In this clip, Pmars gives us a great example as to why Darth Dawkins almost never engages with anyone's questions and why he has to work so hard to limit their ability to speak.
the problem with presup is, you need revelation to know that it's truly god giving you revelation. they should all ask for their money back. you might as well stick your fingers in your ears and go nya! nya! nya! to "prove god".
Revelation is no solution. No christian can ever be sure that his revelation is real. It could easily be a mental episode. Also... why wouldn't the devil be able to imitate revelations.
@@andreasplosky8516 The problem with revelation is that Christians do not have a way to evaluate if it is revelation from God or not. Even low bar Bill said that he will presuppose that the revelation comes from God, and when he was asked how he would evaluate that, his answer was: "I'm not interested in epistemology."
People still believe in god? It's basically just Santa Claus for adults. All religions start as a cult. The only difference between a religion and a cult is the amount of followers it has. Did you know that after Jesus did his 'sermon on the mount' he ended it with "please like and subscribe if you want more content like this" lmao😆
You can make statements about the universe, even if it is not intelligible. We might be mistaken about its intelligibility, Like Newton was basically wrong about gravity.
Yeah, but, when Newton put forth the idea that there must be a mechanism of attractive force, almost like a tether, if you will, that must be the cause of the "action at a distance", it actually made sense of the observations and brand spanking new calculations that could be used to predict an object's movement. It was, in fact, intelligible. It just turned out to be that he was asking the wrong questions when he posited possible solutions.
@@Petticca My point was, Newton is still very usable in all kinds of situations, and very "intelligible" to us. Nevertheless, he's wrong. So, what we today perceive as an intelligible universe might be nothing more than a rather laughable simplistic and faulty human system that we superimpose over a reality that will turn out to be fundamentally unintelligible to us. I am not saying this IS the case, but that it could be.
The term "revelation" ought to be excluded from philosophical discourse. It's nonsensical, akin to claiming knowledge without any form of justification. It represents a baseless method of reasoning.
@25:20 Well, this was a new argument for me. The argument from: Using the word "holistically" to equivocate between the whole of the systems that go into gaining knowledge, and, the method humans use, from birth, to gain knowledge, within that system. Which as anyone will tell you, is by gaining little 'bricks' of knowledge, and using them to build up charming little abstract libraries, that we eventually begin to systematically place little encyclopedias of understanding, and a collection of misremembered-facts and factual misunderstanding tomes, and the last two we always place where they can be found and be referenced really easily... because most of us aren't even librarians, ya know. Anyway. Wtf. I know presups believe their words are magical and can manifest new realities into existence, but I've not heard one try using that word before.
Bro can you tell me the name of guy who is taking the position of building knowledge block by block. I don't know his name is there a UA-cam channel of his
@Breakfasttacos Yes, I know. My wtf snark was purely for the guy attempting to argue from the position of the words are magical. As he appeared, to me, to be very confident that if he kept saying it needed to be holistically, then atheists who point out the reality of how we build up knowledge block by block, would be defeated.
PMars resurfaces after many failed attempts to troll the internet in various guises. I'd have expected him to melt into the vinyl of the chaep office chair in his mom's basement by now.
Wow. If they have a definition of Christian-bot somewhere PMars's avatar picture should be next to it. He's in complete denial of the naturalistic truth that has been revealed to us through personal and special revelation and it broke his brain
if you're smart and I'm dumb, the universe can be intelligible to you and unintelligible to me at the same time, thus making intelligibility not an objective property of the universe. so the whole schtick about "if the universe is unitelligible..." meaningless. right?
I’ve always understood intelligibility to mean “can be understood,” not necessarily “is understood.” So if even one person can make sense of things, then it’s considered intelligible. Of course with that definition, an unintelligible world seems definitionally impossible, which means intelligibility is not contingent and does not indicate a god.
Because there is no other world view to begin with other than athiesim. All other world views reduced to absurdity when they try to make claim other than athiesim.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE “ATHEIST WORLDVIEW”. 🙄 Only a dishonest or stupid person would make that statement. Atheism is only one single position on a single issue. It is not a philosophy, not an ideology, not ANYTHING other than “I am not convinced by claims made about the existence of a god or gods”. I can assure you, MY “worldview” is different from most of the atheists on Reddit, or the major Atheist UA-cam channels creators. So knock this “atheist worldview” crap off.
In this clip, Pmars gives us a great example as to why Darth Dawkins almost never engages with anyone's questions and why he has to work so hard to limit their ability to speak.
Absolutely!
Pmars "My script says I'm supposed to say I'm not reading a script."
I mean it is super obvious he is reading directly from his Bahsnen books
PMars isn't even arguing, just poorly reading a script he doesn't even understand without listening.
100% correct.
the problem with presup is, you need revelation to know that it's truly god giving you revelation. they should all ask for their money back. you might as well stick your fingers in your ears and go nya! nya! nya! to "prove god".
Very true!
Revelation is no solution. No christian can ever be sure that his revelation is real. It could easily be a mental episode. Also... why wouldn't the devil be able to imitate revelations.
@@andreasplosky8516 The problem with revelation is that Christians do not have a way to evaluate if it is revelation from God or not. Even low bar Bill said that he will presuppose that the revelation comes from God, and when he was asked how he would evaluate that, his answer was: "I'm not interested in epistemology."
@@ataho2000 I fully agree.
Why is it that not all Xians get the same “revelation?” 🙄
People still believe in god?
It's basically just Santa Claus for adults.
All religions start as a cult.
The only difference between a religion and a cult is the amount of followers it has.
Did you know that after Jesus did his 'sermon on the mount' he ended it with
"please like and subscribe if you want more content like this" lmao😆
Unfortunately.
And he ended his death on the cross with *_"brb...lol"._*
Presups in debates are so funny
Yes they are! It's a comedy routine.
You can make statements about the universe, even if it is not intelligible. We might be mistaken about its intelligibility, Like Newton was basically wrong about gravity.
Fair
Yeah, but, when Newton put forth the idea that there must be a mechanism of attractive force, almost like a tether, if you will, that must be the cause of the "action at a distance", it actually made sense of the observations and brand spanking new calculations that could be used to predict an object's movement. It was, in fact, intelligible.
It just turned out to be that he was asking the wrong questions when he posited possible solutions.
@@Petticca My point was, Newton is still very usable in all kinds of situations, and very "intelligible" to us. Nevertheless, he's wrong.
So, what we today perceive as an intelligible universe might be nothing more than a rather laughable simplistic and faulty human system that we superimpose over a reality that will turn out to be fundamentally unintelligible to us.
I am not saying this IS the case, but that it could be.
@@andreasplosky8516
No, Newton was not WRONG about gravity. It's more correct to say that he was not completely right, only mostly right.
Josie almost makes him rethink his position. That’s why he lashes out
What is the name of guy after 25:00 destroying there bullshit.
Janie I believe-
@@realBreakfasttacos Does it have a UA-cam channel?
@@noexception9598 I'm not sure.
The term "revelation" ought to be excluded from philosophical discourse. It's nonsensical, akin to claiming knowledge without any form of justification. It represents a baseless method of reasoning.
Right! It is theological generally.
@25:20
Well, this was a new argument for me. The argument from:
Using the word "holistically" to equivocate between the whole of the systems that go into gaining knowledge, and, the method humans use, from birth, to gain knowledge, within that system.
Which as anyone will tell you, is by gaining little 'bricks' of knowledge, and using them to build up charming little abstract libraries, that we eventually begin to systematically place little encyclopedias of understanding, and a collection of misremembered-facts and factual misunderstanding tomes, and the last two we always place where they can be found and be referenced really easily... because most of us aren't even librarians, ya know.
Anyway. Wtf. I know presups believe their words are magical and can manifest new realities into existence, but I've not heard one try using that word before.
Bro can you tell me the name of guy who is taking the position of building knowledge block by block. I don't know his name is there a UA-cam channel of his
Yeah...
I mean that's kind of what JTB is.
@Breakfasttacos
Yes, I know.
My wtf snark was purely for the guy attempting to argue from the position of the words are magical.
As he appeared, to me, to be very confident that if he kept saying it needed to be holistically, then atheists who point out the reality of how we build up knowledge block by block, would be defeated.
@@Petticca Lol yeah
PMars resurfaces after many failed attempts to troll the internet in various guises. I'd have expected him to melt into the vinyl of the chaep office chair in his mom's basement by now.
He probably has already tbh
Wow. If they have a definition of Christian-bot somewhere PMars's avatar picture should be next to it. He's in complete denial of the naturalistic truth that has been revealed to us through personal and special revelation and it broke his brain
Make a Pmars AI Chatbot.
Word
Salad
Bad
For 🧠s
LOL
if you're smart and I'm dumb, the universe can be intelligible to you and unintelligible to me at the same time, thus making intelligibility not an objective property of the universe.
so the whole schtick about "if the universe is unitelligible..." meaningless.
right?
Very good point!
I’ve always understood intelligibility to mean “can be understood,” not necessarily “is understood.” So if even one person can make sense of things, then it’s considered intelligible.
Of course with that definition, an unintelligible world seems definitionally impossible, which means intelligibility is not contingent and does not indicate a god.
So, what exactly is the argument for certainty within the atheist worldview?
Because there is no other world view to begin with other than athiesim. All other world views reduced to absurdity when they try to make claim other than athiesim.
Are you asking how does an atheist get out of solipsism?
@@noexception9598 What do you mean?
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE “ATHEIST WORLDVIEW”.
🙄 Only a dishonest or stupid person would make that statement.
Atheism is only one single position on a single issue. It is not a philosophy, not an ideology, not ANYTHING other than “I am not convinced by claims made about the existence of a god or gods”.
I can assure you, MY “worldview” is different from most of the atheists on Reddit, or the major Atheist UA-cam channels creators.
So knock this “atheist worldview” crap off.
Most atheists will tell you they lack belief in a god due to the lack of evidence
They aren't saying there 100% isn't a god.
You need god to believe *2 x 2 = 4?*
According to christian presuppers.
Of course. So if you believe 2 x 2 = 4 then it means you believe in god, as an "atheist" you are just in denial. /s
You need the christian god to believe 3 = 1.
@@RuniqFrost LOL
Pmars instantiates the R in etard
LOL
Do you guys get paid for this?
How tolerate 5 minutes listening to all of that? xD
Unfortunately not :(.