Lol! Truly devastating argument! Everything is the same, coz everything exist in physical reality. Brilliant! Can we use same logic for "supernatural"? God is your soul, and your soul is Buddah, and Buddah is Mother Nature and Cosmic Providence, and enlightenment, and ghosts and elves. Coz they all supernatural. I love it! So, from now on we all know - green is an apple, like an umbrella, and Buddah is a ghost of Jesus Claus.
@@MadebyJimbob to steel man something, it should have at least some iron in it, for the start. Your slop have only unrecognizable soup. And you can see it, after I apply your way of thinking and constructing argument to your side. Reversing the target.Ridiculous isn't it? Stupid and insulting to your intelligence, right? Your video is the same, just wrapped in pseudo intellectual language, and not so rude.
@@MadebyJimbob did you actually call me a goblin, but delete my comment for calling your video a slop and insult to intelligence, or it was a UA-cam filters, and you not so bad as I think you are?
I'm here because of the response video by Logicked. You have mentioned three things; propositions (which have the property of being either true or false), blades of grass, and tornadoes (which do not have the property of being true or false). Proposition's (e.g. the statement "God exists") can be true or false. Blades of grass and tornadoes cannot be true or false. They have different kinds of properties.
That simply reasserts the thing in question. You’ve not presented anything other than special pleading about one specific kind of effect of physics which is unlike every other effect of physics. “They have different kind of properties” doesn’t tell us anything, trees have different properties of thoughts, and….? Claiming different properties doesn’t give us an explanation for how an effect of physics can be true or false.
@@MadebyJimbob According to Merriam Webster a proposition is "an expression in language or signs of something that can be believed, doubted, or denied or is either true or false". There it is, in the definition. I don't think it's fallacious to recognize that different kinds of things have different kinds of properties. An assertion is a kind of communication, and also a kind of thought. Yes, all communications and thoughts are effects of physics. So are blades of grass and tornadoes. So is light. So is flight. So is electrical current. It's no more special pleading to assert that a blade of grass does not have truth value, than it is to assert that flight doesn't have voltage, or that light does not have flavour, or that a proposition does not have mass.
What I learned from this video: If an afternoon cannot be more or less yellow than an argument, then a banana cannot be more or less yellow than a grape. Because apparently everything that arises from physical processes has to be able to be described using all the same adjectives.
You should have learned this: If propositions are objects in the world which are caused by physical laws, then propositions are referents. If you can follow that, perhaps you can honesty confront the consequences
This is just a category error. Ive even seen you admit in some of the comments that it is a category error, although you add on some extra waffle which just reads as being dishonest instead of just making a mistake
@@MadebyJimbob Wow, you came back to this after 5 months?! Look, you've convinced me, literally everything with a naturalistic explanation is expressed by either grass or tornados. Neither tornadoes or grass rust, so rusting must be supernatural. Neither tornadoes or grass do nuclear fusion, so the sun is supernatural. Very handy rubric you've got there, with zero conceivable flaws.
@@lordsrednuas>accuses someone of making a category error in their argument >presents a counter argument that is itself a category error not even addressing the argument itself Are atheists even trying anymore?
@@lordsrednuas “I have nothing I can point at to disprove this, so I’ll just call it dumb and feel good about myself” Great rhetoric, bro. When you have anything of substance to present, we’ll be here. Bring your old church.
Thank you for the enlightening video. It has taught me the valuable lesson that religious apologetics has sunk to hundreds of people actively confusing each other with the most disrespectful parody of philosophy, logic, and basic syntax. Until none of those 3 make any sense any more, presumably so their contorted pretzel of religious dogma doesn't look quite as bad in comparison. Is the audience's thirst for confirmation bias really strong enough to gobble this tripe up? Multiple people already referenced him, but Logicked really did explain the problems with this video excellently.
It's so weird how theists can't imagine that physics and chemistry, i.e. the stuff made out of pure, vibrating energy which are supposedly DESIGNED by God, somehow can't possibly be how brains work. For some reason God has to have a second, completely different system OTHER than the one made out of pure energy, because that's not magical enough for you.
Physics and chemistry is just our attempts to understand the world. If and when we observe something beyond the phenomena of the standard model of physics, we'll get to work trying to explain it. Maybe the mind/brain works by some principles beyond our current understanding. If these principles are detectable, then we'll attempt to explain them, and eventually the "soultrinos" or whatever will be added to our textbooks and they'll just be a natural, physical phenomena like all the other natural, physical phenomena. I doubt there's a soul, but if there is one, why would we ever call it "immaterial," other than as a way to avoid understanding it?
@@SpaveFrostKing My point was that our current understanding of the universe is already incredibly magical. Our BEST understanding of the universe to date is that everything that exists, even the basest mud on the ground, is made of nothing but vibrating energy. But instead of celebrating the beauty of that and trying to understand it more fully, they feel the need to denigrate it and claim there's something else going on. It's weird, but also telling. The men who created the gods they are drawing their worldview from didn't know that the universe was vibrating energy, so they can't acknowledge the true beauty of the universe otherwise they're admitting the gods they believe in weren't actually real enough to understand the universe they supposedly created.
@@while_coyoteOh don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just adding that even if there's somehow more "magic" out there (which to me seems likely - I'm sure in 2000 years our current understanding of physics will seem laughably naive), it's still fundamentally natural phenomena, and we'll never need to fall back onto the supernatural to justify our experiences of the world.
@@SpaveFrostKing Oh, in that case you're absolutely right. In fact, if gods were ever to be discovered as real, they wouldn't be supernatural, they'd still just be natural, and there would be laws a rules that define and govern them just like everything else in the natural universe. Even infinity has limits.
Yes, if naturalism is true then all your descions are the result of a chemically determined process. Which means you dont have free will. If you have no free will then knowledge is impossible. If knowledge is impossible then you're claims are meaningless. You would have to give a justification for free will that is consistent with your world view. That is the challange. Adress it.
Okay, how do I explain this in a way you can understand? How about this: A blade of grass and a tornado are not magnetic. That means the effects of physics cannot be magnetic. And since effects of physics can't be magnetic, and magnets are magnetic, that must mean magnets cannot be an effect of physics. Do you see anything wrong with that assessment?
Magnetism is still within the laws of physics. Different medium. Still bound by physical laws. A magnet can only produce effects consistent with magnetism.
You have done nothing to show that truth and falsehood are not consistent with the laws of physics. You just gave two examples of things that don't have the property of being true or false and concluded that therefore no effect of physics can have these properties. As I demonstrated, it is entirely possible for one effect of physics to have properties that another effect of physics doesn't have, so it's going to take more than that to demonstrate that the property of being true or false is somehow not within the laws of physics.
ah this jimbob guy, he invited me to his stream and kept calling me boy and kid the entire time we spoke, he pitched my voice so i sound younger and kept using sound boards so no one can hear what i say, when i confronted him about how he does not understand science there for his cartoon does not understand science and that i am a physicist it and thats not how we view cause and effect, he asked me '' how do i know that his cartoon was trying to sound scientific ? '' i pointed out how he was holding a book of darwin and tried to speak from a scientific paradigm '' so he muted me and called me names while saying '' you see the atheist thinks this is a scientist because he is holding a book '' and no one is on his stream over a 100 people pointed out how that is BS, it blew my mind the level of dishonesty he is going for and no one called him on it, i will never forget it, and he still rubs it in my face every time i comment under his videos
ahhh, so this is why he doesn't respond to refutations and just begs people to call into his livestreams - another comment characterised it as "call in to his livestream to debate him" and i pointed out debates are just theatre. That was neither, that's just mockery. wow jimbob is scummier than I'd expected
Yep, not only is he an idiot, but he is totally dishonest. And yes, this is his schtick. He goads people into calling his livestream so he can control the conversation. I pointed out the clear affirming the consequent fallacy at the base of his argument in this video and he is clearly not equipped to deal with the objection, so he resorts to name calling and continually demanding that I call into his show.
It's been a month since the Logicked video. And now there's even a response from Prophet of Zod. We're still waiting on your well detailed response of the first one. No use taunting people into debates when we clearly see how flawed your arguments are.
@@Baccanaso Again. No use debating when even laymen can see how flawed these arguments are. It's the same reason why there's not many serious debates on the flatness of earth these days. The only outcome of such a debate would be giving such flaws/arguers a false sense of significance in the eyes of unfortunately gullible laymen. The real question should be, Why won't he just post a simple response video ? Edit: TMM has just posted a response video too. And the best I've seen from Jimbob is him spazzing out over a clip of PoZ. And based on how mature he is in his "livestream debates", what is Jimbob if not Diet-DarthDawkins. Religion needs more Jimbobs.
@@Baccanaso online debating is pointless and doesnt do anything. Its essentially challenging someone to a fight like you're in middle school. People like this narcissist know this, and that's why they only want to engage through in-person debates. Its easier to manipulate stupid people with rhetoric in a debate
Correct, that is where his dishonesty kicks in, he can't prove his BS religion so he has to weaponize philosophy and give us a word salad commentary about how the Natural World works.
When you refuse to accept the proof, it's kind of pointless. Read Romans 1 and when you reject it, there is nothing left to say to you really. It's really that simple.
"hey guys, look how easily I can knock over this straw man! I even paid an animator to illustrate my imaginary opponent in the worst possible way!" Okay so take two propositions, one, everything is determined by the physical laws of the universe, the other position, everything is determined by a magical anthropomorphic immortal who dwells outside of space and time. One of those things is inherently more reasonable.
@MadebyJimbob You did strawman. Your animation depicted atheists as what? In love with debators and scientists? As if Christians do not have any heros? I would assume the joke wotht he lotion and tissue was a joke about masturbation? What are you 7 years old? It either depicts atheists weak or it is a sad attempt to equate atheists to Christians because you losers do have heroes, most of them are fictional. You losers do masturbait, no matter how much you wanna pretend you don't. Finally you losers cling to a book, though unlike atheists you never read the book you cling to.
@@MadebyJimbobFight or flight. If free will was true then why are some people hardwired to flight? I know someone if given the chance to freely choose would rather try to talk their way out of a given situation yet thier natural response is to flee, avoid at all costs. As further people give off tells, facial expressions or body movements that give away their current predicament. Given free will wouldn't everyone have the choice to not do this and not have to be actively fighting against it? You explain a Tornado or blade of grass is physics yet how does that equate to the chemical response of the brain? The blade of grass versus the tornado one can not be true while the other false, one is not more true or more false than the other. You then point out how your own comment does not make sense. I already see the common mistake of people like you. Ignoring the point that the truth value of a god is somehow not dependent on actual evidence but instead based on your perceived evidence, or that which you will claim is evidence. Whether that be by ignoring the fact their is not truth to your evidence or ignoring other evidence which is true. Here we go with the word games.... trying to equate that because a thought is an effect of physics that it is not a proposition so it can not be true nor false. Why is it always like this with you people? Wouldn't it then be the same for you? Isn't your thoughts about God also just be physics therefore it is neither true nor false? All this bs is ignoring the facts that thoughts happen therefore a thought is true, the thought itself is true not what the thought is about. "I typed words" here they all are so me typing this is true. "Apples are invisible" is more words I typed the idea expressed is not true but the fact I typed words is true.... and it's all physics. Why do you people feel the need to try to over complicate shit in a sad attempt to prove your God is real or at the very least that Atheism is somehow an incorrect reply to a question you have zero evidence for? You do not seem to have any idea what you are talking about when asking if a proposition is physics, when proposition is a thing that is either true or false. A proposition is not a description of an effect. It is odd you would chose this wording. I mean I know you are doing so as a shit attempt at a false dichotomy, but it goes to show that you are just playing word games and are not interested in am actual discussion. Yes brain activity is based on physics. This does not make activity in the brain and less true or more true than it already is. All this bs to evade the fact your God as no real definition, no properties that can be evaluated, nor any real evidence so instead you make this long winded winding thought process to evade your short comings in an attempt to make the atheists seem to have greater short comings. Which is why your cartoonist depiction of an Atheist is this weak look, unkempt person clinging desperately to a book you think is the Atheist bible. The only part of that depiction that is true is the fact Atheidt cling to evidence, whereas religious people cling to faith. Faith is by definition a belief in a thing without evidence and in spite of evidence that contradicts the belief. The funniest part so far is how easily your bs can be shoved right back at you and pointed that this makes your belief in god less true than you claim it is. But that is probably the lesser outcome you are hoping for, a shit sad attempt to drag atheism down to your faith based belief and then you can claim to have more faith thereby your beliefs is stronger and more true. Which is a handful of fallacies in and of itself. All this new bs is not even part of the argument and is just a tangent to deflect. Your idiot domino effect is taking a simple process of idea, prediction, testing, then outcome and draging it into an unending cycle and for what? You do not even mention what all the extra dominos are for you just assert that is how it work everytime all the time. I do not need to run 100 tests to claim that if I drop a thing that it will fall. We do not need a domino effect for answering if a thing will fall. Your whole video is to explain truth value to propositions how else do you expect to reach an answer without some testing? Your first premise is rejected because of the false dichotomy of the premise. A proposition is not just an effect of physics this does nothing to support nor dismiss the evidence or lack of evidence of a given proposition. It's all just deflection. It also does as I previously stated and denies any properties to your God which then puts your God into the same category. Which eliminates an answer to the proposition. Premise 2 than does exactly what I said you would do and make this idea that all beliefs are on the same shelf which does nothing at all to prove your God or disprove that Atheism is a weak position to have. You ignore all evidence, which is what one needs to do inorder to have faith. This position is the one you assert Atheists have but it is your strawman position and it is fatal to knowledge. Knowledge by the way is in your words another act of physics because knowledge is based on physics and therefore is neither true nor false. Like math 2+2=4 is somehow not a true representation of physics according to you. You are just conflating the "effects of physics" with the proposition of truth claims and..... it's just another completely ass backwards attempt at justifying your stupid beliefs without actually having to prove any of your beliefs. Strawman after strawman with a sprinkling of other fallacies in an attempt to make Atheists seem to be the confused ones when your video demonstrates how confused you actually are.
Fantastic. Looks like you've managed to philosophize yourself into total cognitive confusion. I must admit, it's kind of impressive. I'm sure my 16-year-old self would be stumped for 30 mins our so.
Tornados have a wind speed which is an effect of physics. Depending on the temperature differences between a cold front and a warm front combining, a tornado can have a faster or lower wind speed. The wind speed is an effect of physics. A blade of grass is an effect of physics. If you look at two different pieces of grass growing in different places, they are both just an effect of physics. 1:50 Does it make sense to say that one piece of grass has a faster wind speed than another? No, they just are, they are effects of physics. You could say that one blade of grass is blowing in the breeze faster than another but as far as the effect goes, it is what it is, it's just an effect, because it's not propositional, it's just an effect of physics. Now, didn't we just establish that effects of physics don't have a faster or slower wind speed? They just are, how can an effect of physics be anything other than what it is? If a tornado is an effect of physics, how can it have a faster or slower wind speed? It just is, like a blade of grass or a different blade of grass. No Jimbob, tornados are different from blades of grass because they are moving bodies of air, not plants! Well those tornados are just effects so they can't have a wind speed. Here is your argument laid out in actual logical form so you can see how dumb it is: Grass does not have a wind speed, therefore wind speed is not an effect of physics. If wind speed is not an effect of physics, then the wind speed of a tornado is not an effect of physics. If the wind speed of a tornado is not an effect of physics, then tornados are not physical. If tornados are not physical, then tornados cannot destroy houses. If tornados cannot destroy houses, then a house destroyed by a tornado proves that this argument is unsound because the premises are false.
No that’s not my argument, you didn’t lay out my argument at all. Just jump on the stream and debate it with me My argument is 1. Any effect of physics can only be what it’s caused to be. 2. Propositions and evaluations are effects of physics C. Truth and falsity is a caused effect So what causes true and false as an effect of the very process of evaluation is also a caused effect? Nothing you’ve said addresses this
@@MadebyJimbob What you wrote is gibberish and makes even less sense than what you said. Logical arguments have forms like Modus Ponens which include premises that lead to a necessary conclusion. You wrote three separate incomplete ungrammatical false ideas and then asked a question. Your failure is mainly in your second statement which you completely misunderstand. You think that the proposition "The sky is blue," is caused by the physical property of the sky being blue, however, propositions are actually caused by brains processing input. Your misunderstanding causes you to conclude that the physical property of the sky has some causal relationship to the truth value of the proposition, when in fact the truth value of the proposition has to do with the language of the mind, the social constructs in which the mind developed, and the processing of light by the mind. Propositions can only have a truth value when interpreted by a mind that experiences those same inputs. A person who does not know the definition of the word "blue" would be incapable of determining the truth value of the proposition "The sky is blue" because determining truth value requires input unrelated to the color of the sky. Those inputs are still the result of physical effects, just not the ones you were thinking of. Have you heard of self referential statements?
@@MadebyJimbob "Just jump on the stream and debate it with me" Why would anyone do that when you've proven yourself a dishonest interlocutor. You seem more interested in mockery and playing to your peanut gallery than the truth of things.
@@wwickeddoggYou can't escape the logical consequence of determinism in the physicalist position. Person A: makes a proposition that's determined by laws of physics. Person B. Makes a different proposition that's also determined by effects of physics. How can we determine which proposition is true or false if the evaluation of both claims are also determined by effects of physics. You can invoke testing but the interpretation and conclusion of the test result would also be a determined effects.
Why is it so hard for creators like this to respond to actual atheists instead of coming up with imaginary ones to argue against? Would save on the animation budget *and* give a more fair representation of the atheistic arguments
Which argument was imaginary? I animate my own work there is no budget. I invite atheists on all the time. Why not call in today and defend your position….
@@MadebyJimbob Firstly, I said the atheist you animated was imaginary, which I assume we can agree on, as he is a nameless cartoon character in a room no atheist would live in, seeing how atheists don't tend to hang atheistic stuff on their walls as if they were crucifixes or bible quotes. As for argumentative representation by this imaginary atheist, the most glaring example is probably at 5:32. I run in fairly atheistic circles (which is common when I live in Norway, a country where about half the population self-report to be atheists), and I don't know a single person who would say the difference between a tornado and evaluating is complexity. They would be more likely to say something like "the difference is among other things that a tornado is a large collection of air molecules moving in a certain way with high velocity compared to their surroundings while evaluating is the process of comparing something to something else". I challenge you to find me a single person who would say the main difference between a tornado and evaluating is their complexity. I don't think the conversation with an atheist would even get to that point, though, because most who have actually thought about this stuff for a second would have realized that properties can emerge and disappear based on composition and context. That is to say, something that is caused by or made from something doesn't necessarily inherit all of its properties, and often gain entirely new ones. Increase the temperature of carbon and oxygen and you can get a flame which emits visible light. Mix dry cement with water and you get a solid block. The difference between human spit and venom is just how the molecules are arranged. A mouse with lungs has very difference properties than a mouse without lungs. A computer with access to an electric current has very different properties than one without. Systems and collectives often have properties that their individual parts do not, such as an airplane being able to fly, a brain being able to think or a tornado being able to lift a cow from the ground, and it's not even mostly about complexity, but like I said, composition and context. You don't need to take a physics class to know that.
@@Maartimer no one is going to read that book dude. Say more with less words. If you called in today, you’d see that you don’t have any good arguments or counter arguments. All I hear is, “cartoons are not real” yeh no shit
@@MadebyJimbob My response is right there for you to read. If you're gonna be too lazy to read more than a single sentence, why do you even bother replying?
@@MadebyJimbob Actually, I guess that answers my very first question. It's hard to accurately represent something you don't even bother trying to understand.
A tornado or a plant growing is a thing that happens. Likewise, having a thought is a thing that happens. The thought as an event is not true or false. Like these other events: Observing your environment. Receiving and retaining information. Comparing your thought to your observations and retained information. Describing/expressing your thought in terms of its consistency with your observations and information. Behaving in a way determined by that assessment. None of those are true or false, as events. They just happen. Including the event of describing something as true or false, and the event of acting accordingly.
P1 (Generalized): Effects of physics neither have property p in greater or lesser abundance than each other P2 (generalized): e is an effect of physics P3(generalized): for any given effects of physics, they cannot have property p in greater or lesser abundance each other The issue here is that your only proof that "effects of physics can't be more true than each other" is that there are SOME effects of physics for which this is true. This can be generalized as: P4: For a property p, if I can point to an example of an effect of physics e that does not have that property (denoted by the function f(e,p), then effects of physics do not have that property. ∀p(∃e|!f(e,p)->∀e!f(e,p)) So, for example: (P)itch is a property, (E)lectromagnetic attraction is an effect of physics.electromagnetic attraction does not have a pitch, therefore: P5 !f(E,P) Therefore, for the property of pitch, no effect of physics can have it as a property. (our model being E∈e, P∈p and f(E,P)=0) P6 !f(e,P) (m.p. P4, P5) So an sound wave (an effect of physics) cannot have a pitch.
If you’re asking in good faith, we can question the epistemic foundation for any person to determine what’s possible and not possible from their starting assumptions, and then attack those assumptions.
@@MadebyJimbob so what assumptions are made when someone doesnt believe something? Lets use flat earth as an example. I dont believe the earth is flat because ive never seen evidence that it is butsome people say it is flat and they yse the bible to back up their claim. What assumptions have I made in my lack of belief in flat earth?
@@drmantistoboggan2870 Ah yes the "Are you're saying" or the "So you're saying" syndrome. I'm saying what the statement entails - "I dont believe x" is a claim that needs to be proven.
@MadebyJimbob nobody wants to clal your shirts livestream. You can't evne prove you are worth the time. You offer zero rebuttals to anyone's comments You just shit talk and beg for callers.
@@MadebyJimbob Call in? Live debate is the lowest form of conversation and debate. It is way too susceptible to dishonest practices like talking over, muting, Gish Galloping, and the like. As for the argument, I reject premise 1 - category error and affirming the consequent.
@@Steelmage99 to reject premise one you make the claim that propositions are effects of physics. Can you demonstrate that propositions are effects of physics? What is the categorical difference between effect of physics (in nature) and effect of physics (evaluation)?
Hello Jimbob. wow, an "atheist argument" that no atheist has ever presented, offered by a badly drawn cartoon... because no actual atheist would say something so stupid. Maybe ask an atheist.
I’ve talked to many atheists. As I pointed out in the video, no all atheists take this position but enough do. You said “no atheist” that’s just untrue.
@@MadebyJimbob Good to know that sky daddy is an approved christian worldview to argue against, since all it takes is apparently "...enough do. You said “no atheist” that’s just untrue."
If you want to argue against atheism: It is best to get the atheistic side from ... an atheist. For example: "What is the difference between a Tornado and Evaluating?" Your Stratheist: "Well complexity ... and stuff" Me: "One is a pattern of wind and one is an activity by the brain."
That doesn’t tell me the difference. What’s the categorical difference if pattern in brain and pattern of wind are both effects of physics? Feel free to call in to my stream today and defend your position
@@MadebyJimbobThe difference is simply this: Those patterns in your brain are descriptions of reality, and are called true if that description matches reality, and false if it doesn't. A tornado doesn't describe anything, and therefore can't be called true or false. In that same vein, a map can be true or false, depending on whether or not the actual landscape it's describing matches what's on the map; yet you would not say that the map is anything other than physical.
@@MadebyJimbob "What’s the categorical difference if pattern in brain and pattern of wind are both effects of physics?" The categorical difference is ... one is a pattern of wind and one an activity of the brain. You can not be as naive to think that two things which share one attribute (in this case something as near-unavoidable as being an "effect of physics" or in other words: Being real) that therefore must mean they are the same. Do I really need to explain that a pattern of gas molecules going in a circle at high speeds is different from the activity of a biological computer that attempts to form an abstract model of a physical object to then use further calculations to attempt to determine the attributes of that object? Do I really need to explain that one (the tornado) is an object, while the other (evaluation) is an abstraction which either does or does not correlate with an objectively varifiable standart? Meaning one can not have a truth value, while the other can? I can barely begin to attempt to explain it in simpler terms because I do not even know where the problem lies for you? It is akin to a child asking me "uhm. What is the difference between a Fork and jellousy?"
@@johnfaber100Your propositions, evaluations and conclusions are all determined effects though. There's no independent mind that's not bound by physical laws to evaluate. You're just describing determined effects, after determined effects after determined effects.
Playing semantic games because you can't demonstrate any evidence for your deity. Sad. There is no contradiction in a view of the world that doesn't have any deity. You inventing a deity doesn't change anything. Physics still governs everything we observe.
@@MadebyJimbob An argument that atheism is flawed is EXACTLY an argument for a deity. And no ... I'm not interested in any "one on one" debate besides this one. You're not doing all that well here.
@@idahogie another comment pointed out the livestream "debates" are just jimbob drowning out the caller with loud soundboards, strawmanning their words and mocking them. so that's fun
It's really simple, only god in person in a peer-reviewed setting can prove his existence. No human, books, texts, personal experience or useless word salad on earth can ever prove an unproven god. There is only play pretend (faith).
I've got a few questions for you - Do you believe that we do not receive sensory input that travels through our nerves and is interpreted by our brain? Do you believe that we can not interact with such sensory effects and/or interact with others that we perceive interacting in order to determine a truth claim of said effect? (I see truth as to what most comports with reality) Maybe an example could help bring this in perspective. Person A says that a tornado is rampaging through their backyard Person B agrees that said tornado is within that backyard Person C denies that a tornado is within their backyard There can be many factors in this that validate or nullify the claims; such as humidity, air pressure, weather forecasts, and the sensory inputs of others nearby. If True: Both persons A and B could be witnessing it firsthand, feel all the effects, and have seen the reports while person C either denies what they feel and see or they could well be halfway across the globe. If False: Persons A and B could believe it's happening despite the incongruous effects around them, they could also be acting. Meanwhile person C is doing their best to tell them of the truth shown in reality. Though my favorite is if everything could be True: Both persons A and B remark on how a tornado is rampaging through the backyard; while person C, feeling little meteorological phenomena, wonders on why they are looking at a dog.
@@MadebyJimbob Thank you for the invite but considering you have not made any point as to what I said, I have a feeling that this may well be a bot comment.
@@MadebyJimbob I don't have to counter anything because you didn't prove anything other than how dishonest religious people can be. Why don't you debunk the video that TMM just posted about you? Or even better kiddo, why don't you call The Athest Experience and explain your reasoning to them and see how it goes for you?
"First installment" and your strawman already got LOGICKED !!! Do better next time. Maybe do a response video if you feel like addressing actual atheist arguments. Edit: yes, very FATAL indeed.
Free tip: depicting your opponent as an stupid and ugly character only conveys how poor your argument and integrity is. Society is familiar with this tactic.
Wrong, thats not a logical follow. The insult of the opposition has no relevance to the validity of the argument. You can’t engage with the argument, so I got the stupid part right
@@MadebyJimbob Just proving your lack of integrity and poor quality of argument further. Just sad, man. You need to touch grass; being this abrasive terminally online persona is unhealthy.
@@MadebyJimbobIf insulting the opposition has no bearing on the validity of the argument, then why do it? It's an Ad Hominem that shows your cowardice; you can't represent your opponent as a fully competent person with just a faulty argument.
Playing devil's advocate for a sec, but couldn't one argue that the argument commits a category error? The argument fails to differentiate between the ontological status of an event (like a tornado) and the epistemological status of a proposition about that event. The truth or falsity of a proposition is not a physical property like the speed of a tornado or the color of grass. It's a property of how that proposition relates to the world or to a set of beliefs. For example, the proposition "Grass is green" is true because it accurately describes the color of grass. Even if our ability to formulate propositions is determined by physical processes in the brain, this does not inherently affect the truth value of the propositions. The physical process and the truth value operate on different levels. The process is ontological (how the brain works), whereas the truth value is epistemological (whether the proposition accurately reflects reality).
Yes they could claim it’s a category error, however, as I mentioned in the video, they would have to tell me the categorical difference between the two effects of physics. It’s only a category error if they can make the distinction
Does the last paragraph in the above comment not make that distinction? It seems like the first sentence of that paragraph is a reasonable argument for a meaningful distinction between the two.
I reject premise 1. In fact, there's hardly anyone who would be committed to such a view of all things physical, especially if they believe language and thoughts are physical. Language and thoughts have propositional structure, and tornadoes don't. Propositional structures encode truth functional elements, making them truth apt and enabling interpersonal communication and logical analysis, while the structure of tornadoes does not. And it's unclear that adding anything non-physical to the world would solve the "problem" you raise because then you could ask similar questions about whatever non-physical entities you posit (what makes the non-physical relevantly distinct from the physical?). You'd very likely just end up having to say that the truth aptitude of the non-physical things is explained by their propositional structure, and then the view would just become explanatorily redundant.
@@thankyou8622 And you have read my comment fully and have contributed to the discourse greatly through your intellectual engagement with the point I made.
It really does seem to be a case of not understanding the properties of function of language as a both a thing caused by physics(in that brains are) *and* a symbolic representation which can be said to be more or less true. I’m glad I’m not the only one who saw it like that.
Problems. A. The premise that atheists do not believe in anything beyond what it’s material. Things that are not strictly material can flow out of the material, such as consciousness or thought. This does not go against naturalism or empiricism in the same way religion does however because you can only a daily basis observe consciousness or thought. B. False correlation fallacy. Because thing A has property B, as well as property C, and thing D shares property B with A, then D must have property C. Just because something is an “effect” of physics, and some effects cannot be described, not all effects have property C, not being true or false. Same problem can be applied to the complexity point (which is a strawman anyway, the proper answer would be there are several differences between a tornado and evaluating, and that the sum of those observations is how we categorize various “things.”) ignoring the fact that computers do more than what their programming strictly says, the idea that because computers do not transcend their computer status because they become more complex brains follow the same logic is again, a false correlation. Thing A having property B doesn’t mean thing C has property B. Finally, if you want to be taken serious rhetorically, maybe don’t start your video with a caricature of your opposition, or possibly even the people you’re trying to reach out to. It’s Definitionally ad hominem and intellectually dishonest.
Imagine having to perform utterly laughable mental somersaults to prove atheism is wrong because you apparently can't do it in the most obvious, straightforward way - by simply proving that god exists.
@@MadebyJimbob I never meant to. I'd rather engage with someone actually trying to demonstrate that god exists than waste my time with an arrogant clown. I merely dropped by to join the mockery playground you've kindly set up for us.
@@MadebyJimbob Because we don't even need to engage with your apologetics. If your god were real, he wouldn't even need apologists, cause he could just make his existence known to everyone fairly easily. The very fact that no theist has been able to point to good evidence for their god is actually evidence that the proposition "a god exists" is unlikely.
Others have already dismantled most of your flawed logic in far more detail than I'd care to, so I'll just point out that you wouldn't need to prove only matter/physics exist to prove minds are physical. You only need to demonstrate that a mind is directly affected by physics in a way a non-physical mind wouldn't be, ideally you also further demonstrate the actual physical processes that produce mental processes.
I spent some time introducing my son to these kinds of arguments yesterday during his science lesson. He's 11 and I'd so appreciate some prayers for his growing mind and his own relationship with Christ. ❤
@@apersonontheinternet8354She was determined by the mechanism of the Universe to do so. As she was to post about it. As you were to complain about it. That's what the video is about, there is no ooga-booga magic mind that makes decisions and evaluations, we're just instantiations of evolutionary strategems.
@@πατριχορindoctrination into believing superstitions are very horrible things to subject children to. But thankfully, her child has their own brain, and can make up their own mind. Christianity is an ever shrinking group and the deconversion rate among younger generations are VERY high. So it’s quite likely that no amount of indoctrination and dictatorship via Kenzie, will actually do anything.
Wow! This is AWESOME! And it's only the first video of the series? Hope to get more soon! It's incredible, it's so stupid! I don't think he realize it, I think he 's looking at himself as a genius, hearing the arrogant level of smugness... I've laughed so hard... Hope to see more of your work, clown.
water can not be wet because H2O molecule can not be wet and water is a collection of H2O molecules never heard of emergent properties? yeaaaah... logic...
@@MadebyJimbobyou just underlined your stupidity, given I was very clear... But apparently you don't even understand the difference between speaking and writing, so maybe it shouldn't be surprising even short and very clear statements are beyond you...
The difference between a tornado and thinking is that thinking has semantic content. They have “aboutness.” Thoughts are about something, while a tornado or grass growing isn’t about anything. Here would be my counter argument: Premise 1. Effects of physics without semantic content are neither true or false. Premise 2. Propositions, thoughts, and evaluations are effects of physics. Premise 3. Propositions, thoughts, and evaluations have semantic content. Conclusion. Propositions, thoughts, and evaluations can be true or false while also being effects of physics. Now the the only premise that needs to be defended from a physicalist point of view is premise 2, and there are plenty of accounts of how semantic content can arise in a physicalist world one can appeal to. All of them have some difficulties for sure but none are so fatal as to completely rule out the project as your argument claims to do.
But that would just move the question over to, What is the categorical difference between thinking and effects of physics? Semantic content would also just be a produced physical phenom. Otherwise, yes premise two needs to be defended regardless of a formal argument being presented
@@MadebyJimbobThere would be no strict difference between thinking and effects of physics given physicalism, the only meaningful difference worth talking about would be thinking’s functional role in representing, processing, and integrating information.
@@MadebyJimbobIf brains can produce representations, or any system for that matter, they can have semantic content. If brains have semantic content they can have truth apt evaluations.
@@MadebyJimbob the difference wouldn’t be one of category, like saying a triangle is a different shape category than a rectangle, but more like pointing out that both rectangles and squares exist but have distinction. Sure, all squares are rectangles, and all rectangles are quadrilaterals, but not all rectangles are squares, and not all squares share properties with other quadrilaterals. In the same way, semantic content and thinking may be physical effects, but that does not mean they share all properties held by *other* physical effects.
I think the primary issue with the argument is that really no physicalist (who endorses some non-eliminativist view of truth I suppose) should accept both premise 1 and 2. If the physicalist thinks that thoughts, evaluations, and propositions are the effects of physics (p2), and that these things can be true/ false, the physicalist should just recognize that p1 is inconsistent with their beliefs and should be rejected absent further argument. But unfortunately I think the only defense of this premise given here is that tornados and blades of grass growing aren't true/ false. But it doesn't follow from "tornados and blades of grass growing aren't true or false" that no physical effects are true or false. Someone might share that intuition for independent reasons, but as outlined above, this wouldn't be our physicalist. I'm also not sure the conclusion really establishes anything beyond the law of excluded middle, and doesn't seem to follow from the premises. I think it could be re-expressed, so this isn't necessarily fatal to the argument, but as stated it doesn't appear to say anything about physicalism specifically. For instance, I can tell you now that I don't personally think this is a sound argument, but am perfectly happy to agree with the conclusion (which suggests to me we have a non-sequitur). In fact, plausibly under most theories of mind evaluations at the very least will be an "effect" of some process; so if the conclusion is supposed to be a problem for physicalism it will probably undercut any such view.
The issue is someone could say p1 is begging the question “Effects of physics are neither true or false” But in order to reject P1 the person has to beg the question by stating propositions are effects of physics. If propositions are effects of physics, then one could produce an independent variable that caused a true proposition. But then they’d have to claim evaluating that proposition was also an effect of physics, meaning the evaluation itself could be demonstrated to be caused by an independent variable. I can observe boiling water in nature. I can reproduce boiling water in the kitchen. Do we observe true propositions? Can we reproduce a physical process called a true proposition?
@@MadebyJimbob Stating that "propositions are effects of physics" is premise 2 of your argument though; so it can't be begging the question, it's required for the conclusion. If p2 is begging the question in favor of the conclusion, then your argument is question begging. If p2 is begging the question against the conclusion, then your argument is invalid (i.e. the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises).
@@chipperhippo I’m glad I’m not the only one who saw that. He said a similar thing in another comment and I’ve been so confused because “propositions are effects of physics” seems to be specifically and explicitly said within the video. (At least granted for the purpose of internal critique)
~2:00 “We could say that a description is more accurate or less accurate..” Precisely. I can’t speak for others, but when I say something is “true” or “false” or “more true” or “less true,” *all that I mean* is that it more accurately or less accurately describes reality. As far as I can tell, that is also what most people tend to mean by those words. It really seems that this video is an exercising in misunderstanding the purpose and function of language rather than addressing atheism or things atheists say in any way.
That statement was a set up for the internal critique. Physicalism has no access to “accuracy”, the method for determining “accurate or not” is also just a mechanical output. You fundamentally don’t understand the logical consequences the video is pointing out
@@MadebyJimbobI appreciate your quick response. Love talking about this stuff! While I will always admit the possibility that I’ve misunderstood, it seems you’ve missed or misunderstood one of the main thrusts of my comment: that these potential problems with physicalism are actually quite easily explained by examining the *language* used. “Physicalism has no access to ‘accuracy’” I’m not sure what it means for an “ism” to have ‘access to accuracy.’ “the method for determining ‘accurate or not’ is also just a mechanical output.” I think you’re implying that the method being a mechanical output means that the method is unreliable, or faulty in some significant way. I’ve seen plenty of people say this but I’m still unsure why they say that. Now, for the analysis about the language used, primarily “truth” and “accuracy.” It is correct to say that to call an effect of physics true or false would be rather nonsensical. But that’s not because there is no effect of physics which could be analyzed within the context of truth or accuracy - it is because truth and accuracy can only play within the bounds of symbolic representation. “Truth” and “accuracy” as concepts, as *words,* exist to analyze the relationship between two things, whether that be a drawing of a tree and the tree it was based on, or a scientific theory and observable reality. You may be meaning the words “truth” and “accuracy” to be understood with reference to some sort of objective reality, but that’s not their only domain. As much as I appreciate the succinctness of the video, I think the language gets very muddled very quickly. As for the problem of the method of relational analysis being mechanical - I again just have to ask *how* that’s a problem. I recognize that any arbitrary mechanism does not guarantee an output that closely resembles reality, but I also recognize that would be an incredibly poor description of our intellectual faculties.
@@MadebyJimbob also this isn’t a super important point - but I’ve noticed you referring to Physicalism a lot in the comments, but you never use that word in the video(or at least I didn’t catch it over a couple of listens and reads through the transcript). I’d recognize of course that a deterministic universe is similar to if not synonymous with a Physicalist one, as much as I understand Physicalism I suppose, and you are talking in a way that seems consistent with Physicalism. I just wanted to point out that this disparity could be a potentially unnecessary stumbling block in conversations about this video in the comments.
I can’t support premise one with the fact that every known effect of physics we can think of is neither true or false, and under physicalism the ONLY effect of physics that escapes this is a proposition.
@@MadebyJimbob Technically true, similar to effects being neither green nor red. But in the end effects can give humans the impression of green or red objects, and ink on paper can give the impression of true or false propositions. So I don't get the point of your video.
Mike Brigandi can just verify determined things against other determined things and make comparisons. If you had a special mind (Brigandi Brain), you would know this.
So the argument is: IF physics cannot be true or false, they just are, how can an atheist/materialist say ideas are true or false? Because no one is saying thoughts in themselves are physical, they are effects of the physical. Hence, the whole comparison is flawed to begin with. Believing in something is in itself the effect, even if it is wrong, it doesn't make the effect less true physically.
@@MadebyJimbob Well, a "hard or naive" physicalist yes, but those are extremely few in number. None of the famous atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and so on, subscribe to that view of reality. You will have a hard time finding anyone serious doing so. Sort of the flat earthers of the atheist community. I think the old Greek philosopher Demokritos had those ideas. But today, those are rare. Most physicalists today are "soft", that is, believe that thoughts are a product of the brain, but not physical in themselves.
If thoughts are emergent and not physical then they are irrelevant to the physicalist, they have nothing to do with reality as a physicalist would say reality is. It's self refuting
@@lucianmacandrew1001if thoughts are products of the brain, then they are physical. An effect of something physical must be physical. If they are something other than physical, then there is a new ontological category that materialism cannot account for. How can matter produce non-matter?
wouldnt a hallucination of a tornado be a "false tornado"? you could say the hallucinated tornado is still true because its mearly an effect for physical brain chemistry that caused the hallucination, but in that case the truth would be bad brain chemistry + hallucinated tornado
If you watched the video it answered this question I mean seriously dude if that itself is just physics then what's the basis of knowing it to be true or false if thought to begin with is just physics.
if i hallucinated a tornado and it didnt destroy my house vs if a tornado destroyed my neighbour's house. you'd know that one is true and the other isnt from physics alone. seems like physics is the basis of truth. i dont understand why this isnt good enough, you are arbitrarily saying physics cant be the basis of knowledge just because you dont like it@@inrmds
Maybe you should try talking to an atheist before you make a whole video about this stuff? Or try talking to _someone,_ at least? You're _imagining_ an atheist the way you want - I got a good laugh at that - and then you are imagining what your strawman atheist would say about this stuff. But to me, this all seems so _silly._ Again, you'd be better off actually talking to a human being, rather than just imagining both sides of a conversation. You might well get crazy replies from some atheists - just look at all the crazy stuff we hear from theists - but I doubt if you'd get anything _this_ silly.
I’ve talked to many atheists, I also was an atheist for half of my life. Why don’t you jump on the stream tomorrow , my stream is open to atheist call ins
@@MadebyJimbob I'm not interested in promoting your channel. But if you want to talk, let's talk. Right here. This was supposed to be an "argument against atheism," but all you need for that is evidence that a god exists. Do you _have_ anything distinguishable from wishful-thinking? How about one piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, that your god is real, rather than just imaginary?
@@Bill_Garthright you clearly didn’t listen to the video. I’m arguing against common atheist positions. Atheism is a conclusion. Conclusions follow from some epistemic system, that is what I’m free to challenge. We can argue against atheist reasoning without proving God.
@@MadebyJimbob I'm sorry, but that's just silly. I'm an atheist because I don't believe you, that's all. I don't believe _any_ of the diverse, contradictory claims theists make about their gods. And the _reason_ I don't believe those claims is because they don't seem to be backed by anything - *anything* - distinguishable from wishful-thinking. Nothing's going to make up for that. As long as you don't have *anything* distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up your religious beliefs, that's all I need to... not believe your claims. We atheists need nothing else. I don't give a _crap_ about "common atheist positions." We atheists have no pope, no prophet, no priests, pastors, or mullahs, no dogma, no magic books, and _no required beliefs, whatsoever._ Atheists are still human, and human beings are diverse. But you can believe anything - literally _anything_ - and still be an atheist as long as you don't believe in a god or gods. It's a very narrow label. Inevitably, theists arguing against "common atheist positions" just end up arguing with a strawman they've created. Their argument doesn't matter to me if it's not my position, and it's always just a strawman version of the position even if I _do_ hold a position somewhat similar. Besides, again, it's not evidence that a god is real, which is what you need if you want me to believe that a god _is_ real.
This presentation seems to assert that the "laws of physics and chemistry" [LoP&C] result in deterministic systems with distinct states. First, our understanding of the LoP&C continues to develop, so asserting what they are with certainty is a mistake. Second, our current understanding suggests that there is some randomness involved, and complex systems can have wildly different states over time, even when starting from almost the same initial states. We see this using the example of the computer and simple calculator [5:30], where the calculator will work for years, even decades, without any errors, while the computer will occasionally have software crash unpredictably.
1. We can’t observe randomness, a “suggestion of randomness” is merely an appeal to ignorance 2. The crashing of a computer is a matter of cause and effect, so it’s still relevant to the framework of the argument. The only question is, are thoughts evaluations and propositions effects of physics, if so, what is the logical consequence of that on on knowledge, Feel free to call in today
@@MadebyJimbob 1. We do observe randomness, an example is the interference pattern with the single-slit or double-slit experiments. Radioactive decay is another example. We also observe the chaos theory sensitivity to initial conditions with a double pendulum, as well as the tumbling of Hyperion, a moon of Saturn. 2. The crashing of a computer is cause and effect, but it is unpredictable and can be random. My point is that thoughts, evaluations, and propositions can be entirely effects of physics, even with results like incorrect memories. The logical consequence is that a deity is unnecessary to explain how our mind works.
@@UnconventionalReasoning both points are incorrect. You’re merely calling the double slit random because we have lack of data. You couldn’t argue otherwise without question begging Same principle goes to the computer, without enough data on the mechanism we could isolate the cause of the malfunction every time. You think there is some metaphysical cause that makes a car engine break too?
@@MadebyJimbob You're incorrect. I'm calling the double-slit random because it is. There is no question begging. No, we cannot always isolate the cause of a computer malfunction every time, there are too many possible inputs which are interacting. A car engine breaking has a similar issue, microfractures in the metal structure lead to a macrofracture, but there is randomness in what exactly happens.
Using your terms, at 2:00 what does "accurate" mean? How does that meaning differ from the meaning of truth posited by the atheist? True statements are just a set of effects, effects that accurately describe effects.
That’s circular and begs the question.. If an effect can’t be anything other that what physics cause it to be, how would you know it’s an accurate effect describing a previous one
@@MadebyJimbob takes maps, for example. Some maps are accurate, some are not. If the map gets us to our destination, we say it's accurate. If it doesn't, we say it's not accurate. All of this can be effects, all of this can be determined, and still, we can differentiate between true and not true. There's nothing circular about it. Your first premise isn't justified.
@@JB-du3qvminds create maps, if making a map was simply the effect of physics, then an accurate map and an inaccurate map would have the same value. You keep granting yourself an evaluation process that is somehow immune to being strictly an effect of physical causes
@@JB-du3qv”we can differentiate them” this is appealing to the thing in question. If the method of “differentiating” is in itself an effect of mechanistic processes, then you have to appeal again to another effect to differentiate between your differentiation. It’s a vicious circle
@@MadebyJimbob brains create maps, and brains are purely material. Roomba robot vacuums make maps, and they are also material. If the map allows the robot to navigate the space, reach it's destination, and complete the programmed task, then we say the map is true or accurate. Similarly, our concepts work or don't, and we can thereby gain knowledge. Only in a deterministic world is knowledge possible. You introduced this idea of accuracy without justification, at 2:00. What do you mean by accurate?
Wot? How is a tornado 'true'? What do you mean by that? Do you mean the 'statement' that a tornado exists is true? Or do you just mean 'exists' when you say true?
@@MadebyJimbob But how can an object not be true though? What is your definition of 'true'. Because if I use the definition of 'accurate' which would roughly be the general usage, then an object being 'accurate' doesn't make sense. Only statements about the object can be true or false. Literally the only thing I can guess you mean by true or false is that an object can 'exist' or 'not exist'.
@@DuctTapeJake objects, events, effects are not true or false. We refer to propositions as true or false. If propositions are objects in the world, as they would be under physicalism, then the physicalist needs to tell us how an object can be true or false
@MadebyJimbob Right! My mistake. I thought you were arguing that objects/effects were 'false' when you said 'not true'. So you're trying to say what? Because a tornado can't be 'true' because that doesn't make sense, a proposition can't be true because thoughts are the products of physical brains? Like... the abstract concept is the thing that we are evaluating, not the chemical processes.
Asking how a bit of matter, or an effect of physics, can be true or false is a reasonable question, but in the age of computers there's no excuse for not seeing the answer. In this video - Claude Shannon demonstrates "Theseus" Machine Learning @ Bell Labs (High Quality) - which I've used as my example because it's all so physical and visible because of the old technology - we can see that matter arranged in a certain way can be used to represent a maze, and the proof is that as a result a little mechanical mouse can accurately navigate the maze. Change the maze and the arrangement of matter no longer accurately represents the maze. It's not longer *true*, you might say. Arrangements of matter can be "true or false" when they are in the context of some other matter which "interprets" its arrangement in a certain way. By itself, a closed relay, or a neuron, can't be true or false - in the context of other matter "interpreting" it, it can mean "The maze has a dead end here" which absolutely can be true or false. Watch the video and you will see, right before your eyes, mere arrangements of matter being true, and then being false when circumstances change. We have been in the computer age for a long time now, moving into the age of the self driving car, machines which can only work by having an accurate representation of their surrounding inside them. There's really no excuse for pretending there's some big mystery here that only the supernatural can solve.
So I'm neither a materialist nor an atheist, but there seems to be an illicit slide in this argument from *some* effects being non-propositional to *all* effects being non-propositional. But it seems to me that the obvious response for the materialist or atheist here would be to deny this slide. Just because *some* effects like tornadoes and grass are not propositional, it doesn't follow that all effects must be non-propositional. I suppose my question, then, is why think that the first premise of this argument is true? Why can't an effect be propositional?
@shlockofgod the difference is that one is a mental effect and the other is a physical/natural/non-mental effect. Mental effects can have properties such as intentionality conferred upon them by minds. And since intentionality is an essential component of propositions, it's not too big of a step from here to think that minds can also produce propositions (i.e. thoughts) and that these thoughts can be true or false.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381intentionality would then just be a determined effect of physics. How would intentionality be categorically distinct from other effects Also, what’s a mind in this view ? Just another effect determined by physics. Materialism can’t tell us what a mind is, you appealed to metaphysics to argue for materialism
Heh, turns out the argument is exactly the same if you assert that the supernatural/immaterial exists: P1. Effects of the supernatural/immaterial are neither more true or false than other effects of the supernatural P2. Thoughts, evaluations and propositions are effects of the supernatural/immaterial C. Evaluations (effects) and propositions (effects) are not more true or false than other evaluations (effects) and propositions (effects)
Wrong, that’s incoherent gibberish from the smoooth brain of bs Lewis, it’s been torn to shreds, I dare you to call into my show with that shit. Supernatural, and metaphysics aren’t cause and effect dummy. Physicalism is cause and effects Now please, go take a warm bath lol
@@SpaveFrostKing whether the supernatural can effect natural doesn’t entail that it has lawful regularity akin to physics. It’s a massive category error. Time is metaphysical, is experienced in the natural world and yet has no causal relationship.
if you knew anything about science you would know equating things and playing word games is not scientific frozen water and regular water are both water but have different characteristics and interact with every thing around them differently @@MadebyJimbob it does not mean the laws of physics or our understanding of them changes, nor does that add or take from the fact that i dont think your god exists in short you are doing apologetics and not science, if you think what you are doing is even remotely scientific then i await your peer reviewed paper, i find it cute that you are on the internet which is made exclusively by science to some how pretend its circular and leads no where, if only we didnt have the fruits of our labor, you would not even be here and sure you can assert your god did it, and to that i wait evidence...that works, instead of taking working models we have and pretending our god did it cuz reasons
@@ravenvalentine4919 you’ve not addressed anything in the video. This video wasn’t an argument for God. You’ve not answered the problem posed in the video. The video isn’t about science dummy. The video is about metaphysics and epistemology and the question of how a strict mechanistic universe can produce knowledge. You’re not even close to engaging with the topic.
@@ravenvalentine4919 and no, science is the study of nature, a phone is engineering. And it’s entirely irrelevant to the topic of the video. Your comment sucks. It’s so insanely dumb and low iq I can’t even believe a person wrote it
why dont you come take a piss on my degree as well i didnt ''address'' what you said the way YOU want because what you said is malformed so i had to correct it first, next time dont make a strawman of reality and dont make a straw man of a scientific proposition and i wont have to @@MadebyJimbob again i await your peer reviewed paper if you think you discovered some thing here, and i expect you to start using your own technology since you disagree with how we do science, you cant have it both ways
Is their a caring helpful person here? The video author and their god can’t help me because I used the word spin, they and their god don’t know me or are able to understand my question. How do believers with a helpful caring god explain Matt 24:34 when if reading literally says Armageddon has already happened?
This is the problem with your criticism: atheists commonly claim that it's not a worldview, and it means this and it doesn't mean that, and so on and so forth. So any time an atheist shows up to criticize and make claims, it's impossible to know their specific position because most of the time it's just emotional sperging. It would help to actually make an argument right off the bat rather than leave pointless comments. @@HuxtableK
@fredo3161 Nah mate. The problem ain't with me, or even with atheists as a whole. The problem here is yall can't seem to actually address atheism. The video doesn't touch on atheism. It addresses claims that have to do with deterministic materialism, not atheism. The two are not the same thing.
8 місяців тому
@@fredo3161 It's simple. Atheists don't lie and pretend they think they have a magic sky daddy. Unlike religitards who murder anyone who doesn't pretend to have a magic invisible friend. You mindlessly stupid ridiculous childish vegetable.
Only heterosexual intercourse produces new life. This is a scientific fact. The production of new life results in evolutionary mutations and natural selection. Darwinian evolution is accepted by science as well. Funny enough, atheists claim they believe in science, they claim they value life, and yet, they can't help but stick it where it doesn't belong. You would think a pro-evolution ideology would value the production of new life and new evolutionary genetics but apparently it's more important that we indulge in self destructive behavior.
Absolutely fantastic video. This is the kind of stuff that actually got me out of atheism a few years ago. Nearing the end of my time as an atheist, I was genuinely interested in Christianity, but I struggled to convince myself. No matter what I tried, I remained convinced that there was no possible way that God was real. It wasn't until I ran across these kinds of arguments that I realized that I had it exactly backwards, and that the only possibility, even if I didn't *really* believe it just yet, was that God is real.
@@πατριχορI was a christian for over two decades before deconverting. Unless there’s some newly observed scientific evidence that actually meets the burden of proof? Nah I’m not going to believe again
How can a blade of grass be alive if a tornado and an idea aren’t alive!!!!!!11!1!! Things can’t have different properties!!!!1!1! Everything is the same as everything else!!1!1!!!11!!!!!
Saying “different property” doesn’t tell us what is categorically different between two sets of physical effects. Y’all very talkative in the comments section but none of y’all clicked the link to argue in person
@@MadebyJimbob- my senses tell me what is categorically different between physical phenomena. I observe that a blade of grass is alive, and an idea and a tornado aren’t. I observe that a tornado has wind speed, and an idea and a blade of grass don’t. I observe that an idea either matches my experience of reality or it doesn’t, and a blade of grass or a tornado don’t have that property. How do you get though life if your senses don’t allow you differentiate between different physical phenomena? Comments are speaking in person. I’m a person. You are a person. We are communicating person to person. If you don’t like comments can’t you disable them?🤷♂️
Why are you talking bout materialism & physics in regards to your belief in a god? Atheism is simply, are you ready... I reject your belief in a god or gods. That's it, that's all there is to it. You, the theist, have failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence that your god or any god or gods exists.
...what presupposition does atheism have? If someone grows up never hearing about gods or theism, never having a chance to become a theist, what would this necessarily make this person presume?
@@noneofyourbusiness7055 atheism has a wide variety of presuppositions, materialism/physicalism, empiricism, naturalism. You can’t come to beliefs or even the rejection of propositions without a lens
I won't lie, this is an interesting conundrum. It's also one I haven't heard before, so kudos to an original spin on a presuppositional argument. I also commend you for thinking of responses to your argument and addressing those. Now as to the actual argument itself: I would argue that this argument is correct. That all logic and knowledge is indeed circular. That it is only compared to other logic and knowledge. Thus, it can only be considered internally consistent, useful, and widely agreed upon. If this is true, it is not an argument against atheism. Nor would this be any less true under theism. It's a statement about knowledge.
Thanks for the reply. The argument in the video isn’t an argument against atheism, it’s moreso an argument against Universal Mechanistic Materialism, which can inform an atheist view.
@MadebyJimbob Fair enough. However, if logic and knowledge is invented in the manner I described, then this wouldn't be an argument against materialism either. At best, it's an argument against logic being discovered. I would even go as far as saying the question of materialism is irrelevant here. Even under an immaterial world you could still claim logic can only be invented using the same arguments. The same questions could still be asked, with the same solutions or lack thereof: Is a supernatural thing true or false? No, it just is.
@@dataforge27451. I disagree; this is still an argument against materialism, materialism would reduce all things to mechanistic processes by definition, which renders knowledge impossible. 2. No one can claim that logic is invented, that would assume logic as logic is required before an invention can be constructed 3. The supernatural “just is” isn’t a problem, because it definitionally escapes the mechanistic trap. Materialism ends in determinism. Supernaturalism doesn’t reduce to mechanisms.
@MadebyJimbob 2. Some sort of mental process is required to invent logic, that much is true. But if you assume these mental processes can come about naturally, then there is a materialistic pathway from no thinking at all, to the logic we have today. You may argue that these mental processes cannot come about naturally, but that would be a different argument. 1 and 3. I disagree. If you go through each of the questions and statements in your argument, but replace instances of material things with supernatural things, you have the same problem. For example: Is a supernatural event or object true or false?
Couldn't someone just claim the evaluation of true and false is a special kind of effect that gains additional meaning (true/false) inside the context of consciousness and/or communication? That opens many other questions, but it would let them agree with your formal argument (@4:00) while still holding to the idea that true and false exist.
Yes, many have said that, then I ask them what does one effect have that the other doesn’t such that one can produce epistemology. They can’t answer “one produces epistemology. I would be asking, what allows this one unique peculiar effect of physics to produce truth.
As an atheist, I've never heard this argument from atheists saying that all of our thought and acts are determined by physics and chemistry. What I have heard are theists saying that this is what atheists must think. But they don't. Also, if all our thoughts and acts being determined by physics is on the table as a possibility, then you can't know anything, as you can't know atheism isn't true and so all your thoughts and acts are determined by physics as you say.
Sorry, you have no arguments, just flawed reasoning. And certainly not against atheism, you're conflating atheism with science. 😀TMM in video "Theist Makes Fallacious Argument" explained your fallacies pretty clearly.
I don't normally comment on videos like this but i have to say this. I think humans being meat machines is actually pretty amazing. Technology has come so far these days and it is amazing what we can do with it and how powerful it is. And then you look at the human brain and honestly it like a supercomputer. Obviously it can't do all the things our most powerful machines can do, but think of the things humans can do that our machines cannot like abstract thinking, emotions, and consciousness. Thinking about how they come from the brain, how the brain constantly adapts and changes, and how we can do things externally like surgery and administering medicines that can change how we function. It's so interesting how similar we are are to machines as we learn more about the human body and the brain, but also how so much more complex we are, and the millions and trillions of processes, interactions and chemical reactions that happen every second to make us function. Thinking of ourselves complex meat machines is humbling in a way. Even though our experiences make us feel like there's more to us, we are essentially the matter in our body and the processes they undergo. BUT, that doesn't mean we can't marvel at our sheer complexity and the marvels of the human body.
Love the fact that a cartoonist crafted an argument that basically destroys the positon held by some of the GrEaTeSt thinkers in the history of mankind
I don’t think his argument supports his conclusion. He’s conflating the existences of a belief with the validity of a belief. If a belief is an effect this simply means that a belief is caused, a belief being caused cannot be true or false it just is, this however doesn’t say anything about a belief accurately representing reality. This argument also doesn’t go against just materialism it would go against everyone who accepts cause and affect which includes non materialists.
@@zooch76283 you are making a distinction between an objective evaluation and something that is caused. These two are not mutually exclusive, my point stands there is no need to watch the video as I’ve seen it multiple times.
@@zooch76283 well no because a calculator can’t make decision which is required for judgements. Calculators just take in information and then spit out more information. No decision making is required in this.
this entire video is a huge category error. even in the intro he asks if a tornado is more true than a blade of grass. this makes absolutely no sense at all. "true" or "false" are not properties of physical things that exist. the proposition "grass exists" can be true or false, but grass itself is not true. it would be the same thing as asking if a question is more green than a declaration. it's simply a category error, not applicable in the slightest.
Lol! Truly devastating argument! Everything is the same, coz everything exist in physical reality. Brilliant!
Can we use same logic for "supernatural"? God is your soul, and your soul is Buddah, and Buddah is Mother Nature and Cosmic Providence, and enlightenment, and ghosts and elves. Coz they all supernatural. I love it!
So, from now on we all know - green is an apple, like an umbrella, and Buddah is a ghost of Jesus Claus.
You didn’t steel man the argument you sloth brained goblin.
@@MadebyJimbob to steel man something, it should have at least some iron in it, for the start. Your slop have only unrecognizable soup. And you can see it, after I apply your way of thinking and constructing argument to your side. Reversing the target.Ridiculous isn't it? Stupid and insulting to your intelligence, right?
Your video is the same, just wrapped in pseudo intellectual language, and not so rude.
@@MadebyJimbob did you actually call me a goblin, but delete my comment for calling your video a slop and insult to intelligence, or it was a UA-cam filters, and you not so bad as I think you are?
@@MadebyJimbobis that what turning the other cheek looks like?
@MadebyJimbob compared to the way your sorry ass strawman, every argument anything else anyone else does is steel manning.
I'm here because of the response video by Logicked. You have mentioned three things; propositions (which have the property of being either true or false), blades of grass, and tornadoes (which do not have the property of being true or false). Proposition's (e.g. the statement "God exists") can be true or false. Blades of grass and tornadoes cannot be true or false. They have different kinds of properties.
darn that Logicked getting to this video before I did! >_
That simply reasserts the thing in question. You’ve not presented anything other than special pleading about one specific kind of effect of physics which is unlike every other effect of physics.
“They have different kind of properties” doesn’t tell us anything, trees have different properties of thoughts, and….? Claiming different properties doesn’t give us an explanation for how an effect of physics can be true or false.
@@MadebyJimbob true = whatever is real. Its really true that the world is an irregularly shaped ellipsoid.
@@MadebyJimbob According to Merriam Webster a proposition is "an expression in language or signs of something that can be believed, doubted, or denied or is either true or false". There it is, in the definition.
I don't think it's fallacious to recognize that different kinds of things have different kinds of properties.
An assertion is a kind of communication, and also a kind of thought. Yes, all communications and thoughts are effects of physics. So are blades of grass and tornadoes. So is light. So is flight. So is electrical current. It's no more special pleading to assert that a blade of grass does not have truth value, than it is to assert that flight doesn't have voltage, or that light does not have flavour, or that a proposition does not have mass.
@@johngriffiths2637 Please be gentle with him, he lacks integrity and rationality.
What I learned from this video:
If an afternoon cannot be more or less yellow than an argument, then a banana cannot be more or less yellow than a grape. Because apparently everything that arises from physical processes has to be able to be described using all the same adjectives.
You should have learned this:
If propositions are objects in the world which are caused by physical laws, then propositions are referents.
If you can follow that, perhaps you can honesty confront the consequences
@@MadebyJimbob u don't even know what the words ur using mean do u dawg😭
@@MadebyJimbob shit ain't caused by physical laws they're descriptors of how shit is observed to work
@@MadebyJimbob
What if a proposition isn't an object?
@@sosxka after watching zods video, he confused you guys lmfao 😭😭he literally debunked himself and proved jimbobs point
This is just a category error.
Ive even seen you admit in some of the comments that it is a category error, although you add on some extra waffle which just reads as being dishonest instead of just making a mistake
@@lordsrednuas what’s a category error? You need to be specific when you claim category error.
No, I never said this argument has a category error.
@@MadebyJimbob Wow, you came back to this after 5 months?!
Look, you've convinced me, literally everything with a naturalistic explanation is expressed by either grass or tornados.
Neither tornadoes or grass rust, so rusting must be supernatural.
Neither tornadoes or grass do nuclear fusion, so the sun is supernatural.
Very handy rubric you've got there, with zero conceivable flaws.
@@lordsrednuas>accuses someone of making a category error in their argument
>presents a counter argument that is itself a category error not even addressing the argument itself
Are atheists even trying anymore?
@@franciscosilvestre6914 no, at least not with presentations so dumb they'd get laughed out of my old church
@@lordsrednuas “I have nothing I can point at to disprove this, so I’ll just call it dumb and feel good about myself”
Great rhetoric, bro. When you have anything of substance to present, we’ll be here. Bring your old church.
Thank you for the enlightening video. It has taught me the valuable lesson that religious apologetics has sunk to hundreds of people actively confusing each other with the most disrespectful parody of philosophy, logic, and basic syntax. Until none of those 3 make any sense any more, presumably so their contorted pretzel of religious dogma doesn't look quite as bad in comparison. Is the audience's thirst for confirmation bias really strong enough to gobble this tripe up? Multiple people already referenced him, but Logicked really did explain the problems with this video excellently.
It's so weird how theists can't imagine that physics and chemistry, i.e. the stuff made out of pure, vibrating energy which are supposedly DESIGNED by God, somehow can't possibly be how brains work. For some reason God has to have a second, completely different system OTHER than the one made out of pure energy, because that's not magical enough for you.
Physics and chemistry is just our attempts to understand the world. If and when we observe something beyond the phenomena of the standard model of physics, we'll get to work trying to explain it. Maybe the mind/brain works by some principles beyond our current understanding. If these principles are detectable, then we'll attempt to explain them, and eventually the "soultrinos" or whatever will be added to our textbooks and they'll just be a natural, physical phenomena like all the other natural, physical phenomena. I doubt there's a soul, but if there is one, why would we ever call it "immaterial," other than as a way to avoid understanding it?
@@SpaveFrostKing My point was that our current understanding of the universe is already incredibly magical. Our BEST understanding of the universe to date is that everything that exists, even the basest mud on the ground, is made of nothing but vibrating energy. But instead of celebrating the beauty of that and trying to understand it more fully, they feel the need to denigrate it and claim there's something else going on. It's weird, but also telling. The men who created the gods they are drawing their worldview from didn't know that the universe was vibrating energy, so they can't acknowledge the true beauty of the universe otherwise they're admitting the gods they believe in weren't actually real enough to understand the universe they supposedly created.
@@while_coyoteOh don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just adding that even if there's somehow more "magic" out there (which to me seems likely - I'm sure in 2000 years our current understanding of physics will seem laughably naive), it's still fundamentally natural phenomena, and we'll never need to fall back onto the supernatural to justify our experiences of the world.
@@SpaveFrostKing Oh, in that case you're absolutely right. In fact, if gods were ever to be discovered as real, they wouldn't be supernatural, they'd still just be natural, and there would be laws a rules that define and govern them just like everything else in the natural universe. Even infinity has limits.
Yes, if naturalism is true then all your descions are the result of a chemically determined process.
Which means you dont have free will.
If you have no free will then knowledge is impossible.
If knowledge is impossible then you're claims are meaningless.
You would have to give a justification for free will that is consistent with your world view.
That is the challange.
Adress it.
Okay, how do I explain this in a way you can understand? How about this: A blade of grass and a tornado are not magnetic. That means the effects of physics cannot be magnetic. And since effects of physics can't be magnetic, and magnets are magnetic, that must mean magnets cannot be an effect of physics. Do you see anything wrong with that assessment?
Magnetism is still within the laws of physics. Different medium. Still bound by physical laws. A magnet can only produce effects consistent with magnetism.
You have done nothing to show that truth and falsehood are not consistent with the laws of physics. You just gave two examples of things that don't have the property of being true or false and concluded that therefore no effect of physics can have these properties. As I demonstrated, it is entirely possible for one effect of physics to have properties that another effect of physics doesn't have, so it's going to take more than that to demonstrate that the property of being true or false is somehow not within the laws of physics.
If I believed in something stupid that stupid thing could neither be true or false
I guess we'll never find out whether your dumb statement is true of false. That's a shame@@Theneighborhoodpro222
@@Ponera-Sama Correct, it is called being DISHONEST. He was spewing nonsense after nonsense.
ah this jimbob guy, he invited me to his stream and kept calling me boy and kid the entire time we spoke, he pitched my voice so i sound younger and kept using sound boards so no one can hear what i say, when i confronted him about how he does not understand science there for his cartoon does not understand science and that i am a physicist it and thats not how we view cause and effect, he asked me '' how do i know that his cartoon was trying to sound scientific ? '' i pointed out how he was holding a book of darwin and tried to speak from a scientific paradigm '' so he muted me and called me names while saying '' you see the atheist thinks this is a scientist because he is holding a book '' and no one is on his stream over a 100 people pointed out how that is BS, it blew my mind the level of dishonesty he is going for and no one called him on it, i will never forget it, and he still rubs it in my face every time i comment under his videos
ahhh, so this is why he doesn't respond to refutations and just begs people to call into his livestreams - another comment characterised it as "call in to his livestream to debate him" and i pointed out debates are just theatre. That was neither, that's just mockery. wow jimbob is scummier than I'd expected
Don’t listen to jimbob then. It seems that his opinions are worthless since he’s a dick.
@@NoStringsAttachedPrdbro he just copy and pastes the same comment on different videos.
Yep, not only is he an idiot, but he is totally dishonest. And yes, this is his schtick. He goads people into calling his livestream so he can control the conversation. I pointed out the clear affirming the consequent fallacy at the base of his argument in this video and he is clearly not equipped to deal with the objection, so he resorts to name calling and continually demanding that I call into his show.
He plays dirty because he's on the wrong side of every subject.
It's been a month since the Logicked video. And now there's even a response from Prophet of Zod.
We're still waiting on your well detailed response of the first one.
No use taunting people into debates when we clearly see how flawed your arguments are.
Why dont they just debate him?
@@Baccanaso Again. No use debating when even laymen can see how flawed these arguments are.
It's the same reason why there's not many serious debates on the flatness of earth these days.
The only outcome of such a debate would be giving such flaws/arguers a false sense of significance in the eyes of unfortunately gullible laymen.
The real question should be, Why won't he just post a simple response video ?
Edit: TMM has just posted a response video too. And the best I've seen from Jimbob is him spazzing out over a clip of PoZ.
And based on how mature he is in his "livestream debates", what is Jimbob if not Diet-DarthDawkins.
Religion needs more Jimbobs.
@@Baccanaso online debating is pointless and doesnt do anything. Its essentially challenging someone to a fight like you're in middle school. People like this narcissist know this, and that's why they only want to engage through in-person debates. Its easier to manipulate stupid people with rhetoric in a debate
But if god was real, why did I have to use right handed scissors all through elementary school
Must have been an all girl school. If you know, you know.
Looking forwards to your response to Logicked and how he dealt with your "new argument".
Not sure who claimed it was a new argument. It’s not new. Bahnsen argued against the assumed rationality of material molecules
@@MadebyJimbobTrue, but I've never seen it been done this incomprehensively before
@@MadebyJimbob Huh? No one assumes the rationality of material molecules except perhaps Deepak Chopra, and he's as crazy as they come.
Wanna save a LOT of time?
If so, all you need to do is *PROVE* that your chosen deity is real!
Correct, that is where his dishonesty kicks in, he can't prove his BS religion so he has to weaponize philosophy and give us a word salad commentary about how the Natural World works.
The burden of proof is on you.
@@laughingtom1132
Why so?
I am NOT the one who is making the claims here!
When you refuse to accept the proof, it's kind of pointless. Read Romans 1 and when you reject it, there is nothing left to say to you really. It's really that simple.
@@CharlieJulietSierra
Your sort are yet to even begin proving your god's existence!
Someone clearly has no idea what atheism is. And it shows.
"hey guys, look how easily I can knock over this straw man! I even paid an animator to illustrate my imaginary opponent in the worst possible way!"
Okay so take two propositions, one, everything is determined by the physical laws of the universe, the other position, everything is determined by a magical anthropomorphic immortal who dwells outside of space and time. One of those things is inherently more reasonable.
1. I didn’t strawman
2. I animate my own content
3. I dare you to call in todays stream and debate me
@@MadebyJimbobYou did strawman, silly liar.
@MadebyJimbob You did strawman. Your animation depicted atheists as what? In love with debators and scientists? As if Christians do not have any heros? I would assume the joke wotht he lotion and tissue was a joke about masturbation? What are you 7 years old? It either depicts atheists weak or it is a sad attempt to equate atheists to Christians because you losers do have heroes, most of them are fictional. You losers do masturbait, no matter how much you wanna pretend you don't. Finally you losers cling to a book, though unlike atheists you never read the book you cling to.
@@MadebyJimbobFight or flight. If free will was true then why are some people hardwired to flight?
I know someone if given the chance to freely choose would rather try to talk their way out of a given situation yet thier natural response is to flee, avoid at all costs.
As further people give off tells, facial expressions or body movements that give away their current predicament. Given free will wouldn't everyone have the choice to not do this and not have to be actively fighting against it?
You explain a Tornado or blade of grass is physics yet how does that equate to the chemical response of the brain?
The blade of grass versus the tornado one can not be true while the other false, one is not more true or more false than the other.
You then point out how your own comment does not make sense. I already see the common mistake of people like you. Ignoring the point that the truth value of a god is somehow not dependent on actual evidence but instead based on your perceived evidence, or that which you will claim is evidence. Whether that be by ignoring the fact their is not truth to your evidence or ignoring other evidence which is true.
Here we go with the word games.... trying to equate that because a thought is an effect of physics that it is not a proposition so it can not be true nor false. Why is it always like this with you people? Wouldn't it then be the same for you? Isn't your thoughts about God also just be physics therefore it is neither true nor false? All this bs is ignoring the facts that thoughts happen therefore a thought is true, the thought itself is true not what the thought is about.
"I typed words" here they all are so me typing this is true. "Apples are invisible" is more words I typed the idea expressed is not true but the fact I typed words is true.... and it's all physics. Why do you people feel the need to try to over complicate shit in a sad attempt to prove your God is real or at the very least that Atheism is somehow an incorrect reply to a question you have zero evidence for?
You do not seem to have any idea what you are talking about when asking if a proposition is physics, when proposition is a thing that is either true or false. A proposition is not a description of an effect. It is odd you would chose this wording. I mean I know you are doing so as a shit attempt at a false dichotomy, but it goes to show that you are just playing word games and are not interested in am actual discussion.
Yes brain activity is based on physics. This does not make activity in the brain and less true or more true than it already is. All this bs to evade the fact your God as no real definition, no properties that can be evaluated, nor any real evidence so instead you make this long winded winding thought process to evade your short comings in an attempt to make the atheists seem to have greater short comings.
Which is why your cartoonist depiction of an Atheist is this weak look, unkempt person clinging desperately to a book you think is the Atheist bible. The only part of that depiction that is true is the fact Atheidt cling to evidence, whereas religious people cling to faith. Faith is by definition a belief in a thing without evidence and in spite of evidence that contradicts the belief.
The funniest part so far is how easily your bs can be shoved right back at you and pointed that this makes your belief in god less true than you claim it is. But that is probably the lesser outcome you are hoping for, a shit sad attempt to drag atheism down to your faith based belief and then you can claim to have more faith thereby your beliefs is stronger and more true. Which is a handful of fallacies in and of itself.
All this new bs is not even part of the argument and is just a tangent to deflect.
Your idiot domino effect is taking a simple process of idea, prediction, testing, then outcome and draging it into an unending cycle and for what? You do not even mention what all the extra dominos are for you just assert that is how it work everytime all the time. I do not need to run 100 tests to claim that if I drop a thing that it will fall. We do not need a domino effect for answering if a thing will fall.
Your whole video is to explain truth value to propositions how else do you expect to reach an answer without some testing?
Your first premise is rejected because of the false dichotomy of the premise.
A proposition is not just an effect of physics this does nothing to support nor dismiss the evidence or lack of evidence of a given proposition. It's all just deflection.
It also does as I previously stated and denies any properties to your God which then puts your God into the same category. Which eliminates an answer to the proposition.
Premise 2 than does exactly what I said you would do and make this idea that all beliefs are on the same shelf which does nothing at all to prove your God or disprove that Atheism is a weak position to have. You ignore all evidence, which is what one needs to do inorder to have faith.
This position is the one you assert Atheists have but it is your strawman position and it is fatal to knowledge. Knowledge by the way is in your words another act of physics because knowledge is based on physics and therefore is neither true nor false. Like math 2+2=4 is somehow not a true representation of physics according to you. You are just conflating the "effects of physics" with the proposition of truth claims and..... it's just another completely ass backwards attempt at justifying your stupid beliefs without actually having to prove any of your beliefs. Strawman after strawman with a sprinkling of other fallacies in an attempt to make Atheists seem to be the confused ones when your video demonstrates how confused you actually are.
@@freddan6fly what was the strawman and what was the argument.
Fantastic. Looks like you've managed to philosophize yourself into total cognitive confusion.
I must admit, it's kind of impressive. I'm sure my 16-year-old self would be stumped for 30 mins our so.
Just turned 17?
@@toboioioioioioioioioioioio7966 does this pass as good trolling nowadays on the internet? Standards have surely fallen.
@@SouthernMenace mb aint really an experienced troll. I pale in comparison to 17 year old veterans like you
@@toboioioioioioioioioioioio7966 don't worry. You'll get there, as long you finish high school.
Tornados have a wind speed which is an effect of physics. Depending on the temperature differences between a cold front and a warm front combining, a tornado can have a faster or lower wind speed. The wind speed is an effect of physics. A blade of grass is an effect of physics. If you look at two different pieces of grass growing in different places, they are both just an effect of physics.
1:50 Does it make sense to say that one piece of grass has a faster wind speed than another? No, they just are, they are effects of physics. You could say that one blade of grass is blowing in the breeze faster than another but as far as the effect goes, it is what it is, it's just an effect, because it's not propositional, it's just an effect of physics. Now, didn't we just establish that effects of physics don't have a faster or slower wind speed? They just are, how can an effect of physics be anything other than what it is? If a tornado is an effect of physics, how can it have a faster or slower wind speed? It just is, like a blade of grass or a different blade of grass.
No Jimbob, tornados are different from blades of grass because they are moving bodies of air, not plants!
Well those tornados are just effects so they can't have a wind speed.
Here is your argument laid out in actual logical form so you can see how dumb it is:
Grass does not have a wind speed, therefore wind speed is not an effect of physics.
If wind speed is not an effect of physics, then the wind speed of a tornado is not an effect of physics.
If the wind speed of a tornado is not an effect of physics, then tornados are not physical.
If tornados are not physical, then tornados cannot destroy houses.
If tornados cannot destroy houses, then a house destroyed by a tornado proves that this argument is unsound because the premises are false.
No that’s not my argument, you didn’t lay out my argument at all. Just jump on the stream and debate it with me
My argument is
1. Any effect of physics can only be what it’s caused to be.
2. Propositions and evaluations are effects of physics
C. Truth and falsity is a caused effect
So what causes true and false as an effect of the very process of evaluation is also a caused effect?
Nothing you’ve said addresses this
@@MadebyJimbob What you wrote is gibberish and makes even less sense than what you said. Logical arguments have forms like Modus Ponens which include premises that lead to a necessary conclusion. You wrote three separate incomplete ungrammatical false ideas and then asked a question.
Your failure is mainly in your second statement which you completely misunderstand.
You think that the proposition "The sky is blue," is caused by the physical property of the sky being blue, however, propositions are actually caused by brains processing input. Your misunderstanding causes you to conclude that the physical property of the sky has some causal relationship to the truth value of the proposition, when in fact the truth value of the proposition has to do with the language of the mind, the social constructs in which the mind developed, and the processing of light by the mind. Propositions can only have a truth value when interpreted by a mind that experiences those same inputs. A person who does not know the definition of the word "blue" would be incapable of determining the truth value of the proposition "The sky is blue" because determining truth value requires input unrelated to the color of the sky. Those inputs are still the result of physical effects, just not the ones you were thinking of.
Have you heard of self referential statements?
@@MadebyJimbob "Just jump on the stream and debate it with me" Why would anyone do that when you've proven yourself a dishonest interlocutor. You seem more interested in mockery and playing to your peanut gallery than the truth of things.
@@Whatsisface4Watch his streams where people actually did jump on his streams to discuss this. They all get stuck in a logic trap.
@@wwickeddoggYou can't escape the logical consequence of determinism in the physicalist position.
Person A: makes a proposition that's determined by laws of physics.
Person B. Makes a different proposition that's also determined by effects of physics.
How can we determine which proposition is true or false if the evaluation of both claims are also determined by effects of physics.
You can invoke testing but the interpretation and conclusion of the test result would also be a determined effects.
Why is it so hard for creators like this to respond to actual atheists instead of coming up with imaginary ones to argue against? Would save on the animation budget *and* give a more fair representation of the atheistic arguments
Which argument was imaginary? I animate my own work there is no budget.
I invite atheists on all the time. Why not call in today and defend your position….
@@MadebyJimbob Firstly, I said the atheist you animated was imaginary, which I assume we can agree on, as he is a nameless cartoon character in a room no atheist would live in, seeing how atheists don't tend to hang atheistic stuff on their walls as if they were crucifixes or bible quotes.
As for argumentative representation by this imaginary atheist, the most glaring example is probably at 5:32. I run in fairly atheistic circles (which is common when I live in Norway, a country where about half the population self-report to be atheists), and I don't know a single person who would say the difference between a tornado and evaluating is complexity. They would be more likely to say something like "the difference is among other things that a tornado is a large collection of air molecules moving in a certain way with high velocity compared to their surroundings while evaluating is the process of comparing something to something else". I challenge you to find me a single person who would say the main difference between a tornado and evaluating is their complexity.
I don't think the conversation with an atheist would even get to that point, though, because most who have actually thought about this stuff for a second would have realized that properties can emerge and disappear based on composition and context. That is to say, something that is caused by or made from something doesn't necessarily inherit all of its properties, and often gain entirely new ones. Increase the temperature of carbon and oxygen and you can get a flame which emits visible light. Mix dry cement with water and you get a solid block. The difference between human spit and venom is just how the molecules are arranged. A mouse with lungs has very difference properties than a mouse without lungs. A computer with access to an electric current has very different properties than one without. Systems and collectives often have properties that their individual parts do not, such as an airplane being able to fly, a brain being able to think or a tornado being able to lift a cow from the ground, and it's not even mostly about complexity, but like I said, composition and context. You don't need to take a physics class to know that.
@@Maartimer no one is going to read that book dude. Say more with less words.
If you called in today, you’d see that you don’t have any good arguments or counter arguments. All I hear is, “cartoons are not real” yeh no shit
@@MadebyJimbob My response is right there for you to read. If you're gonna be too lazy to read more than a single sentence, why do you even bother replying?
@@MadebyJimbob Actually, I guess that answers my very first question. It's hard to accurately represent something you don't even bother trying to understand.
A tornado or a plant growing is a thing that happens. Likewise, having a thought is a thing that happens. The thought as an event is not true or false. Like these other events:
Observing your environment.
Receiving and retaining information.
Comparing your thought to your observations and retained information.
Describing/expressing your thought in terms of its consistency with your observations and information.
Behaving in a way determined by that assessment.
None of those are true or false, as events. They just happen. Including the event of describing something as true or false, and the event of acting accordingly.
P1 (Generalized): Effects of physics neither have property p in greater or lesser abundance than each other
P2 (generalized): e is an effect of physics
P3(generalized): for any given effects of physics, they cannot have property p in greater or lesser abundance each other
The issue here is that your only proof that "effects of physics can't be more true than each other" is that there are SOME effects of physics for which this is true. This can be generalized as:
P4: For a property p, if I can point to an example of an effect of physics e that does not have that property (denoted by the function f(e,p), then effects of physics do not have that property. ∀p(∃e|!f(e,p)->∀e!f(e,p))
So, for example: (P)itch is a property, (E)lectromagnetic attraction is an effect of physics.electromagnetic attraction does not have a pitch, therefore:
P5 !f(E,P)
Therefore, for the property of pitch, no effect of physics can have it as a property. (our model being E∈e, P∈p and f(E,P)=0)
P6 !f(e,P) (m.p. P4, P5)
So an sound wave (an effect of physics) cannot have a pitch.
Yeah. I don’t think beating the shit out of the English language like this is gonna convince anyone of anything.
Thia is total bs
How can you have an argument against someone not believing something?
If you’re asking in good faith,
we can question the epistemic foundation for any person to determine what’s possible and not possible from their starting assumptions, and then attack those assumptions.
@@MadebyJimbob so what assumptions are made when someone doesnt believe something?
Lets use flat earth as an example. I dont believe the earth is flat because ive never seen evidence that it is butsome people say it is flat and they yse the bible to back up their claim.
What assumptions have I made in my lack of belief in flat earth?
"I dont believe x" is a positive claim that needs to be proven as well to answer your question specifically.
@@Robobotic
Wait are you saying people need to prove a religion is true so they can state they dont believe in it?
@@drmantistoboggan2870 Ah yes the "Are you're saying" or the "So you're saying" syndrome.
I'm saying what the statement entails - "I dont believe x" is a claim that needs to be proven.
I'll categorize this video as, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS!"
I’ll categorize this comment as not an argument. Call into my livestream and see how well you can argue against it
Naw homie. Respond to Logicked’s video on your stuff. Then we will be impressed
@MadebyJimbob nobody wants to clal your shirts livestream. You can't evne prove you are worth the time. You offer zero rebuttals to anyone's comments
You just shit talk and beg for callers.
@@MadebyJimbob The characterization of your video is correct. Why not address that, rather than punking out?
@@rjserrano2 "Why not address that, rather than punking out?" - It will only be more gobbledygook. He is as stupid as dishonest, mr Jimbob.
This is what happen, when you make up your interlocutor (and their "arguments") in your head...
This is what happen when you don’t engage with the argument.
Call into my stream, engage with the argument
@@MadebyJimbob
Call in? Live debate is the lowest form of conversation and debate.
It is way too susceptible to dishonest practices like talking over, muting, Gish Galloping, and the like.
As for the argument, I reject premise 1 - category error and affirming the consequent.
@@Steelmage99 to reject premise one you make the claim that propositions are effects of physics.
Can you demonstrate that propositions are effects of physics?
What is the categorical difference between effect of physics (in nature) and effect of physics (evaluation)?
Hello Jimbob.
wow, an "atheist argument" that no atheist has ever presented, offered by a badly drawn cartoon... because no actual atheist would say something so stupid.
Maybe ask an atheist.
I’ve talked to many atheists. As I pointed out in the video, no all atheists take this position but enough do. You said “no atheist” that’s just untrue.
And my cartoon isn’t badly drawn. Call into my show sometime with that confidence and see how you do one on one.
@@MadebyJimbob the only atheist argument is this " I dont believe your claims of a god"
@@MadebyJimbob Good to know that sky daddy is an approved christian worldview to argue against, since all it takes is apparently "...enough do. You said “no atheist” that’s just untrue."
What in the word salad is this?!🧟
It is called being DISHONEST
@@LookOutForNumberOneCan you steel man his argument?
@@lrn_news9171 Yes, I am right (BimBo) because I am a truly religious presup bullshiter.
Is that close enough???
@@LookOutForNumberOne No, you have to demonstrate that you understand the argument being presented.
@@lrn_news9171 Ok, so I will lower the bar with you.
Please enlighten me with your religious wisdom.
If you want to argue against atheism: It is best to get the atheistic side from ... an atheist.
For example: "What is the difference between a Tornado and Evaluating?"
Your Stratheist: "Well complexity ... and stuff"
Me: "One is a pattern of wind and one is an activity by the brain."
That doesn’t tell me the difference. What’s the categorical difference if pattern in brain and pattern of wind are both effects of physics?
Feel free to call in to my stream today and defend your position
@@MadebyJimbobThe difference is simply this: Those patterns in your brain are descriptions of reality, and are called true if that description matches reality, and false if it doesn't.
A tornado doesn't describe anything, and therefore can't be called true or false.
In that same vein, a map can be true or false, depending on whether or not the actual landscape it's describing matches what's on the map; yet you would not say that the map is anything other than physical.
@@MadebyJimbobThe difference is that brain activity acts to take in and process information about the world; a tornado does not process information.
@@MadebyJimbob "What’s the categorical difference if pattern in brain and pattern of wind are both effects of physics?"
The categorical difference is ... one is a pattern of wind and one an activity of the brain.
You can not be as naive to think that two things which share one attribute (in this case something as near-unavoidable as being an "effect of physics" or in other words: Being real) that therefore must mean they are the same.
Do I really need to explain that a pattern of gas molecules going in a circle at high speeds is different from the activity of a biological computer that attempts to form an abstract model of a physical object to then use further calculations to attempt to determine the attributes of that object?
Do I really need to explain that one (the tornado) is an object, while the other (evaluation) is an abstraction which either does or does not correlate with an objectively varifiable standart? Meaning one can not have a truth value, while the other can?
I can barely begin to attempt to explain it in simpler terms because I do not even know where the problem lies for you? It is akin to a child asking me "uhm. What is the difference between a Fork and jellousy?"
@@johnfaber100Your propositions, evaluations and conclusions are all determined effects though.
There's no independent mind that's not bound by physical laws to evaluate.
You're just describing determined effects, after determined effects after determined effects.
Playing semantic games because you can't demonstrate any evidence for your deity. Sad.
There is no contradiction in a view of the world that doesn't have any deity. You inventing a deity doesn't change anything. Physics still governs everything we observe.
This video wasn’t an argument for God. Jump on my live stream Wednesday and let’s see how you do one on one
@@MadebyJimbob An argument that atheism is flawed is EXACTLY an argument for a deity. And no ... I'm not interested in any "one on one" debate besides this one. You're not doing all that well here.
@@idahogie another comment pointed out the livestream "debates" are just jimbob drowning out the caller with loud soundboards, strawmanning their words and mocking them. so that's fun
It's really simple, only god in person in a peer-reviewed setting can prove his existence. No human, books, texts, personal experience or useless word salad on earth can ever prove an unproven god. There is only play pretend (faith).
I've got a few questions for you - Do you believe that we do not receive sensory input that travels through our nerves and is interpreted by our brain? Do you believe that we can not interact with such sensory effects and/or interact with others that we perceive interacting in order to determine a truth claim of said effect?
(I see truth as to what most comports with reality)
Maybe an example could help bring this in perspective.
Person A says that a tornado is rampaging through their backyard
Person B agrees that said tornado is within that backyard
Person C denies that a tornado is within their backyard
There can be many factors in this that validate or nullify the claims; such as humidity, air pressure, weather forecasts, and the sensory inputs of others nearby.
If True: Both persons A and B could be witnessing it firsthand, feel all the effects, and have seen the reports while person C either denies what they feel and see or they could well be halfway across the globe.
If False: Persons A and B could believe it's happening despite the incongruous effects around them, they could also be acting. Meanwhile person C is doing their best to tell them of the truth shown in reality.
Though my favorite is if everything could be True: Both persons A and B remark on how a tornado is rampaging through the backyard; while person C, feeling little meteorological phenomena, wonders on why they are looking at a dog.
I invite you to either call into the stream or discord. I appreciate the engagement but I’ve had to read several comment essays
@@MadebyJimbob Thank you for the invite but considering you have not made any point as to what I said, I have a feeling that this may well be a bot comment.
This video is just one more example of how most religious people are too ignorant to know what atheism is or too dishonest to ankwoledge it.
Imagine thinking you made an argument or countered anything in the video.
Call in my stream kiddo, see how it goes for you
@@MadebyJimbob I don't have to counter anything because you didn't prove anything other than how dishonest religious people can be.
Why don't you debunk the video that TMM just posted about you?
Or even better kiddo, why don't you call The Athest Experience and explain your reasoning to them and see how it goes for you?
Retorts:
1) Prophet of Zod (POZ): ua-cam.com/video/5KlusUtfhrU/v-deo.html
2) The Messianic Manic (TMM): ua-cam.com/video/ESi-LryP-CA/v-deo.html
But why bad thing happen?
"First installment" and your strawman already got LOGICKED !!!
Do better next time. Maybe do a response video if you feel like addressing actual atheist arguments.
Edit: yes, very FATAL indeed.
"If I twist words and logic enough, then I can prove a god exists. Just don't ask me to prove the Christian version."
@@W3RK1Nit you don’t know what logic is
Free tip: depicting your opponent as an stupid and ugly character only conveys how poor your argument and integrity is. Society is familiar with this tactic.
Wrong, thats not a logical follow.
The insult of the opposition has no relevance to the validity of the argument. You can’t engage with the argument, so I got the stupid part right
@@MadebyJimbob Just proving your lack of integrity and poor quality of argument further. Just sad, man. You need to touch grass; being this abrasive terminally online persona is unhealthy.
@@MadebyJimbobIf insulting the opposition has no bearing on the validity of the argument, then why do it? It's an Ad Hominem that shows your cowardice; you can't represent your opponent as a fully competent person with just a faulty argument.
@@taserianAlephNullwomp womp
@@MadebyJimbob
Aw, he's trying to use logic to justify his use of a poisoning the well logical fallacy. You're trying so hard!
I was Chrsitian when I watched this and now I'm an Athiest
@@ChurroMyChicken you were a liar when you watched it and you’re still a liar
@@MadebyJimbob We'll call it exaggerating ;)
@@MadebyJimbob You are actually part of the reason I'm a Satanist. You make Christianity look so bad one actually has to oppose it.
Playing devil's advocate for a sec, but couldn't one argue that the argument commits a category error?
The argument fails to differentiate between the ontological status of an event (like a tornado) and the epistemological status of a proposition about that event.
The truth or falsity of a proposition is not a physical property like the speed of a tornado or the color of grass. It's a property of how that proposition relates to the world or to a set of beliefs. For example, the proposition "Grass is green" is true because it accurately describes the color of grass.
Even if our ability to formulate propositions is determined by physical processes in the brain, this does not inherently affect the truth value of the propositions. The physical process and the truth value operate on different levels. The process is ontological (how the brain works), whereas the truth value is epistemological (whether the proposition accurately reflects reality).
Yes they could claim it’s a category error, however, as I mentioned in the video, they would have to tell me the categorical difference between the two effects of physics. It’s only a category error if they can make the distinction
Does the last paragraph in the above comment not make that distinction? It seems like the first sentence of that paragraph is a reasonable argument for a meaningful distinction between the two.
I reject premise 1. In fact, there's hardly anyone who would be committed to such a view of all things physical, especially if they believe language and thoughts are physical. Language and thoughts have propositional structure, and tornadoes don't. Propositional structures encode truth functional elements, making them truth apt and enabling interpersonal communication and logical analysis, while the structure of tornadoes does not. And it's unclear that adding anything non-physical to the world would solve the "problem" you raise because then you could ask similar questions about whatever non-physical entities you posit (what makes the non-physical relevantly distinct from the physical?). You'd very likely just end up having to say that the truth aptitude of the non-physical things is explained by their propositional structure, and then the view would just become explanatorily redundant.
Congrats. You watched the video and understand.
@@thankyou8622 And you have read my comment fully and have contributed to the discourse greatly through your intellectual engagement with the point I made.
It really does seem to be a case of not understanding the properties of function of language as a both a thing caused by physics(in that brains are) *and* a symbolic representation which can be said to be more or less true.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who saw it like that.
Lmao! The table with lotion and a dillahunty poster?! Just spit my coffee out dude! 😂😂
😅😂
The hearts around Dillahunty's poster lol
You confuse the map (propositions) for the city (effects).
Propositions ARE effects in the view I’m critiquing. All you’ve said is, “you confuse the effects for the effects”
@@MadebyJimbob You think that because you confuse the map for the city.
@@mobatyoutube Sorry to say but what you wrote is gibberish.
Excellently succinct way to put it. Inextricably linked, but significantly distinct.
Problems.
A. The premise that atheists do not believe in anything beyond what it’s material. Things that are not strictly material can flow out of the material, such as consciousness or thought. This does not go against naturalism or empiricism in the same way religion does however because you can only a daily basis observe consciousness or thought.
B. False correlation fallacy. Because thing A has property B, as well as property C, and thing D shares property B with A, then D must have property C. Just because something is an “effect” of physics, and some effects cannot be described, not all effects have property C, not being true or false.
Same problem can be applied to the complexity point (which is a strawman anyway, the proper answer would be there are several differences between a tornado and evaluating, and that the sum of those observations is how we categorize various “things.”) ignoring the fact that computers do more than what their programming strictly says, the idea that because computers do not transcend their computer status because they become more complex brains follow the same logic is again, a false correlation. Thing A having property B doesn’t mean thing C has property B.
Finally, if you want to be taken serious rhetorically, maybe don’t start your video with a caricature of your opposition, or possibly even the people you’re trying to reach out to. It’s Definitionally ad hominem and intellectually dishonest.
Imagine having to perform utterly laughable mental somersaults to prove atheism is wrong because you apparently can't do it in the most obvious, straightforward way - by simply proving that god exists.
You didn’t engage with the argument. You failed
@@MadebyJimbob I never meant to. I'd rather engage with someone actually trying to demonstrate that god exists than waste my time with an arrogant clown. I merely dropped by to join the mockery playground you've kindly set up for us.
@@MadebyJimbob Because we don't even need to engage with your apologetics. If your god were real, he wouldn't even need apologists, cause he could just make his existence known to everyone fairly easily. The very fact that no theist has been able to point to good evidence for their god is actually evidence that the proposition "a god exists" is unlikely.
@@NoodleKeeper good point. Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence if evidence is expected.
Others have already dismantled most of your flawed logic in far more detail than I'd care to, so I'll just point out that you wouldn't need to prove only matter/physics exist to prove minds are physical.
You only need to demonstrate that a mind is directly affected by physics in a way a non-physical mind wouldn't be, ideally you also further demonstrate the actual physical processes that produce mental processes.
I spent some time introducing my son to these kinds of arguments yesterday during his science lesson. He's 11 and I'd so appreciate some prayers for his growing mind and his own relationship with Christ. ❤
The indoctrination you’re putting your child through is vile.
Hopefully he gets out of your indoctrination once he grows up.
@@apersonontheinternet8354It's called being a good mother, Sir.
@@apersonontheinternet8354She was determined by the mechanism of the Universe to do so. As she was to post about it. As you were to complain about it. That's what the video is about, there is no ooga-booga magic mind that makes decisions and evaluations, we're just instantiations of evolutionary strategems.
@@πατριχορindoctrination into believing superstitions are very horrible things to subject children to.
But thankfully, her child has their own brain, and can make up their own mind.
Christianity is an ever shrinking group and the deconversion rate among younger generations are VERY high. So it’s quite likely that no amount of indoctrination and dictatorship via Kenzie, will actually do anything.
Whats wrong with indoctrination?
@@apersonontheinternet8354
Wow! This is AWESOME! And it's only the first video of the series? Hope to get more soon!
It's incredible, it's so stupid! I don't think he realize it, I think he 's looking at himself as a genius, hearing the arrogant level of smugness... I've laughed so hard...
Hope to see more of your work, clown.
I hate you, you read my mind, LMFAO
Wow, this is Pathetically idiotic. Not to mention, blatantly dishonest, pure speculation and assumptions, willful ignorance and some wishful thinking.
Non argument. Call into the stream
@@MadebyJimbob I don't debate stupidity.
All these atheists showed up to cry, and no one will actually argue about it live? Pointless commentary. @@midlander4
@@fredo3161
There is no argument - jimbob just waffles nonsense.
@@andrewholdaway813 thats a great tactic just say my opponent has no argument, you've truly mastered debate 💀
*Let's friggin GOOO!!!*
Oh look, a dishonest presuppositionalist.
How... cliche.
You missed a trick not having 80085 on the calculator 😂
Great video!
water can not be wet because H2O molecule can not be wet and water is a collection of H2O molecules
never heard of emergent properties?
yeaaaah... logic...
Thank you! I'm surprised nobody has ever mentioned emergent properties. I'm not this guy has heard of it.
Thanks
i never held to the determinist view because i grew up listening to NOFX
Took me a day to get this joke.. Good one! :)
you seem to confuse "simple" argument and "stupid" argument. Those are different things....
I don’t know your position from that comment. Please speak clearly
@@MadebyJimbobyou just underlined your stupidity, given I was very clear...
But apparently you don't even understand the difference between speaking and writing, so maybe it shouldn't be surprising even short and very clear statements are beyond you...
The difference between a tornado and thinking is that thinking has semantic content. They have “aboutness.” Thoughts are about something, while a tornado or grass growing isn’t about anything.
Here would be my counter argument:
Premise 1. Effects of physics without semantic content are neither true or false.
Premise 2. Propositions, thoughts, and evaluations are effects of physics.
Premise 3. Propositions, thoughts, and evaluations have semantic content.
Conclusion. Propositions, thoughts, and evaluations can be true or false while also being effects of physics.
Now the the only premise that needs to be defended from a physicalist point of view is premise 2, and there are plenty of accounts of how semantic content can arise in a physicalist world one can appeal to. All of them have some difficulties for sure but none are so fatal as to completely rule out the project as your argument claims to do.
But that would just move the question over to,
What is the categorical difference between thinking and effects of physics? Semantic content would also just be a produced physical phenom.
Otherwise, yes premise two needs to be defended regardless of a formal argument being presented
@@MadebyJimbobThere would be no strict difference between thinking and effects of physics given physicalism, the only meaningful difference worth talking about would be thinking’s functional role in representing, processing, and integrating information.
@@MadebyJimbobIf brains can produce representations, or any system for that matter, they can have semantic content. If brains have semantic content they can have truth apt evaluations.
@@MadebyJimbob the difference wouldn’t be one of category, like saying a triangle is a different shape category than a rectangle, but more like pointing out that both rectangles and squares exist but have distinction.
Sure, all squares are rectangles, and all rectangles are quadrilaterals, but not all rectangles are squares, and not all squares share properties with other quadrilaterals.
In the same way, semantic content and thinking may be physical effects, but that does not mean they share all properties held by *other* physical effects.
I think the primary issue with the argument is that really no physicalist (who endorses some non-eliminativist view of truth I suppose) should accept both premise 1 and 2. If the physicalist thinks that thoughts, evaluations, and propositions are the effects of physics (p2), and that these things can be true/ false, the physicalist should just recognize that p1 is inconsistent with their beliefs and should be rejected absent further argument.
But unfortunately I think the only defense of this premise given here is that tornados and blades of grass growing aren't true/ false. But it doesn't follow from "tornados and blades of grass growing aren't true or false" that no physical effects are true or false. Someone might share that intuition for independent reasons, but as outlined above, this wouldn't be our physicalist.
I'm also not sure the conclusion really establishes anything beyond the law of excluded middle, and doesn't seem to follow from the premises. I think it could be re-expressed, so this isn't necessarily fatal to the argument, but as stated it doesn't appear to say anything about physicalism specifically. For instance, I can tell you now that I don't personally think this is a sound argument, but am perfectly happy to agree with the conclusion (which suggests to me we have a non-sequitur). In fact, plausibly under most theories of mind evaluations at the very least will be an "effect" of some process; so if the conclusion is supposed to be a problem for physicalism it will probably undercut any such view.
The issue is someone could say p1 is begging the question
“Effects of physics are neither true or false”
But in order to reject P1 the person has to beg the question by stating propositions are effects of physics.
If propositions are effects of physics, then one could produce an independent variable that caused a true proposition. But then they’d have to claim evaluating that proposition was also an effect of physics, meaning the evaluation itself could be demonstrated to be caused by an independent variable.
I can observe boiling water in nature.
I can reproduce boiling water in the kitchen.
Do we observe true propositions?
Can we reproduce a physical process called a true proposition?
@@MadebyJimbob Stating that "propositions are effects of physics" is premise 2 of your argument though; so it can't be begging the question, it's required for the conclusion. If p2 is begging the question in favor of the conclusion, then your argument is question begging. If p2 is begging the question against the conclusion, then your argument is invalid (i.e. the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises).
@@chipperhippo I’m glad I’m not the only one who saw that. He said a similar thing in another comment and I’ve been so confused because “propositions are effects of physics” seems to be specifically and explicitly said within the video. (At least granted for the purpose of internal critique)
~2:00 “We could say that a description is more accurate or less accurate..”
Precisely. I can’t speak for others, but when I say something is “true” or “false” or “more true” or “less true,” *all that I mean* is that it more accurately or less accurately describes reality. As far as I can tell, that is also what most people tend to mean by those words.
It really seems that this video is an exercising in misunderstanding the purpose and function of language rather than addressing atheism or things atheists say in any way.
That statement was a set up for the internal critique. Physicalism has no access to “accuracy”, the method for determining “accurate or not” is also just a mechanical output. You fundamentally don’t understand the logical consequences the video is pointing out
@@MadebyJimbobI appreciate your quick response. Love talking about this stuff!
While I will always admit the possibility that I’ve misunderstood, it seems you’ve missed or misunderstood one of the main thrusts of my comment: that these potential problems with physicalism are actually quite easily explained by examining the *language* used.
“Physicalism has no access to ‘accuracy’”
I’m not sure what it means for an “ism” to have ‘access to accuracy.’
“the method for determining ‘accurate or not’ is also just a mechanical output.”
I think you’re implying that the method being a mechanical output means that the method is unreliable, or faulty in some significant way. I’ve seen plenty of people say this but I’m still unsure why they say that.
Now, for the analysis about the language used, primarily “truth” and “accuracy.”
It is correct to say that to call an effect of physics true or false would be rather nonsensical. But that’s not because there is no effect of physics which could be analyzed within the context of truth or accuracy - it is because truth and accuracy can only play within the bounds of symbolic representation. “Truth” and “accuracy” as concepts, as *words,* exist to analyze the relationship between two things, whether that be a drawing of a tree and the tree it was based on, or a scientific theory and observable reality.
You may be meaning the words “truth” and “accuracy” to be understood with reference to some sort of objective reality, but that’s not their only domain. As much as I appreciate the succinctness of the video, I think the language gets very muddled very quickly.
As for the problem of the method of relational analysis being mechanical - I again just have to ask *how* that’s a problem. I recognize that any arbitrary mechanism does not guarantee an output that closely resembles reality, but I also recognize that would be an incredibly poor description of our intellectual faculties.
@@MadebyJimbob also this isn’t a super important point - but I’ve noticed you referring to Physicalism a lot in the comments, but you never use that word in the video(or at least I didn’t catch it over a couple of listens and reads through the transcript).
I’d recognize of course that a deterministic universe is similar to if not synonymous with a Physicalist one, as much as I understand Physicalism I suppose, and you are talking in a way that seems consistent with Physicalism.
I just wanted to point out that this disparity could be a potentially unnecessary stumbling block in conversations about this video in the comments.
I don't understand how you support premise one. You just gave examples of a tornado and grass, but that's about it.
I can’t support premise one with the fact that every known effect of physics we can think of is neither true or false, and under physicalism the ONLY effect of physics that escapes this is a proposition.
@@MadebyJimbob Technically true, similar to effects being neither green nor red. But in the end effects can give humans the impression of green or red objects, and ink on paper can give the impression of true or false propositions. So I don't get the point of your video.
W JIMBOB
CHRIST IS KING
Mike Brigandi can just verify determined things against other determined things and make comparisons. If you had a special mind (Brigandi Brain), you would know this.
You need Brigandi Brain to understand, but you need the Brigandi serpentine lisp in order to communicate it
@@StrangerByTheHour he does have an overly moist way of emerging words
@@jesterprivilege haha, “moist”. That's pretty good.
So the argument is: IF physics cannot be true or false, they just are, how can an atheist/materialist say ideas are true or false?
Because no one is saying thoughts in themselves are physical, they are effects of the physical. Hence, the whole comparison is flawed to begin with.
Believing in something is in itself the effect, even if it is wrong, it doesn't make the effect less true physically.
The physicalist says thoughts are material.
@@MadebyJimbob Well, a "hard or naive" physicalist yes, but those are extremely few in number. None of the famous atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and so on, subscribe to that view of reality. You will have a hard time finding anyone serious doing so. Sort of the flat earthers of the atheist community.
I think the old Greek philosopher Demokritos had those ideas. But today, those are rare.
Most physicalists today are "soft", that is, believe that thoughts are a product of the brain, but not physical in themselves.
If thoughts are emergent and not physical then they are irrelevant to the physicalist, they have nothing to do with reality as a physicalist would say reality is. It's self refuting
@@lucianmacandrew1001if thoughts are products of the brain, then they are physical. An effect of something physical must be physical. If they are something other than physical, then there is a new ontological category that materialism cannot account for. How can matter produce non-matter?
@@rudeboyjim2684Exactly. Thoughts are something other than physical...metaphysical.
"They surround me on all sides, but in the name of the Lord, I cut them down." Psalm 118:10
metal
🔥☦🙏
@@easternmcgCringe
Violent...
@@alwaysright3943cringe to your cringe
wouldnt a hallucination of a tornado be a "false tornado"? you could say the hallucinated tornado is still true because its mearly an effect for physical brain chemistry that caused the hallucination, but in that case the truth would be bad brain chemistry + hallucinated tornado
If you watched the video it answered this question I mean seriously dude if that itself is just physics then what's the basis of knowing it to be true or false if thought to begin with is just physics.
if i hallucinated a tornado and it didnt destroy my house vs if a tornado destroyed my neighbour's house. you'd know that one is true and the other isnt from physics alone. seems like physics is the basis of truth. i dont understand why this isnt good enough, you are arbitrarily saying physics cant be the basis of knowledge just because you dont like it@@inrmds
Maybe you should try talking to an atheist before you make a whole video about this stuff? Or try talking to _someone,_ at least?
You're _imagining_ an atheist the way you want - I got a good laugh at that - and then you are imagining what your strawman atheist would say about this stuff. But to me, this all seems so _silly._ Again, you'd be better off actually talking to a human being, rather than just imagining both sides of a conversation.
You might well get crazy replies from some atheists - just look at all the crazy stuff we hear from theists - but I doubt if you'd get anything _this_ silly.
I’ve talked to many atheists, I also was an atheist for half of my life. Why don’t you jump on the stream tomorrow , my stream is open to atheist call ins
@@MadebyJimbob
I'm not interested in promoting your channel. But if you want to talk, let's talk. Right here.
This was supposed to be an "argument against atheism," but all you need for that is evidence that a god exists. Do you _have_ anything distinguishable from wishful-thinking? How about one piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, that your god is real, rather than just imaginary?
@@Bill_Garthright you clearly didn’t listen to the video.
I’m arguing against common atheist positions. Atheism is a conclusion. Conclusions follow from some epistemic system, that is what I’m free to challenge. We can argue against atheist reasoning without proving God.
@@MadebyJimbob
I'm sorry, but that's just silly. I'm an atheist because I don't believe you, that's all. I don't believe _any_ of the diverse, contradictory claims theists make about their gods. And the _reason_ I don't believe those claims is because they don't seem to be backed by anything - *anything* - distinguishable from wishful-thinking.
Nothing's going to make up for that. As long as you don't have *anything* distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up your religious beliefs, that's all I need to... not believe your claims. We atheists need nothing else.
I don't give a _crap_ about "common atheist positions." We atheists have no pope, no prophet, no priests, pastors, or mullahs, no dogma, no magic books, and _no required beliefs, whatsoever._ Atheists are still human, and human beings are diverse. But you can believe anything - literally _anything_ - and still be an atheist as long as you don't believe in a god or gods. It's a very narrow label.
Inevitably, theists arguing against "common atheist positions" just end up arguing with a strawman they've created. Their argument doesn't matter to me if it's not my position, and it's always just a strawman version of the position even if I _do_ hold a position somewhat similar. Besides, again, it's not evidence that a god is real, which is what you need if you want me to believe that a god _is_ real.
@@Bill_Garthright You are just a pretentious egoistic gibberish talker. You have no argument except calling others silly.
You are deranged.
This is awesome. Looking forward to many more of these!
Thanks Jake. Cheers
Imagine concluding a god must exist because adjectives in the English language aren't universally applicable. What tripe.
How come you don't address the argument?
Why didn't you address the argument?
This presentation seems to assert that the "laws of physics and chemistry" [LoP&C] result in deterministic systems with distinct states. First, our understanding of the LoP&C continues to develop, so asserting what they are with certainty is a mistake. Second, our current understanding suggests that there is some randomness involved, and complex systems can have wildly different states over time, even when starting from almost the same initial states. We see this using the example of the computer and simple calculator [5:30], where the calculator will work for years, even decades, without any errors, while the computer will occasionally have software crash unpredictably.
1. We can’t observe randomness, a “suggestion of randomness” is merely an appeal to ignorance
2. The crashing of a computer is a matter of cause and effect, so it’s still relevant to the framework of the argument.
The only question is, are thoughts evaluations and propositions effects of physics, if so, what is the logical consequence of that on on knowledge,
Feel free to call in today
@@MadebyJimbob
1. We do observe randomness, an example is the interference pattern with the single-slit or double-slit experiments. Radioactive decay is another example. We also observe the chaos theory sensitivity to initial conditions with a double pendulum, as well as the tumbling of Hyperion, a moon of Saturn.
2. The crashing of a computer is cause and effect, but it is unpredictable and can be random.
My point is that thoughts, evaluations, and propositions can be entirely effects of physics, even with results like incorrect memories. The logical consequence is that a deity is unnecessary to explain how our mind works.
@@UnconventionalReasoning both points are incorrect.
You’re merely calling the double slit random because we have lack of data. You couldn’t argue otherwise without question begging
Same principle goes to the computer, without enough data on the mechanism we could isolate the cause of the malfunction every time.
You think there is some metaphysical cause that makes a car engine break too?
@@MadebyJimbob
You're incorrect. I'm calling the double-slit random because it is. There is no question begging.
No, we cannot always isolate the cause of a computer malfunction every time, there are too many possible inputs which are interacting.
A car engine breaking has a similar issue, microfractures in the metal structure lead to a macrofracture, but there is randomness in what exactly happens.
Using your terms, at 2:00 what does "accurate" mean? How does that meaning differ from the meaning of truth posited by the atheist? True statements are just a set of effects, effects that accurately describe effects.
That’s circular and begs the question..
If an effect can’t be anything other that what physics cause it to be, how would you know it’s an accurate effect describing a previous one
@@MadebyJimbob takes maps, for example. Some maps are accurate, some are not. If the map gets us to our destination, we say it's accurate. If it doesn't, we say it's not accurate. All of this can be effects, all of this can be determined, and still, we can differentiate between true and not true. There's nothing circular about it. Your first premise isn't justified.
@@JB-du3qvminds create maps, if making a map was simply the effect of physics, then an accurate map and an inaccurate map would have the same value. You keep granting yourself an evaluation process that is somehow immune to being strictly an effect of physical causes
@@JB-du3qv”we can differentiate them” this is appealing to the thing in question.
If the method of “differentiating” is in itself an effect of mechanistic processes, then you have to appeal again to another effect to differentiate between your differentiation. It’s a vicious circle
@@MadebyJimbob brains create maps, and brains are purely material. Roomba robot vacuums make maps, and they are also material. If the map allows the robot to navigate the space, reach it's destination, and complete the programmed task, then we say the map is true or accurate. Similarly, our concepts work or don't, and we can thereby gain knowledge. Only in a deterministic world is knowledge possible. You introduced this idea of accuracy without justification, at 2:00. What do you mean by accurate?
The signed Matt Dillahunty picture just never gets old, especially because its the biggest and most important rofl.
Love this format!!
Wot?
How is a tornado 'true'? What do you mean by that?
Do you mean the 'statement' that a tornado exists is true? Or do you just mean 'exists' when you say true?
Objects, events, effects are not true. That is what I meant.
@@MadebyJimbob But how can an object not be true though? What is your definition of 'true'. Because if I use the definition of 'accurate' which would roughly be the general usage, then an object being 'accurate' doesn't make sense. Only statements about the object can be true or false.
Literally the only thing I can guess you mean by true or false is that an object can 'exist' or 'not exist'.
@@DuctTapeJake objects, events, effects are not true or false.
We refer to propositions as true or false. If propositions are objects in the world, as they would be under physicalism, then the physicalist needs to tell us how an object can be true or false
@MadebyJimbob Right! My mistake. I thought you were arguing that objects/effects were 'false' when you said 'not true'.
So you're trying to say what? Because a tornado can't be 'true' because that doesn't make sense, a proposition can't be true because thoughts are the products of physical brains? Like... the abstract concept is the thing that we are evaluating, not the chemical processes.
😮 Мoй Воже... Jimbob is doing something different than streaming.
More steaming bullshit
Asking how a bit of matter, or an effect of physics, can be true or false is a reasonable question, but in the age of computers there's no excuse for not seeing the answer.
In this video - Claude Shannon demonstrates "Theseus" Machine Learning @ Bell Labs (High Quality) - which I've used as my example because it's all so physical and visible because of the old technology - we can see that matter arranged in a certain way can be used to represent a maze, and the proof is that as a result a little mechanical mouse can accurately navigate the maze. Change the maze and the arrangement of matter no longer accurately represents the maze. It's not longer *true*, you might say.
Arrangements of matter can be "true or false" when they are in the context of some other matter which "interprets" its arrangement in a certain way. By itself, a closed relay, or a neuron, can't be true or false - in the context of other matter "interpreting" it, it can mean "The maze has a dead end here" which absolutely can be true or false.
Watch the video and you will see, right before your eyes, mere arrangements of matter being true, and then being false when circumstances change.
We have been in the computer age for a long time now, moving into the age of the self driving car, machines which can only work by having an accurate representation of their surrounding inside them. There's really no excuse for pretending there's some big mystery here that only the supernatural can solve.
So I'm neither a materialist nor an atheist, but there seems to be an illicit slide in this argument from *some* effects being non-propositional to *all* effects being non-propositional. But it seems to me that the obvious response for the materialist or atheist here would be to deny this slide. Just because *some* effects like tornadoes and grass are not propositional, it doesn't follow that all effects must be non-propositional. I suppose my question, then, is why think that the first premise of this argument is true? Why can't an effect be propositional?
I think you would then have to ask what is the categorical difference between this new propositional effect and every other effect.
@shlockofgod the difference is that one is a mental effect and the other is a physical/natural/non-mental effect. Mental effects can have properties such as intentionality conferred upon them by minds. And since intentionality is an essential component of propositions, it's not too big of a step from here to think that minds can also produce propositions (i.e. thoughts) and that these thoughts can be true or false.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 But if everything is a determined effect then intentionality would just be an illusion.
@@shlockofgod well, what's the argument for that?
@@faithbecauseofreason8381intentionality would then just be a determined effect of physics. How would intentionality be categorically distinct from other effects
Also, what’s a mind in this view ? Just another effect determined by physics. Materialism can’t tell us what a mind is, you appealed to metaphysics to argue for materialism
Heh, turns out the argument is exactly the same if you assert that the supernatural/immaterial exists:
P1. Effects of the supernatural/immaterial are neither more true or false than other effects of the supernatural
P2. Thoughts, evaluations and propositions are effects of the supernatural/immaterial
C. Evaluations (effects) and propositions (effects) are not more true or false than other evaluations (effects) and propositions (effects)
Wrong, that’s incoherent gibberish from the smoooth brain of bs Lewis, it’s been torn to shreds, I dare you to call into my show with that shit.
Supernatural, and metaphysics aren’t cause and effect dummy. Physicalism is cause and effects
Now please, go take a warm bath lol
@@MadebyJimbobSo the supernatural can't cause anything to happen?
@@SpaveFrostKing whether the supernatural can effect natural doesn’t entail that it has lawful regularity akin to physics. It’s a massive category error. Time is metaphysical, is experienced in the natural world and yet has no causal relationship.
@@MadebyJimbobYou avoided my question. Can the supernatural cause things to happen?
@@SpaveFrostKing Yes, God can influence the natural world. That doesn’t make BS Lewis shitty argument coherent or valid
less apologetics, more science, then we talk
I talk about science all the time.
if you knew anything about science you would know equating things and playing word games is not scientific
frozen water and regular water are both water but have different characteristics and interact with every thing around them differently @@MadebyJimbob it does not mean the laws of physics or our understanding of them changes, nor does that add or take from the fact that i dont think your god exists
in short you are doing apologetics and not science, if you think what you are doing is even remotely scientific then i await your peer reviewed paper, i find it cute that you are on the internet which is made exclusively by science to some how pretend its circular and leads no where, if only we didnt have the fruits of our labor, you would not even be here
and sure you can assert your god did it, and to that i wait evidence...that works, instead of taking working models we have and pretending our god did it cuz reasons
@@ravenvalentine4919 you’ve not addressed anything in the video. This video wasn’t an argument for God.
You’ve not answered the problem posed in the video.
The video isn’t about science dummy. The video is about metaphysics and epistemology and the question of how a strict mechanistic universe can produce knowledge. You’re not even close to engaging with the topic.
@@ravenvalentine4919 and no, science is the study of nature, a phone is engineering. And it’s entirely irrelevant to the topic of the video.
Your comment sucks. It’s so insanely dumb and low iq I can’t even believe a person wrote it
why dont you come take a piss on my degree as well
i didnt ''address'' what you said the way YOU want because what you said is malformed so i had to correct it first, next time dont make a strawman of reality and dont make a straw man of a scientific proposition and i wont have to @@MadebyJimbob again i await your peer reviewed paper if you think you discovered some thing here, and i expect you to start using your own technology since you disagree with how we do science, you cant have it both ways
Gday, what’s your spin on Matthew 24:34?
I don’t do spins on scripture.
@@MadebyJimbob sorry poor choice of words, I understand your response as read it literally. Thanks.
Is their a caring helpful person here? The video author and their god can’t help me because I used the word spin, they and their god don’t know me or are able to understand my question.
How do believers with a helpful caring god explain Matt 24:34 when if reading literally says Armageddon has already happened?
😂 I’m Jim Bob & I’m here to deliver the goods ! ❤ That should be your new “catch phrase “ 💯 classic 👑
Yeah I think that’s the idea. Obviously
I evolved to seek the truth. I am a truth seeking machine!
How did you come to the concept of truth?
@@linusloth4145truth is the name we call things that comport with reality. And reality is determined by our senses.
@@albertcastro3500how do your senses tell you that reality is determined by senses? Circular
@@tomwood5592it isn't circular to have axiomatic beliefs. Prove ur not a brain in a vat. Good luck with that.
Dropping 2 comments, for the algo ;)
Your magic skydaddy controls everything so he's made you a laughing stock for a reason.
No argument. Call into the stream today and let’s compare worldviews
@@MadebyJimbob You didn't really provide an argument against atheism.
You provided an argument against a strawman position that you made up.
This is the problem with your criticism: atheists commonly claim that it's not a worldview, and it means this and it doesn't mean that, and so on and so forth.
So any time an atheist shows up to criticize and make claims, it's impossible to know their specific position because most of the time it's just emotional sperging.
It would help to actually make an argument right off the bat rather than leave pointless comments.
@@HuxtableK
@fredo3161 Nah mate. The problem ain't with me, or even with atheists as a whole.
The problem here is yall can't seem to actually address atheism.
The video doesn't touch on atheism. It addresses claims that have to do with deterministic materialism, not atheism. The two are not the same thing.
@@fredo3161 It's simple. Atheists don't lie and pretend they think they have a magic sky daddy. Unlike religitards who murder anyone who doesn't pretend to have a magic invisible friend. You mindlessly stupid ridiculous childish vegetable.
Arguments against Atheism: Don't be gay
Only heterosexual intercourse produces new life. This is a scientific fact. The production of new life results in evolutionary mutations and natural selection. Darwinian evolution is accepted by science as well. Funny enough, atheists claim they believe in science, they claim they value life, and yet, they can't help but stick it where it doesn't belong. You would think a pro-evolution ideology would value the production of new life and new evolutionary genetics but apparently it's more important that we indulge in self destructive behavior.
The posters of RD MD and SH on the wall, the ponies, the lotion and scrunched TP 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Im f dead rn
“ If God real, why come evil” (c) Boomie Mcgaytheist
Nice strawman now awnser it
@@micrator2085how do you define evil, first of all?
@@joshuaparsons887 stuff that most if not all people agree are bad like killing and stuff
@@micrator2085 and what makes killing and stuff evil?
@@joshuaparsons887 do you like being dead?
Logicked has made a video response to this, so expect a large amount of comments coming through soon.
Absolutely fantastic video. This is the kind of stuff that actually got me out of atheism a few years ago. Nearing the end of my time as an atheist, I was genuinely interested in Christianity, but I struggled to convince myself. No matter what I tried, I remained convinced that there was no possible way that God was real. It wasn't until I ran across these kinds of arguments that I realized that I had it exactly backwards, and that the only possibility, even if I didn't *really* believe it just yet, was that God is real.
I pity you 🙄
@@apersonontheinternet8354 That's fine.
@apersonontheinternet8354 You will come around eventually too 😊
@@πατριχορI was a christian for over two decades before deconverting. Unless there’s some newly observed scientific evidence that actually meets the burden of proof? Nah I’m not going to believe again
Yes, it is called Gullibility, good job.
How can a blade of grass be alive if a tornado and an idea aren’t alive!!!!!!11!1!!
Things can’t have different properties!!!!1!1!
Everything is the same as everything else!!1!1!!!11!!!!!
Saying “different property” doesn’t tell us what is categorically different between two sets of physical effects.
Y’all very talkative in the comments section but none of y’all clicked the link to argue in person
@@MadebyJimbob- my senses tell me what is categorically different between physical phenomena.
I observe that a blade of grass is alive, and an idea and a tornado aren’t.
I observe that a tornado has wind speed, and an idea and a blade of grass don’t.
I observe that an idea either matches my experience of reality or it doesn’t, and a blade of grass or a tornado don’t have that property.
How do you get though life if your senses don’t allow you differentiate between different physical phenomena?
Comments are speaking in person. I’m a person. You are a person. We are communicating person to person. If you don’t like comments can’t you disable them?🤷♂️
Why are you talking bout materialism & physics in regards to your belief in a god?
Atheism is simply, are you ready...
I reject your belief in a god or gods. That's it, that's all there is to it.
You, the theist, have failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence that your god or any god or gods exists.
Wrong, atheism has presuppositions.
@MadebyJimbob wrong, that's your own wild made up idea. Stop telling me what I do or don't believe in. It only makes you look very foolish
...what presupposition does atheism have? If someone grows up never hearing about gods or theism, never having a chance to become a theist, what would this necessarily make this person presume?
@@OneKauz you can’t come to a belief without some epistemic presuppositions
@@noneofyourbusiness7055 atheism has a wide variety of presuppositions, materialism/physicalism, empiricism, naturalism. You can’t come to beliefs or even the rejection of propositions without a lens
I won't lie, this is an interesting conundrum. It's also one I haven't heard before, so kudos to an original spin on a presuppositional argument. I also commend you for thinking of responses to your argument and addressing those.
Now as to the actual argument itself:
I would argue that this argument is correct. That all logic and knowledge is indeed circular. That it is only compared to other logic and knowledge. Thus, it can only be considered internally consistent, useful, and widely agreed upon. If this is true, it is not an argument against atheism. Nor would this be any less true under theism. It's a statement about knowledge.
Thanks for the reply.
The argument in the video isn’t an argument against atheism, it’s moreso an argument against Universal Mechanistic Materialism, which can inform an atheist view.
@MadebyJimbob Fair enough. However, if logic and knowledge is invented in the manner I described, then this wouldn't be an argument against materialism either. At best, it's an argument against logic being discovered.
I would even go as far as saying the question of materialism is irrelevant here. Even under an immaterial world you could still claim logic can only be invented using the same arguments. The same questions could still be asked, with the same solutions or lack thereof: Is a supernatural thing true or false? No, it just is.
@@dataforge27451. I disagree; this is still an argument against materialism, materialism would reduce all things to mechanistic processes by definition, which renders knowledge impossible.
2. No one can claim that logic is invented, that would assume logic as logic is required before an invention can be constructed
3. The supernatural “just is” isn’t a problem, because it definitionally escapes the mechanistic trap.
Materialism ends in determinism.
Supernaturalism doesn’t reduce to mechanisms.
@MadebyJimbob 2. Some sort of mental process is required to invent logic, that much is true. But if you assume these mental processes can come about naturally, then there is a materialistic pathway from no thinking at all, to the logic we have today. You may argue that these mental processes cannot come about naturally, but that would be a different argument.
1 and 3. I disagree. If you go through each of the questions and statements in your argument, but replace instances of material things with supernatural things, you have the same problem.
For example: Is a supernatural event or object true or false?
There is no argument. There are no gods.
Cool non argument
exactly, you didnt present an argument@@MadebyJimbob
You don't want there to be a god.
thats cute and all but it does not matter what some one wants, we only care about what some one can demonstrate @@PHOTOGRASPER
Couldn't someone just claim the evaluation of true and false is a special kind of effect that gains additional meaning (true/false) inside the context of consciousness and/or communication?
That opens many other questions, but it would let them agree with your formal argument (@4:00) while still holding to the idea that true and false exist.
Yes, many have said that, then I ask them what does one effect have that the other doesn’t such that one can produce epistemology. They can’t answer “one produces epistemology. I would be asking, what allows this one unique peculiar effect of physics to produce truth.
But muh Sky Daddy tho!!
If God real, why bad thing happen?!!
Great argument
Is this supposed to be a valid argument against what JB is saying or you're just throwing in the towel?
@@mrwhite2039 It's the equivalent to what JB said. Want better? Give better.
@@HuxtableK no, it's just a dodge. You simply can't provide a valid counter. Or even a valid steel man.
As an atheist, I've never heard this argument from atheists saying that all of our thought and acts are determined by physics and chemistry. What I have heard are theists saying that this is what atheists must think. But they don't.
Also, if all our thoughts and acts being determined by physics is on the table as a possibility, then you can't know anything, as you can't know atheism isn't true and so all your thoughts and acts are determined by physics as you say.
This was great. As a brainlet myself I felt this really helped. Thanks.
Sorry, you have no arguments, just flawed reasoning. And certainly not against atheism, you're conflating atheism with science. 😀TMM in video "Theist Makes Fallacious Argument" explained your fallacies pretty clearly.
Great visuals
I don't normally comment on videos like this but i have to say this. I think humans being meat machines is actually pretty amazing. Technology has come so far these days and it is amazing what we can do with it and how powerful it is. And then you look at the human brain and honestly it like a supercomputer. Obviously it can't do all the things our most powerful machines can do, but think of the things humans can do that our machines cannot like abstract thinking, emotions, and consciousness. Thinking about how they come from the brain, how the brain constantly adapts and changes, and how we can do things externally like surgery and administering medicines that can change how we function. It's so interesting how similar we are are to machines as we learn more about the human body and the brain, but also how so much more complex we are, and the millions and trillions of processes, interactions and chemical reactions that happen every second to make us function.
Thinking of ourselves complex meat machines is humbling in a way. Even though our experiences make us feel like there's more to us, we are essentially the matter in our body and the processes they undergo. BUT, that doesn't mean we can't marvel at our sheer complexity and the marvels of the human body.
Love the fact that a cartoonist crafted an argument that basically destroys the positon held by some of the GrEaTeSt thinkers in the history of mankind
I don’t think his argument supports his conclusion. He’s conflating the existences of a belief with the validity of a belief. If a belief is an effect this simply means that a belief is caused, a belief being caused cannot be true or false it just is, this however doesn’t say anything about a belief accurately representing reality. This argument also doesn’t go against just materialism it would go against everyone who accepts cause and affect which includes non materialists.
@@zooch76283 you are making a distinction between an objective evaluation and something that is caused. These two are not mutually exclusive, my point stands there is no need to watch the video as I’ve seen it multiple times.
@@zooch76283 well no because a calculator can’t make decision which is required for judgements. Calculators just take in information and then spit out more information. No decision making is required in this.
This is great!
Well it's ignorant for sure
@@gowdsake7103 how so?
Great format, this series is going to be a hit for sure. The Redditor Atheists won't be able to resist "DEBOONKING" this video.
I AM DEBOOOO00000OOONKING!1!1!!!!1!
“Are you coming?!”
“Nooo, I’m deboooonking”
The algorithms will continue until the deboooonkings improve.
this entire video is a huge category error. even in the intro he asks if a tornado is more true than a blade of grass. this makes absolutely no sense at all. "true" or "false" are not properties of physical things that exist. the proposition "grass exists" can be true or false, but grass itself is not true. it would be the same thing as asking if a question is more green than a declaration. it's simply a category error, not applicable in the slightest.
@@thunderbuns6811 He's going to be streaming soon. You should hop on and debate this with him.
Jimbob is too powerful...