Eric Says Your God Concept Is Bunk! | Robin (he/him) - DC | Skeptic Generation S1E8
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 07. 2021
- After dueling it out with Vi last week, Robin calls back for another conversation. He tells the hosts that the only reason they are rational is because they are tapping into the Mind of God. If only they would admit this, they’d see atheism was irrational.
Check out part one of this conversation here: • Vi Versus A Darth Dawk...
________
Skeptic Generation is LIVE every Sunday at 11:30am-1:00pm CT
Call on your phone: 585-LA-MURPH (585-526-8774)
Call online: tiny.cc/callSG
Love the show?
Become a patron: tiny.cc/donatetoSG
Buy merch: tiny.cc/SGmerch
Help with our studio: tiny.cc/SGwishlist
To find out more, visit www.skepticgeneration.com
Copyright © 2021 Skeptic Generation. All rights reserved. - Zábava
I presuppose there isn’t a god.
There can only be truth if there is no god.
To believe in a god is irrational.
Robin may not believe me, but he’d be irrational if he didn’t.
Until he removes the filter of his irrational world view he cannot see the truth.
Happy to help you Robin, when/if you are ready.
Yep, that's about all it is.
I use something similar on them. They just quit responding.
@@tomjackson7755
Yep, your argument needs to be as flawed as theirs - that’s the only way they understand.
@@oggyoggy1299 They know they are just trolling lies.
@@tomjackson7755 No I don't believe that. I think they really believe the fantasy they've created.
How condescending the whole "I don't think atheism is rational" always sounded to me. It always sounds like the person saying that thinks their entire worldview is superior, because... they think so.
Yeh, it is very much ''it feels right so I can't be wrong'' combined with "if you don't get it your wrong"'
And then to go on and argue for "lego-ness" LOL! Ya, it's us who aren't rational.
@@donnyh3497 or better yet, try to design the perfect god in your head as a thought experiment. This was key to me seeing religious beliefs (especially mainstream Christianity) is pure bull$hit.
That's basically it. No attempt at a rational argument this is entirely to assuage their feelings about not having any good argument or evidence for their sky wizard lol
@Truth Bomb Prove it
He calls in to claim that this is all revelation from God when it’s just revelation from Darth. Without Darth’s script this guy has nothing.
Or with the script, because the script is nothing logical or coherent 😂
Darth doesn't even have revelation he has said several times that he has received no revelation from God so therefore he has no idea if the bible is true or if God exists or if his bullshit script is true because he has never received revelation from God. Darth like to hang on this stupid term Ultimate and my simple answer is reality. Darth will then say reality is illusionary thus defeating his own stupid ass script because if reality is illusionary then so is his "god" and everything else which then brings on the problem of how did he determine reality was illusionary and if it is his argument holds no water.
Daft Dorkins doesn't have an argument for god, he has a script that he does nothing but stick to.
As soon as you try to steer the interigation away from his script, he will start gas lighting.
The best way to deal with Daft, is to entirely ignore him, he doesn't deserve attention or head space.
to live and the guy don't apologize to such a stupid idiot that calls in the robin he is just a another Christian jerk I would never never accept that caller as sane
@@WhoThisMonkey yeah, I agree right up until my one of my atheist friend bought into Darth Dawkins hook line and sinker and now claims to be a Christian and is considering leaving his fiance and canceling their marriage.
“This presup mumbo jumbo proved to me that god does exist!”
Said no sane person ever.
When you have no physical evidence, presup is the way to go!
I'm certified and stamped crazy and I still don't believe it.... Neither of me do
Thats my thing... I want to meet the person who was legitimately converted by presupp argumentation.
@@ginasalinas2731 ;)
Well, that's just combining a begging the question and an ad hominem fallacy (stereotyping fallacy, specifically).
You're implicitly excluding any person who says Presup proves God exists with the ad hom that person is not "sane" which requires implicitly presupposing Presup does not actually prove God.
Can you justify Presup does not prove God with a coherent, non-fallacious objection to what it's actually arguing?
But first, paraphrase in your own words what Presup is actually arguing... to demonstrate you correctly understand this (since it seems most people who are against it do not understand it and end up strawmanning it)
When you begin every thought process that "god exists therefore..."it's no surprise that he has problems coming to correct conclusions.
Science: gather evidence, then come to a conclusion. Start with “I don’t know,” then “Let’s find out.” Anti-science (religion): Start with the conclusion, then try to find evidence to support it. Start with “I know,” then “Let’s justify it.”
Exactly at 14:30 is where the presup caller exposed himself as a dishonest interlocutor. V was VERY clear and made a fantastic explanation as to why it's okay to stop at the laws of logic. The caller did not acknowledge it. The caller simply moved forward to the next step in the presup script. Dishonest and ridiculous.
@My Dear Brother Ben bashed and mocked by those two? Hilarious. Yeah, poor Robin, being fed to the lions...
Presup scripts man.
I got zero time for that b.s.
"Gods real bcoz gods real." Faaaark me.
🤦♂️
@My Dear Brother Ben he's dishonest as hell, this isn't the first time he's been on air
14:30 is exactly when I could take no more of Robin's BS word salad. Vi had an awesome explanation and he ignored them.
Amy V just a friendly, correction, Vi is nonbinary so *them. :)
Robin, language distinction is how we describe things.
There is no legoness, we define what a lego is.
Yep, “Legoness” is Platonism, which I find an entirely unnecessary thesis.
Does the Lego also have a relationship with the table it sits on, even though the table isn't Lego???
Legoness is incoherent without the Grand Lego Designer.
Presup-style nonsense.🤡
Everything in presuppositionalist apologetics is essentially circular. So much of the script is just flimflam to obfuscate that circularity.
If you push them hard enough, they'll admit it, but then fling out a tu Quogue fallacy at you, by insisting so is your own worldview, completely neglecting that their circularity requires additional assumptions, that are unfalsifyable.
No but you see, it's VIRTUOUS CIRCULARITY!
An argument so stupid even Canadian Catholic rejected it.
@@scottc1857 Stop it - you're bringing up memories of Sye Ten Bruggencate that I had managed to suppress. Damn you!
Underrated comment you deserve more likes
@@puckerings I know what you mean but this is something that we don't want to see spreading like it is.
People like Darth Dawkins and his minions are a symptom of the protestant work ethic and Everything else about Christian doctrine and dogma failing these people so blatantly that even they can clearly see it.
The Last thing you want when a worldview collapses and burns this hard is to see a sizeable contingent of their young and or fighting age males doubling down in a way that puts them entirely past being reached or deactivated...
The left likes to hyperventilate about how everyone to the right of pol pot in America is the American Taliban, meanwhile completely missing this little fringe group of neo Christian reactionaries who genuinely do have the potential of making ISIS look like fuckin countryside gentlemen.
It really just boils down to its true because I believe it because it's true because I believe it. Ugh!
I'm more convinced of the existence of the Easter Bunny... because bunnies have actually been demonstrated to exist without circular logic or presupposition
You're right lol that's why if someone came and told me "do you believe in god?" and they described it as "the Sun", I'd answer I do believe in their god, because the Sun does exist. These usually Christian callers are to this day unable to demonstrate their god exists...
@@FaiaHalo if we're just going to describe essential elements of human existence as God then God is also an anus.
@@iconoclastvii the anus exists in universe unlike any deity....
So are you saying those ARE Raisinets?
@@iconoclastvii true lol they could very well be hahaha
This seems like a new spin of the "everybody knows god exists" but using rationality as the focus.
Gaslighting essentially.
Not very new. It's pretty clearly the "Darth Dawkins" script.
It's not new, it's been around for decades. I haven't heard anyone try to argue it for a while, but that says more about its irrational nature than its originality.
@@donneuner2883 Good point, I hadn't made that connection.
@@markdoldon8852 Darth Dawkins and his clones argue it and nothing more. If you haven't heard anybody arguing it for awhile, you're lucky.
Unlike science, which actively gets better as time goes on, this argument ages like fine milk.
JRobin is awful; a Darth acolyte without an honest nor sincere nor original thought in his head.
Oh idk. He did admit near the start that knowledge is either based on circular arguments, infinite regress, or axioms. That’s more honest than any other presup I’ve heard.
Presups do not deserve this much air time. They are literally just stamping their feet and saying I know there is a god because there just is. It's a 5 year olds tantrum type of reasoning..
I know. It must be difficult to find out yourself view has no foundation. It's true only a universe with God makes any sense. Everyone else is just using their imagination
The atheistic solution is of course. I da hav a explain my world view
@@pdworld3421 How is it that "only a universe with God makes any sense"? Can you support your claim?
@@grantcarpenter6685 yes. With reason. If there is no ultimate designer there is no ultimate design. If there is no ultimate design everything is the result of chance. If everything is the result of chance there is no ultimate purpose. If there is no ultimate purpose life has no meaning. If life has no meaning the universe doesn't make sense.
@@pdworld3421 Those are a lot of false conditionals there. None of them demonstrate your god exists - they're just bad logic.
1) "God or chance" is a false dichotomy, especially considering that we still don't know whether the universe had a definitive beginning in the first place.
2) Life has no intrinsic meaning or ultimate purpose. So what? We humans are great at making meaning for ourselves! We don't need to believe in an unproven god to have meaning in our lives.
That “headlight fluid” analogy was da bomb! Good job Eric! 👍🏿
Robin: "I don't think atheism is rational at all"
... Eric coughs, trying to suppress uncontrollable laughing and/or wretching, while Vi glances over willing Eric to stay in character as a good host.
It's actually pretty widely known that atheism is irrational outside of the atheist community (which is much smaller than you guys think it is). Atheists make up about 7 to 10 percent of the world's population. Almost everyone else views atheism as extremely irrational.
It's not even just our opinion either. It's very easy to demonstrate atheism is objectively irrational.
I'll do it right now.
God doesn't exist because ________?
Agnosticism is at least not as irrational as atheism is.
@@lightbeforethetunnel you can't prove a negative. So obviously it's impossible to prove your fantasy sky friend doesn't exist. But you can constrain a negative down so much that it's virtually the same as proving it.
And in every single falsifiable way that anyone has ever probed the universe, we've found that our universe is internally consistent and indistinguishable from one where no gods exist. Atheism, provisional on that utterly overwhelming evidence is entirely rational.
But you'll never understand how deep and broad that evidence is because you've allowed yourself to be programmed with misinformation about all the science to keep you in line.
... so hey, you just keep on believing in that minor regional god, yahweh, that was taken from the Cannaanite pantheon, that was formerly subservient to El before the Hebrews rewrote their scriptures to redefine El as just a general word for god instead of a god's name, and rewriting to deny all of the other Cannaanite gods while elevating that local nothing into being your one and only.
@@KenLord Also, what you said about falsifiability is irrelevant.
Claims must be falsifiable to qualify as SCIENCE, not to qualify as TRUE.
Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question. It's a philosophical question (metaphysics, specifically).
So falsifiability has nothing to do with any of this. I'd you're expecting falsifiable evidence for God then you're approaching the entire debate in a fallacious mindset. It's a fallacy of scientism, specifically.
@@KenLord you say "you can't prove a negative."
This is false. It's actually very easy to prove many negatives. For example, it's pretty easy to logically prove there are no square circles or married bachelors.
"But you can constrain a negative down so much that it's virtually the same as proving it"
The issue with that is you'll be approaching God like a probabilistic claim if you do that, which is a category error fallacy. I'll explain in more detail:
God is not a probabilistic claim, because God is a non-contingent claim. God is conceptually known as the *necessary* metaphysical grounding for all dependent facts. That's just what God is, put in metaphysical terminology, since the primary definition of God is the creator of the universe. So metaphysically, it would be required that all facts ultimately derive from God. If they didn't, then it wouldn't be God that we're talking about anymore.
And given that God is the *necessary* metaphysic, this means it isn't a probabilistic claim. When something is defined as *necessary* (which means God would be non-contingent) the only two options are: You either affirm or deny God. There is no third option of remaining neutral or withholding judgment.
So, there's no such thing as saying "God probably exists" or "God probably doesn't exist" ... in the same way it wouldn't make sense to speak that way about other non-contingent claims such as whether you're currently dead or alive.
You can't withhold judgment or remain neutral about whether you're dead or alive right now. It's not a probabilistic claim, so you can only affirm of deny it.
If someone "lacks belief in God" or says that God is "not necessary" or "probably not necessary" ... this necessarily logically entails the denial of God.
Because it means you'll necessarily have a positive belief that you can invoke facts independently from God. In other words, you'd made a judgment God is not necessary which is equivalent with claiming God does not exist.
See Darth you can run through your presup script and still have a nice and civil conversation without muting and kicking people as soon as they ask for a clarification.
Just the entire presup nonsense sets me off: conclusion from the start. Then it goes downhill from there, like the revelation silliness. If you believe in the devil or demons, as does Robin, how do you know that after “gods reveled” x the devil/demons haven’t come along and aren’t then tricking you? How do you know goes not just joking? Or gods a liar? Endless issues. I love how Vi brilliantly dealt with this last time, avoiding the vague references and getting to specifics. That point, last week I think, was a golden nugget!
You've heard of the last supper? Well this is the pre-supper.
What annoys me is the pseudo-philosophical gibberish they spout. These hosts are a lot more patient than I could ever be.
@@scambammer5940 Hold my beer while I tell you science lacks explanatory power for creation and prove it by bastardizing scientific concepts and principles in an attempt to prove God. Oh and I'm gonna do it all unironically because I lack the slightest hint of self-awareness
@@scambammer5940 🤓
That's the thing, they'll say you can't have truth and logic without a god, but the opposite is true. The kind of gods they're talking about are gods capable of performing miracles, of changing any aspect of reality or the laws of physics or the state of the universe to their whim. Without a god those things will work in predictable ways, but with a god, anything is literally possible. How can you use reason and logic, find truth, when there exist beings who can change what is true and logical on a whim? Their own argument works against their position of there being a god.
It's all, "just because..." argumentation.
Or the, "Na-huh!" gambit.
What’s not rational is Robins belief in his invisible magical friend, and he knows it’s irrational so to make himself feel less irrational he accuses those who don’t believe in it as being the irrational ones.
What is rational about denying the existence of God?
Do you deny the universe had a cause?
@@pdworld3421 Before you can claim that God was the 'cause' of the universe, you would need to prove that God exists. The existence of the universe is NOT proof of God.
@@tomgaffney1035 If you have a better explanation let me hear it
@@pdworld3421 Again, please prove that God exists and then we can move on to whether he/she/it 'caused' the universe. A non-existent God would not be able to 'cause' the universe. Please provide proof of God's existence.
@@pdworld3421 "Unless you have a better explanation for the existence of the universe, my idea wins by default." That's not how this works. Do you have evidence for your god hypothesis?
Robin: “You have enough knowledge for your condemnation.”
How condescending to Vi and Eric can you get.
I can’t listen to Sye Ten again in this lifetime
Sye Ten has resigned from his church in disgrace, so maybe our mutual intelligence will no longer be assaulted with his nonsense. Although that is apparently too late for Robin.
@@markdoldon8852 that is great news! Unfortunately this caller is evidence that there’s always another Sye Ten.
@@markdoldon8852 I love the fact that he was cancelled by his church. Just another data point in the "leftists love cancel culture" bullshit.
There was a show on NPR years ago called "Car Talk". I do not recall which of the hosts made the following comment that Robin should strongly consider and take to heart. If I recall the comment goes something like this "If you don't thinks so good don't thinks so much".
So, I wrote my other response while I was still listening to the clip. Having heard it all now, I have to give kudos to all Robin as well as Eric and Vi for being civil and having a productive conversation. That seems to be a rarity when talking with presuppers. It's nice to see some folks out there that seem to be sincerely engaging in discourse as opposed to the usual pull-string dolls that get most of the attention from the presup side. (Darth and his [pull the string] "What is fundamental in your world view that instantiates all that is possible and impossible?" or STB and his [pull the string] "But how do you know _that?"_ ) BTW, if somebody wants to start making pull string dolls that just spout off presup clichés I'll donate to the kickstarter.
I was honestly impressed by Robin here. He's usually an ass in debates, but he was remarkably amenable this time.
He's the rarity, or at least this call was a rarity. And I believe that is because pre-sup is just a tactic to attack other worldviews. If they get put on the defensive, and have to actually defend their world view, it falls apart like cheap sweatpants.
It was to sugersweet.
@@zacharyberridge7239 yes and no….. there are so many other presupps who are way more advanced than jrobin and darth tbh…. They actually do argue for their worldview.
@@zacharyberridge7239 while I do agree that some presupps attacks others worldviews but don’t account for their own, there are some who actually tear down other worldviews while also accounting for their worldview. Its really just depending on the type of presupp you talk to tbh
@@ryanbrown9833 it's an impossible worldview to defend, because it just boils down to "my imaginary friend makes me right".
Though I would be curious to hear how one attempts defending it.
“He has the god antennae.” Lol then right after that “headlight fluid.” That made my day. Also you’re very respectful thanks again.
Vi: He has the god antenna
Caller: Right
😲🤣
(19:22) I had the basically the same reaction
Learning the script darth peddles is not a good look robin. It shows me you’re not convinced and have to use bits and pieces of other scripts as to maintain your belief. Think about it.
I am not not aware of a "god" existing. The argument presented in this video (which I have heard many times now) has not convinced me.
Can this god present itself so that, after its presentation, I will be consciously aware that it exists?
“I finally think I get what you think we’re thinking.” That level of metacognition on behalf of another’s thinking is something that we all could use more of, to understand each other to that level.
What type of dog comes to mind? Eric: "Newfoundland"
I have an entirely new level of love and respect for you now. :)
Y'all need to be careful!
Flurgle Burgle been being said for over a decade....if we keep saying it eventually a definition will form around it....maybe it'll eventually be "The thing that is not defined" 😂😂😂
Love the new show! Can't wait to hear more theists call in
Presuppositional apologetics makes perfect sense if you agree in advance that it makes perfect sense.
And if you don't agree in advance, you're being irrational because I'm right about presuppositional apologetics.
And I'm right because I made that decision in advance.
How can you not see the perfect logic?
"I know that God exists, because he revealed himself." Riiiiiiiiight
I always wonder which part gawd revealed. And if the police were called.
Being an exact science guy myself, I really cannot communicate with these types of wannabee philosophers, who try to conceptualize and mystify anything from me, while being mystifying and indirect in everything themselves.
These sorts of dismal presup’ attempts only push me further away from ever believing their proposed gods. I could presuppose all knowledge and and ultimate morality comes from the mind of a supernatural jar of jam (blackberry if you’re wondering) and I’d have no less evidence or grounding than Robin.
Blackberry jam? Are you Mad, sir? All rational believers know that it is Red Raspberry jam!
@@TheJMPD you’re not a true Jammer. 😜
@@Heathen.Deity. I pray that the Great Raspberry will forgive your unjamminess! :)
@@TheJMPD all praise it’s seedless preserviness!
@@TheJMPD There is only one man who would dare to give me the Raspberry.
So you’re a Platonist?
Well yea I’d say so.
Trust me JRobin had no idea what you’re even talking about he’s just rolling with Darths script best he can.
Why do atheists insist on being the biggest douchebags on the internet?
Yeah
Omggg he’s exhausting. Good on you guys for your patience.
This actually did get to a good point after about half of the call, once they got him off script and started discussing categorization.
I must say, I'm very impressed. Robin did a great job on this call. It was the most productive conversation I've ever heard him have. See Darth? That's how it's done.
Darth isn't interested in productive conversation though.
If I ever argue with a presup I am using the force as my answer.
Oh man Eric just reminded me, I'm low on headlight fluid.
Translation: I acknowledge that my argument is circular and illogical, and there is no reasonable objection that you can have against my illogical proposition.
That is arguably the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard a theist say.
Oh, and correlation doesn’t equal causation...why he focused on that at all was bizarre.
I love how my favourite thing about Eric is his incredibly quick, complicated and articulate responses, and in this clip his brain kept freezing😄😄
He's my favourite 😁
I think you are talking bout Matt. Eric is generally very patient, methodical and cautious in his approach to arguments.
Eric just seems to be trying to get the caller to detail their belief and understand why they think what they do, without trying very hard at all to debate or challenge them on some obviously baseless idea. Matt probably goes too far the other way and attacks every point without letting the caller get what they are saying out of their mouth.
For the next call, can you get Robin to explain how his pre sup BS gets him to analysing the world better than the atheist world view?
Because if he was right, prayer would work, Christians would have science to back up their claims etc
Why does "Robin" in DC sound eerily similar to frequent flier, Kevin!
He starts with the fact in question and reasons his way towards it. That's not reason.
Darth cultists? B O R I N G
But the new show is awesome!
Why does Robin from DC keep trying to convince people of gods existence, when he should be telling us about his adventures with Batman ;p
It's so cool to see someone get excited like Eric did at the end, you can tell that's something the person is actually passionate about
Well done Vimuph and Robin! That’s the most progress I’ve heard anyone make in breaking down presuppositionalism. Who knew it was actually so simple?
We are about 4 minutes in and Vi is rubbing their temples and staring forward.
It’s a good start.
"I am not a foundationalist."
That appears to be the answer he needs to hear.
Isaac Asimov is highly offended.
@@locutusdborg126 He would be spinning in his grave, if he hadn't been cremated.
Hari Seldon wouldn't like it either
🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@JayJay-two Only the Greatest Men Ever get to be played on TV by Jared Harris.
Eric has a way of telling these guys their full of shit in such a nice way, they don't notice.
LEGOness? Numberness? Did he really say that? He must have been smiling when he said that. Who could say that with a straight face?
Even if you disagree, do you really not grasp that concept?
@@Loneshdo That concept it horse shit.
@@Loneshdo Platonic essentialism is easy to grasp but so ridiculously off base and without evidence that it isn't worth considering.
@@grantcarpenter6685 Questions about the essences of things is not an empirical claim, so why is evidence relevant here? I'd also disagree that the concept is easy to grasp, clearly OP has no idea what "numberness" refers to, otherwise they wouldn't mock the idea of numbers having an inherant essence.
@@Loneshdo Numbers don't have an essence. They're merely tools we use to quantify things in the real world, e.g. "I have 20 pencils" or "You owe me 150 dollars."
Platonic essence isn't in evidence, especially when we get to unsubstantiated concepts as "numberness."
I'm really enjoying the calls from Robin as well! And I think Eric might be becoming one of my favourite hosts!
Yep, he's gotten so much better over the years. He's amazing now, and I love learning how to employ better logical arguments from him.
Eric asks for clarification
Guest responds: we would have to have a conversation to clarify 🤦🏽
This guy is reminding me of the old In Living Color sketch where Damon Wayans was playing the prison inmate trying to sound esoteric
“Hey Robin, we lost you” Robin: “I was just saying that I’m right because you’re wrong”
Haha. “That’s very optimistic of you.” Great show. Doing a great job. Keep it up!
Erick and Vi! So glad I found you guys. Ive been listening to Talk Heathen thinking you two were on vacation or something. I wish they had announced that you guys were pursing a different venture. I had to Google "where is Erick and Vi?"
Well I miss your voices, I watched the show since Erick and Jaime and I got used to your style and watched you (and Vi) grow. Ill be checkin your new show regularly. Subscribed.
We wish we'd been allowed to announce on TH as well! But you're here now, and we're glad you found us :) Thank you for subscribing, Daniel!
50 years ago, Robin would be residing in Merriville Asylum. Today he triggers Eric's dementia. What a show!!
"The legos are correlated by their lego-ness" says the presup who believes that you can't make sense without his god. Sorry My. Presup, you're not making sense even with your god.
It’s fun hearing DDs script from a non-sociopath. DD always gets himself kicked before getting into the meat of the argument because he’s such a garbage human being.
There is no meat to their argument.
YAY!!! I finally found you two! I missed you! 💕😍💕
We're so glad you found us! Thanks for watching :)
Really enjoyed this presup conversation. Thanks.
You guys make a great hosting team! Eric you've come so far with your mastery of logic and it's great to watch :)
Since I think religion is irrational it would immediately be a stalemate, except for the fact that I can at least point at obvious irrational things and reasoning religious people generally get up to to show while I think so.
So actually put some work into it, build a framework to show why I feel/think/know it.
Robin just states his opinion Atheism is irrational because of a bit from the bible as fact and seems to assume that automatically means it is a fact because it fits his beliefs.
Even the concept of having to prove/explain his claim seems kind of alien to him judging by the flow of the conversation.
@Truth Bomb he claimed that he received special revelation from the bible. That's part of DDs silly script you nutters have to stick to. Try and keep up old man.
@Truth Bomb 🤦
@Truth Bomb Oops, I guess I'm wrong, and that totally makes you right by default, I guess I better start thinking I'm not worth dirt and to let things I cant see do terrible terrible things to me, oh and if I am wronged by religion, I'm just supposed to let it happen because we're supposed to respect your dumb ass beliefs...I'm having a bad day today so I'm just going to say FUCK OFF!
Maybe his calls have been dropping because he needs to consult with Darth Dawkins whenever his script gets derailed.
I like Vi & Eric's approach here, not interrupting, but allowing this guy to hang himself with his own nonsense.
Or maybe they're just having a normal civil conversation?
This is one of the most interesting discussions to date! This I'll help me enormously in my dealings with the many platonists I often engage with,. Thank you!
The laws of logic merely describe how things work in the reality we know, or at least the framework through which we can understand that reality. If anyone can propose an alternative, I'm all ears.
Actually, that's not quite true.
The laws of logic apply to our DESCRIPTIONS of reality. They help us ensure that those descriptions are coherent.
Descriptions are already a simplification of observed reality. Logic is a further simplification. These simplifications are generally very useful, of course. They let us focus on properties of interest to us at a given moment, so that we can operate on them without extraneous distraction.
But a formalism such as logic doesn't "describe how things work in the reality we know." It describes how things work IN THE FORMALISM. We then infer that things will work similarly in reality.
But if our observations are incomplete, or our descriptions are wrong, then a perfectly correct logical deduction will be correct only in the formalism, not in reality.
I might need to hear how a guy like Robin thinks in a normal setting before we are discussing the grounding of reality. I am not even confinced reality can be grounded or that we have any way to think of how it does work.
It seems to just being a leading topic with the set end point, god. (or something fully beyond our grasp).
I figure presups interact with the world pretty much like everybody else. Their god is very abstract and distant from real life. Like Eric and Vi said, they just put a mental “Because God has ordained that we can trust our senses,” before every sentence.
Notes, those are fine, but scripts are a little hard to converse with.
If Robin keeps being reasonable Darth is going to lose one human foot stool.
One of the most interesting and productive conversations I have heard in awhile. Loved it.
Reality is the concrete one that is comprised of all particulars. Reality grounds all particulars and accounts for the intelligibility of facts. The most basic definition of Reality is the necessary precondition from which all contingent conditions follow. Reality grounds and sustains all possibility and impossibility. It's illogical for a theist to argue that God exists outside of reality because reality grounds all that exists so if God is outside reality then they by definition doesn't exist in reality. Substitute any deity or universe creating mythical creature for reality and say it's necessary and you have the presup argument. Word salad with no explanatory power. I know reality is the nessicary precondition for the intelligibility of facts because reality has revealed itself through natural revelation (look at the trees) and special revelation through the language of mathematics.
This is my favorite kick in The balls to solipsism … Reality is Real.
PS- I love this response to Darth BTW, Casey. Bravo. They never accept the short answer anyway. This is point for point quite brilliant.
Reality isn’t a predicate lol, it’s not concrete literally by definition it’s an abstracta
Correlation. He keeps using this word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.
Vi asks what a rooster says, but the really important question is "What does the fox say"
The singular ultimate thing that grounds everything is.... REALITY.....
Listening to this again I think I know why Darth was upset with JRobin. The whole point of being a presupp is to shut the mouth of the atheist. JRobin accidentally I guess was engaged in a discourse here rather than pulling the Darth schtick. Later episodes reveal a rather different attitude from JRobin. PS I wish the hosts would clarify what rational basis means to them.
I've never heard of the Platonist thing (I'm an atheist) but I've done programming and it's interesting because of you wanted to add bullets of something to a game then you have some abstract code to describe it then when you do something that will create a bullet it would reference that universal template to create a bullet.
I LOVE seeing Eric getting excited about things! And I agree, that was a super interesting conversation.
Eric's optimism is so inspiring. I have the feeling if I search for Robin's next call, it fell to the ground. Hopefully no though
Here's the simple refutation.... If the only way you know anything is through revelation how can you tell if that revelation is true or not? In other words, if god wanted to lie, you wouldn't be able to tell, thus you in no way can trust revelation
They’ve been asked that question before, and even asked to bring in clear examples but nothing
@@michjefferson77 when I say refutation, I don't mean getting them to realize they are wrong, I mean demonstrating to anyone viewing the argument how utterly vapid the "argument" is...
I never debate with the intent of convincing my opponent, this is almost always a waste of time, they have a vested interest to win, however you can demonstrate the folly of the position to others who are less invested, you can help sure up the arguments of others trying to learn how to deal with these questions. I also debate for my own benefit, in Order to learn and sharpen my skills
All those times calling back in for that? Yikes.
The lack of a singularly ultimate thing that institutes all other things DOES NOT entail that things are not connected or correlated.
That was uncharacteristically gracious of JRobin. I'm surprised. He actually engaged in an honest discussion.
I'd very much like to know how presuppers define the property of "fundamental." I think they have a very different concept of what that term means compared to common usage. For starters, it appears they treat that property as an isolated property, that isn't contextualized by some other property or set of properties. I think the concept is meaningless unless it is contextualized. Presuppers appear to treat the property as an intrinsic property, whereas I see it as an extrinsic property. Just "being fundamental" doesn't really have any meaning or significance that I can discern. Just declaring X as "fundamental" doesn't make any sense. However, saying X is fundamental to Y in virtue of some property or set of properties Z is a concept I can wrap my head around.
I think these different definitions might explain part of the "talking past each other" part of the conversation.
Even if Bible god exists, how could they know that’s just the final ultimate thing? How do they know there’s not a bunch of other gods? It’s just a bunch of assertions.
So like all pre sup, circular unsubstantiated empty claims with no evidence or justification !! Come the end of the call Robin seemed like he was just treading water, and I think he struggles to get his point over, and I think that is because once off his script he isn't very bright !!
25 minutes in and the real lunacy of Platonism comes to the forefront.
This is why I love this show; good conversation.
This whole presup script really loses its ... panache... when the presup is polite, listens, and answers questions. It needs a loudmouth, insulting, childish egomaniac at the wheel to reach its full potential.
Vi lost their shit for a second when he agreed that he had the god antenna. Vi just thought they’d make a quick joke and he agreed and they lost it.
Hilarious quick thing.
Getting them to admit Divine revelation is the only reason to speak to a presuppositionalist because everyone involves know they’re simply using it to win an argument they can’t otherwise justify
"I have special information and you cannot possibly obtain that special information"
I'm totally confused 😂
Robin, why do we need all this dialogue to describe something we can’t know to exist?
Robin with the circular logic script says not believing his circular logic script is not rational. He can't even define god.
Can you account for everything? No.
I can, I can fill your gap with my god.
The caller is making a fundamental mistake in his presuppositional approach: he is staying calm and amiable. A true presup relies on whining, threats, yelling over their interlocutor, repetition of obscure terms, name calling, and general rage and tantrum throwing.
Is there a support number for the god antenna? I think mine is defective.
I love you both, glad to have found you again
I didn't follow his argument, probably because I didn't correlate the correlated correlation to the corollary
What I learned from this conversation:
1. Platonism is a thing that people believe.
2. Platonism sounds absolutely idiotic.
3. Platonism leads to presuppositional apologetics.