prove the Earth isn't flat; we just have to ask why the sun doesn't rise or set at the exact same time wherever on Earth you make the observation of it. Anyone opposing should answer two questions: what is the speed of light and what is the diameter of the Earth's disc.
@@patriklindholm7576 you've missed the point. They don't accept your argument... so we found one they would accept.
@@SansDeity I understand but it's a fun question to ask.
Belief/disbelief is philosophical suicide. Belief/disbelief based deductions end with belief/disbelief based organizations in the control system taking advantage. Belief/disbelief is psychological pathogen mind control, a destroyer of logic, knowledge, and freedom.
In a broad sense, philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other. The philosophy of search for truth is the study of reality, which seeks to understand the nature of truth and the ways to discover it. The Standard Conception of Philosophy, philosophy as it is understood and practiced, is and has been generally considered to be the search for truth. Thinking like a philosopher involves thinking critically about alternative possibilities. Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline in the search for truth. Logic is a branch of philosophy that is based on certain fundamental principles like the law of identity, the law of excluded middle, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of sufficient reason. Fundamentally, philosophy is the search for truth. Our best route to truth is the scientific method. Scientific method was born from philosophy and logic, and is intertwined with philosophy and logic. Four goals and three major steps of the scientific method is: Description, explanation, prediction, and control through observation, experimentation, and peer review. In science, engineering, and physics, we use conceptual mathematical/geometrical representation to help describe, explain, predict, and control physical presences.
Logistical order is:
1) Philosophy
2) Logic
3) Scientific method
4) Hypothesis
5) Theory
6) Axioms
7) Fact, empirically correct truth.
Belief has great power, just look at something like the Placebo effect. The flip side of the coin is, the only barrier to truth is believing you already have it, or that truth is unobtainable. Belief/disbelief has absolutely no credence in the scientific method. A belief can be true or false, it’s an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists, even if it's contrary to the scientific method. A hypothesis has indication of truth that is not known to be true; a hypothesis is a justified belief that is backed up with some supporting evidence of the scientific method having at least observation. A theory in science is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method. A theory is a substantiated explanation for an occurrence that has come to a peer reviewed conclusion; a judgment or decision reached by scientific method with consistent repeatable observations/experiments. A theory still may not be empirically correct; a fact is empirically correct truth. Hypothesis and theory are search for factual truth through the scientific method. The only barriers to truth is believing you already have it, or that truth is unobtainable. Thinking stops were believing/disbelieving begins. There is no reason to believe/disbelieve. We can choose to be reasonable people, or unreasonable people. We don't have to believe/disbelieve in anything, believing/disbelieving is philosophical suicide. When we know something, it's not belief, hypothesis, or theory; it is fact, an empirically correct truth. Belief/disbelief based organizations have agendas in the control system. In that sense belief/disbelief is psychological pathogen mind control.
EVIDENCE
(1) whether the evidence has been subject to scientific testing and, if so, what methodology was used; (2) whether the evidence has been reviewed by peers or a scientific publication; (3)what is the known potential rate of error; (4) is the evidence generally accepted in the scientific community.
👍
There's a problem with inferring that if premises are true then conclusions will be true, because premises can all be true but the conclusion is still false, an example is research papers that rely on re-expressing numbers found in research to fit the conclusion.
It's sad that politics interferes with the scientific method 😕
if the premises are true but the conclusion is false then it was invalid in structure
@TheLightlock Not necessarily the case, I can say:
1) 1+1 = 2
2)Elephants are the biggest sized animals
From 1,2:
The earth is shaped like a dual headed elephant.
Premises were real, the conclusion is false, and it's unclear how the structure here is something that caused the false conclusion.
I personally think that in this example it's incorrect because the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion although the premises are valid, but this demonstrates that the validity of premises don't ensure any validity of conclusions, and that's why using this as a logic framework isn't faultproof and definitely can set one up for problems
@@yousef446555 it's extremely obvious how the structure is invalid, there are elements within the conclusion that aren't contained within the premises AND the conclusion doesn't contain anything from the first premise. also I'm sure you're using "valid" colloquially when you said "validity of premises" but premises aren't valid and neither are conclusions, validity is a quality of the entire syllogism
Scientists can be susceptible to logical fallacies, such as affirming the consequent. This is when someone argues that if A is true, then X is observed, and then concludes that A must be true because X is observed. It's barbaric that most of our neurologists believe that the brain produces consciousness. This is a logical fallacy that most of society is operating from. That and the logical fallacy of the vacuum of space is nothingness. I think it's these two logical fallacies that are the biggest problem in our crisis in consciousness.
OXFORD LANGUAGES
Consciousness: 1) the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. 2) the awareness or perception of something by a person.
Enlightenment is a high level of consciousness. How you answer these three questions reflects your level of consciousness, awareness, state of consciousness.
What are you?
What is life about?
Where is consciousness?
I would be happy to share my best answers. If we are fortunate, we wake up from the delusions of the three fundamental categories of BS (belief/disbelief systems) of theist, atheist, and agnostic to the Maya illusion, and discover that we are "God" as much as any concept of in the universe. This universe is connected in a fashion (entanglement) that if there is "God" in it, we are that also. Co-creating heaven on earth is what's at stake.
Namaste. In Lak'ech Ala K'in. Tathata. Shivoham. Ashe. Tatvamasi.
The binary excites my inner programmer.
Or my outer programmer since that is my job?
I have looked into the set theory, but couldn't understand all of it. Is it necessary to understand it for the next video about logic?
I hate how often it happens that I use some Reductio Ad Absurdum, and then the other person complains about me using a strawman because they disagree with the conclusion. When that happens in the future, I might recommend them to this video so they understand what a Reductio ad Absurdum is.
Also, a small suggestion: I mathematics, we call it a "proof by contradiction" (i.e. "Assuming P leads to a contradiction, so P is false"), and calling it that avoids confusing people with Latin.
to the best of my knowledge, there is no math principle known as 'acoids', and 'Assuming P leads to a contradiction, so X is false' doesn't even make sense. however, I am open-minded and would kindly ask you to explain what you meant by that.
@@v.a.n.e. Sorry, those were from my phone keyboard. It's difficult to keep the whole comment edited in a good state when the app only lets me see a small part
@@kappasphere ah, I see! thanks for the clarification!
Does anybody know if Matt has done a video where he suggests books on philosophy? I would love to get into philosophy to be a good debater, but I'm lost.
I recommend Marianne Talbots book Critical Reasoning For Beginners. Something you should know, but learning logic from philosophy will not make you good at debating alone. You will have to become well versed in the topic, in general, even learning about miscellaneous things related to the topic to become proficient, that you debate with an interlocutor, at least to a well informed amount.
I don’t like debates. They are a competition, a performance for an audience that for the most part is there to cheer for their team and won’t change their mind regardless.
I think that if you really want to get good at debating (besides mastering the basics of philosophy, logical fallacies and the specific of the topic)you must look for books and manuals on how to perform effectively to the public. I think already the ancient Greeks had hammered down the principles of being persuasive public speakers: ethos pathos logos, etc.
Besides books you should search UA-cam: it’s a huge repository of resources for learning stuff if you just put some effort in searching for it. I have found whole Yale university courses uploaded on it and there’s more and more scholars and experts in all fields putting out content.
Even reddit can help. I am not there but a subreddit on philosophy and/or debating is probably a good place to ask for tips and guidance or books advice.
Last bit of advice: watch good debates. Before practicing yourself, studying how the masters do it can be extremely instructive.
Hope this helps. Good luck and may Hermes bless and guide you ;)👍
How long would it take Alex O’Connor (Cosmic Skeptic) to get that beard?
Just fyi, Matt is probably aware, but syllogism is just one type of logical argument
The definition of validity I've learnt from a logic book was: an argument is valid if and only if there is no logically possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false. What do you think?
Matt is the reincarnation of Randi.
Does anyone have a technique they can recommend for remembering which word goes with which definition? I understand the concept of soundness and the concept of validity, but I am always mixing the two words up in my head.
As a musician "sound is true" helps me :-D Validity refers only to the logical structure.
- Argument is valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises
- Argument is sound only if it's valid and _all premises are true_ i.e. align with reality
Example of an argument that's valid but not sound:
P1: Cats are mammals (true)
P2: Dogs are cats (untrue)
Conclusion: Dogs are mammals (true)
All sound arguments are valid, but not all valid arguments are sound.
Probably I should watch this again and give learning this stuff a second try.
I took an introductory class in philosophy years ago where they taught these basics. The problem is that my brain refuses to make the effort. Like pouring water on an impermeable surface. It does not get absorbed.
That’s because I don’t see the point of wasting memory space when dumb arguments like the ontological argument still have currency after having been debunked for a thousand years. My sense of logic and reason revolts against a system that defines purely theoretical “validity” and “soundness” and fails to require evidence.
Sorry for the rant, “me” problem.
Criticizes Dawkins for saying go look it up - 3 minutes later at 4:00 says "go look it up". OK.
@@davidcoverdale722 lol
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Socrates is a mortal
Put that on a t-shirt and I'll buy it
Of course Christians would argue all men are not mortal. All those biblical folks who never died
I have an adversarial relationship with math. It is very useful so I use it. The discovery of rational/irrational numbers was done by lunatics!!!😪🤪😜 I won't ever forgive them.
What is an example of an invalid argument?
All men are mortal
My cat is not a man
Therefore my cat is immortal
What a sad life, very illogical. life is very short, and you spend it on ZEUS, UNICORN, and flying dancing spaghetti monster, very very illogical. Getting older, Matt, very precious commodity, time, is getting shorter. It is appointed for man once to die and then judgment.
Oh he's done for. It's going to be horrific. The terrible thing is his stupidity is all so obvious eg arguing for science logic and reason despite believing our cognitive facilities are products of an undirected blind evolutionary process! Aristotle, leibniz, Cantor, Godel all theists.
The best analogy to explain an infinite God interacting with a finite and isolated creation is that of a computer scientist booting up a simulation that computes an entire virtual world with autonomous AI agents in a split second. It's a bit messy but I don't have the time to write down my thoughts into more comprehensible language. So bear with me.
Of course, a computer scientist does not compare to God because God is both the scientist, energy, and processor simultaneously.
An interesting question to ask on the side is how the AI would perceive their creation. On the fundamental level, they are just binary code, energy popping in and out of existence, and they cannot comprehend the physical world outside of their hardware.
For the sake of the argument let's assume the scientist has superpowers and that he has access to all the data at once and has all the time in the world to interact with the program to achieve his goal. The scientist can interact inside the simulation by altering certain events so that the program instantly computes the altered reality. The AI would have to interact with every change along the route while the scientist maintains all knowledge because he keeps a constant overview.
God acting as the conscious processor would be able to reroute switches inside the processor that immediately rewrite the altered reality, leaving us utterly clueless about the changes that are being made because each of us runs our separate pipeline, our perception of time is useful to God as He interacts with our actions before the playhead of time reaches to this exact moment.
The simulation would look like a complex tree, branching off by actions taken by autonomous agents, with God being able to reroute and cut off branches, that immediately reroute into other branches and paths. When God achieves His ultimate goal the playhead of time runs through the tree and we perceive what has transpired. Both our own and God's actions.
God is the Life: the program itself.
God is the Truth: every recorded interaction in the tree that reached His goal.
God is the Way: He is the source of energy running through and altereing the branches that we should follow.
'Logical Beginnings' - i completely agree , everything starts from that ..but you atheists got your logical beginnings wrong , that's what i was thinking watching many of your atheists videos ...
The correct logical beginning is (imo) :
- 'intelligent creator' is logically superior explanation than 'unthinking process' .
- your assumptions about the beginning of everything can not be proven in the same way like you state that God can not be proven
- why then you are so adamant that there is no God (creator) when the opposite equally could be true ?
- is it logical to offend a creator that have 50% probability to exist ?
- is it logical to gamble your future when there is 1 in 2 chances you could be wrong ?
Your first premise is unproven (how is an intelligent creator necessarily superior?)
Your first question is unfounded (how do you know the odds are 50/50?)
Back to the drawing board.
This can be distilled to Pascal's Wager, and fails for the same reasons Pascal's Wager fails.
@@MisterG2323 'Back to the drawing board.' - Yes for you . If you can not see the logic in this 'math' then you can not progress to the next level .
- intelligent creator is superior logical explanation by reason of comparison : everything that we do is created by intelligent process , machines and structures we build are designed like the organic machines are : these machines need to work in order and harmony and need to be maintained by something or it would all fall apart ,....there is no logic to believe something supports all that 'unthinking natural process' by itself , for no reason , why does it push or care about survival of the fittest ? - this makes no sense to accept such process to be 'unthinking' - ...if you can't see logic in that then you will not progress in proper understanding of God .
Things like :who is God , why he does things seemingly immoral etc . should not be on your mind until you can understand and accept the basics of intelligent design .
'how do you know the odds are 50/50' - actually given the superior logic of intelligent design the odds for God is even higher imo 70/30 (for me at least) , for the unbelievers though : since neither us nor you have definite proofs there are equal chances imo ...(and that should make you more careful with your tough stance against God ....) .
@@bobrob6629 Your assertions hold no water without evidence. Your personal incredulity regarding the natural processes of evolution is likewise insufficient for the existence of a creator, and btw these processes do not "care" about survival of the fittest. They are processes, not conscious agents.
Claiming that special knowledge is necessary to then understand further assertions that have no evidence is not a logical answer unless the intention is to conceal flaws in the initial assertion.
@@MisterG2323 You don't have any special knowledge regarding the beginning of life either yet you atheists dismiss one of the possibilities like it can not be possibile .
'and btw these processes do not "care" about survival of the fittest'
- this apparently 'unthinking process' if not care than it definitely push for natural selection , why ? why the life want to survive so much? .... your explanation that it's just random occurrence is less logical than a creator designing this process . In fact in makes no sense that something pushes evolution for no reason at all , and builds organic machines ...and imbue in them the survival instinct .
How can this guy be talking about logical arguments when callers get "F*CK YOU!" yelled at them when he doesn't want to actual discuss his points of view.
@@labamba3011 because one thing has nothing to do with the other... and isn't true. But thanks for playing!
Ad hominem. Boring
I would like to hear a valid and sound argument for the notion that an anatomical man should sometimes be considered a woman.
Well, I think you'd have to explain what an anatomical man actually is first. Then I wonder, if someone came up with the perfect argument, would you consider it true.
@@allthingsconsideredaa >"...you'd have to explain what an anatomical man actually is..."< Sidestep.
>"... if someone came up with the perfect argument, would you consider it true."< Empty assertion.
@@ponyboygarfunkel1675 lol right you don't even know what an anatomical man is. A question isn't an assertion.
@@allthingsconsideredaa >"right you don't even know what an anatomical man is."< Ironic, since it is you casting the doubt.
>"A question isn't an assertion."< Okay. Empty question lacking a question mark.
@@ponyboygarfunkel1675 yeah whatever bud. We both don't know what an anatomical man is, and a logical argument wouldn't change your mind anyway. Got it.
Why do you believe it’s so morally wrong to simply question your dogma (Wokism as we atheists including Dawkins call it) but when you criticize other peoples culture and religion it’s ok?
How isn’t this a double standard?
Just asking the question gets nasty remarks towards me.
Because by referring to progressive social views as "dogma" and "wokism" you reveal yourself to be a reactionary idiot arguing in bad faith.
Why should anyone care what dawkins has to say? Who are you to presume to speak for all atheists? Why are you using the term "Wokism" like a religious superstitionist? And finally, why are you spamming that silly nonsense?
I appreciate your lectures on logic. I believe they provide genuine fun for all of your followers-except when you are blatantly wrong, of course. my objection is directed at 0:10:17, when you incorrectly referred to ''reductio ad absurdum' (RAA) as a type of argument and even provided an incorrect explanation for it. '
RAA is a method of disputing or supporting other arguments. to disprove or establish the initial claim, you must bring the negation of the conclusion, rather than the mere assumption of its veracity, to the point of absurdity. in this way, you prove that the opposite of the initial claim is inaccurate, irrational, or nonsensical, implying that the initial claim is the only one true.
He's not using it incorrectly. You can do it either way. e.g: the Problem of Evil is a reductio because it assumes God exists is a 'true' premise (for reductio) to ultimately conclude the opposite: that God doesn't exist. i.e. you get a contradictory conclusion - showing the initial premise is not true.
@@christaylor6574 well, I already mentioned that I am aware of RAA is a method of refuting/supporting claims, that is, depending on what you want to achieve. so, I do not consider RAA an argument in itself, but a method of proving/disproving claims.
did you follow his RAA example? it is actually a ChatGPT's example, for which, of course, both, Matt and ChatGPT, interpreted incorrectly.
how will you reduce a statement, following his instructions @10:18 to absurdity? let's say the claim is 'god exists' that you want to disprove. how will you put it into a valid syllogistic structure?
Has anything evolved this week? Any nubs? Any half and half animals? No? Then I'm a skeptic.
What? 😄