Atheist Debates - Thoughts on Hume's axioms for today
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- The wise person proportions their confidence to the evidence.
Reject the greater miracle
Two great principles from David Hume, which serve as a strong foundation for a simple yet robust sketicial epistemology.
Nigerian here. This is worth a million dollars. Thank you, Matt.
Me too. It's super hard to find like minds.
Are you a prince too?
LOL, great comment! 👍🥰💝🤎✌
@@nuanced1 will be nice to meet you!
Too easy.
Matt, I love the sh!+ out of you! Thanks for being you, brother.
I dropped a Canadian 10 cent coin, which is the thinnest, and on a linoleum floor, it bounced and landed on its edge and stayed there. The edge of the coin is knurled with groves that run from face to face. The chances of it staying on its edge are infinitesimal. A friend of mine was with me and he looked at me, speechless, as if he had seen a ghost.
Interesting and unusual for sure ...But it always was a possibilty and therefore is occasionally possible to see it happen.
A rare event, but still obeying the laws of physics.
What do you think God is trying to tell you with this miraculous coin trick?
@@KBosch-xp2ut God is imaginary.
@@douggale5962 😀🤟
Big Dillahunty head here. Your informed and inspiring takes on philosophy are so thorough and helpful that I’ve dropped my philosophy courses and major. All I need are these videos. Keep up the great work!
Are you serious?
Matt is great, but he is still one guy with positions on open questions in Epistemology, Metaethics, Metaphysics, Aesthetics, Philosophy of Religion etc. There’s an entire ocean of philosophy out there.
I’d really encourage you to keep up the philosophy and further develop your own unique voice: but that’s just my 2 cents.
How capable is a person to reason if their most cherished "truth" is itself false? I had been thinking about this for a while. Great episode, thanks!
Go and talk to anybody who follows an Abrahamic religion and you'll see they are not capable of reason!
I think it is on a spectrum. Even though a person has a cherished truth that is false, doesn't mean that the person is incapable of reason. I think a person's ability to reason would be based on their education. I do think there are many believers that don't know how to reason because of their god belief. 🌏✌😎
I doubt there's much connection there. Gödel, arguably the greatest logician of the 20th century, was theistic, afraid of refrigerator gases and became so convinced that someone was trying to poison him that he refused to eat (which unsurprisingly led to his death...he weighed less than 30kg when he died). Grothendieck, unarguably the greatest mathematician of the 20th century, retired to the Pyrenees where he lived as a hermit and was consumed by a conspiratorial religious delusion in which a malevolent god was slightly altering the speed of light in order to destroy the harmony of the universe.
Beyond those extremes, which could perhaps be dismissed as mental illness, the vast majority of mathematicians today learn towards some form of Platonism. That is to say that they believe mathematics to be a mind-independent reality, that the forms they are working with exist in a supranatural plane that the human mind can somehow tap into. That's often tempered by jokes saying they're actually formalist (i.e. they think mathematics are just a meaningless game with formal symbols) when they're off the clock, and the cliché line now is "Platonist on weekdays and formalist on the weekend". Yet, to read or listen to a mathematician speak about their craft is to get a clear sense of just how strongly they are drawn to this idea of Platonism. That's a very sharp contrast with an empirical worldview.
I don't think anyone would question their capacity to reason, even if they do happen to believe in supranatural planes and some kind of miracle by which the human mind can connect with them.
Where it gets really troublesome is when it bleeds into the empirical sciences, which it inevitably does given the role mathematics plays there. On that, Sabine Hossenfelder's short book "Lost in math: how beauty leads physics astray" is a must-read. It's not all that easy a question. Essentially it is based on the impression, often corroborated, that what is aesthetically pleasing in mathematics just so happens to work in the empirical world. And yet, there's no particular reason to believe this would be the case. I remember watching the press conference for the first picture of a black hole. One of the scientist said "the universe wants to be beautiful". Does it? Is there any reason to believe that? That sense that what is aesthetically pleasing in mathematics must be empirically true is pervasive in any science relying heavily on mathematics, so it's rather troubling to consider that it might be false and what that would then mean. Well, for one, string theory would be abandoned on the spot. ^^
I had my genetics ran recently and discovered that I share a family tree with Hume.
I would like to think that my natural skepticism, that I've shown since childhood, comes from the same DNA.
His work was definitely ahead of its time. Hell, I believe it is still ahead of our time.
Thanks for this.
✌🖖🐢
Great thoughts Matt, thanks!!
Matt once said "our confidence level in a thing should be proportional to the evidence in favor of a falsifiable proposition..." I now see where he got it from lol... Such a great episode.
What are his views on morality?
@@nadeemshaikh7863he's a big advocate for a secular humanist moral system
@@tomo2807 How does that fit in with what he's said according to the op? What kind of evidence is there for his belief in the secular humanist moral system?
@@nadeemshaikh7863 since morality is an ethics question and there's no ontology in the mix I'm going to assume you meant what evidence is there that the secular moral system is functional...is that the question?
@@tomo2807 If an ethical claim is a claim on objectivity, then it will have a truth value (not to confuse with any claim that has a truth value is also true in an objective sense/consistency v/s soundness). If ethical claims have no propositional content, then they can be regarded as meaningless statements with no epistemological commitments.
Now, if ethical claims are to be treated as claims with propositional content and which we can associate confidence values in terms of their evidential support, then on what grounds does Dillahunty believe in a secular humanist moral system, considering, categorically, one cannot have any evidence in support of the truth of ethical claims?
Great video on the genius of David Hume. Ex-muslim here.
Excellent Matt. I love that you do these exams! 👍🥰💝🤎✌
I really liked your observation that once you accept the miraculous, then anything is plausible.
This is the basis for one my common questions for theists: How do you know the being you are calling God is actually God and not a powerful deceiver?
Once you accept that there is a being more powerful than you who is able to manipulate your reality, how do you know there isn't another who is deceiving you into believing they are the almighty one? If I were a Christian, I would think this would keep me up at night terrified. How do you know Jesus is the "son of God" and not merely a mouthpiece for Satan?
I've said it a thousand times: I know that if I were Satan, the first thing I would do would be to convince everyone I was God. Once I have them worshipping me, then I can get them to do what I want. So I tell them things they want to hear, like "Honor thy father and mother," and now that they think I am the good guy, I can tell them to kill all the gay people, even though that's not what God wants., But hey, they will fall in line because they worship ME, not God.
But once you open that door, that more powerful beings are possible, how can you rule this out?
Small correction. It's cryonic freezing. Cryonics use cryogenic temperatures, but cryonics and cryogenics aren't exactly the same thing.
I used to work in cryogenics, I learned that distinction very quickly :-)
0:20 My mother, a Washington D.C. native, told me that Washingtonians put the "r" in "wash" too (including "Warshington, D.C."), and yet I struggle to find other Washingtonians who do that. I'm with you on this, Matt. It's almost akin to an annoying itch I can't scratch whenever I hear that useless, incorrect, and honestly confusing "r" added in.
my hero, exceptional, as (almost) always:)
"Reject the greater miracle" is an excellent modern adaptation, and I agree regarding not accepting the lesser miracle as well. However, I definitely think it also responsible to supply shortly thereafter an explanation of the either-or fallacy, so the axiom cannot be exploited by those who would aggressively frame to the point where relatively non-miraculous explanations fail to be considered. Thanks Matt!
Another iconic episode of Atheist Debates
Matt, on the subject of pronunciation, which you touched on in your opening comments, I have noticed a vowel substitution that you do that is common in Midwestern speakers. In words that contain the sound "eh" as in the initial vowel sound in "any," you replace that with "i" sound, as in the medial vowel in the word "tin." Thus, a word like "many" becomes "miny" and a word like "any" becomes, "iny."
The differences in regional pronunciation seem to me, most often, to be vowel based. Even the H or no H for some Brits could be considered approaches to the vowel to follow. (Affected by paradoxical inter-relationship issue?)
Hmm. I'm further reflecting. Consonants seem to be the ends and beginnings of phonemes. Vowels the continuing sounds. he part of the sound that's occuring for more of the time. Related?
Agree... have you also noticed he sometimes really hits the h in the word 'what', making it sound like 'w-hot'
@@concernedcitizen8066 Yes, Matt does use a voiced "wh." This is technically the correct pronunciation of that phoneme, although it is uncommon to hear it regional American dialects.
@@artmoss6889 "This is technically the correct pronunciation of that phoneme"
There is no such thing as a 'technically correct pronunciation.' Any pronunciation of a sound by a native speaker can never be said to be incorrect. Non-standard perhaps, meaning it's much less common than other pronunciations, but never incorrect. Avoid prescriptivist tendencies when discussing linguistics, since they do not belong there.
@@puckeringsThere are technically correct pronuciations in academic and professional disciplines, just as there are standard and non-standard pronunciations within regional dialects. That doesn't mean that one is objectively superior; many are based on subjective decisions.
That was a pretty good talk.
This video was exactly 1 'Do the dishes' long. Thanks Matt
How have I not subscribed to this channel? Been a Dillahunty fan for a decade!
Explainer in chief strikes again. Nice. Thx.
This is very good.
I'd love to see that blackhole thing!
What I'm gonna say is merely semantics, but to me (and to the 1st dictionary I opened just to check), being convinced means "being completely certain about something." So I'd say "I believe x is true and my confidence level is..." or "I hold x to be true and my confidence level is", because "I'm convinced x is true" means "my confidence level is a 100%".
No-worries Matt. I "Warshed" my hands before watching this 😉
Is a trivial miracle called a trivacle?
Right in the trivacles!
@@user-fj6kk1vo8n OUch! Hahahaha XD
A little bigger and it becomes an owowman.
A Penny for Your Thoughts
"That's just general stupidity" Way to call a spade and spade Matt! 🤣😂
Your video seems to be lagging behind your audio
Do you have an opinion on Newton's Flaming Laser Sword?
I've actually been wondering what your opinion of cryonics is. Pretty neat that you touched on it here, and it's nice that you're generally positive about it. There are a lot of laws standing in the way of peoples choice in this area, mostly to protect them of course, but those laws are kept in place by officials that can only see it as irrational pseudoscience with no purpose other than to scam. I would like to think no cryonics enthusiast is 100% certain and that it's mostly educated hope... but sometimes it almost feels like the same mentality as the religious. The only difference is that the hope of cryonics is at least based on the observable upward trend in human technology extrapolated into the future, rather than "the bronze age story book said so".
You oughta visit Newfoundland, Matt. If you wanna see just how far the Queen's English can be bent here in North America, The Granite Planet is the place to visit. It's like visiting the Ireland and Wales without actually crossing the Pond.
I feel so dumb. I wish I could think more roundly like you do.
My mom's from Iowa. Did the worsh thing too. Even after moving to Canada and living with normal (nahmal?) people.
What's up with the lip sync?
What's up with the lip sink? While a formerly tubby guy showers us with logic. And knocks religious beliefs, bidet Abrahamic or no, into the crapper. Tile put up with AV tissues.
If you could enter my mind using some kind of Star Trek level neural technology, you no doubt would end up in an immense building filled with Atheist chambers bumping dubstep with demonic metal playing in the elevators, and somewhere in that Atheist chamber near the top floor you would find a shrine room dedicated entirely to Matt Dillahunty with special thanks plaques for helping me to be a better more critical thinker.
I'd buy tickets for that
What's fascinating to me about this is how a skeptic can accept _any_ logical axiom (let alone use it as the basis of his epistemology) in the first place, given that *by definitiion,* a logical axiom is indemonstrable and cannot be shown with any empirical evidence to be objectively true. Thus, such acceptance _must_ be the result of an argument from a self-evident truth, which is a logical _fallacy._
To wit, not only can many logical axioms, such Ockham's razor and the principle of noncontradiction, occasionally be shown to be incorrect, others, such as Clifford's principle, Hitchens' razor, and the idea that you cannot prove a negative are _self-refuting._
In short, if one sincerely one holds to the idea that he should proportion his confidence to the evidence and applies this without prejudice, logical axioms are _necessarily _*_precluded._*
Presuppositions are necessary. Without them there is no foundation for reasoning
@@SansDeity
1) Who gets to choose _which_ presuppositions are valid?
2) On _what_ objective basis is that determination made?
3) How does the acceptance of _some_ presuppositions as opposed to others _not_ invariably result in the commission of a special pleading fallacy?
[EDIT]
4) How do we reconcile presuppositions that can be (or have already been) shown to be _false_ to justify their continued use as a foundation for epistemology?
5) How do _these_ presuppositions, which necessarily *must be* accepted _sans evidence_ objectively differ from any other propositions accepted sans evidence (ie, on faith)? If faith is understood to be the acceptance of some proposition for which there is insufficient evidence to warrant such acceptance, then the acceptance of any logical axioms cannot be differentiated from faith; and a distinction that does not manifest in reality is indistinguishable from one that does not exist.
[EDIT 2]
A claim is a declarative statement that something _is_ true. The aforementioned logical axioms all declare that something _is_ true; therefore, they are claims, and as such, they invoke a burden of proof accordingly.
Ockahm's razor that, "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity" is a _claim,_ and invokes a burden of proof. Clifford's principle which states that, "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence" is a _claim,_ and invokes a burden of proof. Hitchens' razor that, "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" is a _claim,_ and invokes a burden of proof. And so on. To accept _these_ claims sans evidence while demanding evidence of _other_ claims is logically inconsistent. To dismiss an unsubstantiated claim on faith for which there is no _contradictory_ evidence, either, while accepting a claim _despite_ evidence to the contrary is even less reasonable.
@@SansDeity
I realize that you are a busy individual and, as such, you may have either forgotten this thread or have simply have not had the opportunity to respond; however, as two weeks have now passed, I thought it would be prudent and proper to provide you with another chance to do so.
You have stated that not every religion can be right, but they _can_ all be wrong. However, even if every religion _is_ wrong, we both know that to conclude from this that no deity of any kind exists anywhere in the universe would be an example of fallacious reasoning. Therefore, my primary question remains this: if we jettison _religion_ from the discussion entirely, what then, pray tell, makes the presupposition that at least one deity _exists_ is true (which is all that _theism_ suggests) less reasonable than the presupposition that, say, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence is true, given that the former has not been and cannot be refuted, whereas the latter is _self-refuting._
You have also said that faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. With this in mind, my secondary question remains: if such logical axioms, these aforementioned presuppositions, which, by their very nature, cannot be shown to be objectively true (either by empirical evidence or demonstration) and have, on occasion, been shown to be false or self-refuting, serve as the foundation of one's epistemology, in what consequential way does this differ from faith? From where I sit, you've simply adopted _different_ presuppositions with no more evidence than anyone's preferred deity and applied a alternative label to it. Indeed, if we want to characterize faith as "the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence," and one accepts literally any logical axiom or "presupposition" as true, then such acceptance IS the product of faith, even if the usage of that specific term offends his delicate sensibility. Even more condemning is the fact that while the existence of _A_ deity, _SOME_ deity, _ANY_ deity is held to be unfalsifiable, many of the presuppositions _have_ been adopted can be and _have been_ demonstated to be false, yet are merrily embraced anyway, which can be _better_ described as *delusion.*
@@truerealrationalist
Hi, cool name, I take it you’re a metaphysical realist? 😅
You’re asking good questions.
I’d recommend looking up Agrippa’s Trilemma, I think it articulates your conundrum quite well.
I’m not a philosopher, but have you considered adopting some kind of coherentist approach if you find the idea of having to adopt basic (or foundational) beliefs difficult? On one particular view of coherentism, your beliefs wouldn’t be justified in a linearly causal way, but rather because they exist as part of a set that has the greatest known explanatory power for the least ontological commitments. It’s a completely different way to think about justification, but as a view it is quite well fleshed out. The online Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy has a really good treatment of it.
I’m not a coherentist though so I’m curious, why do you disagree with the
idea that some presuppositional beliefs might be self justifying?
Could the universe just be weird in that some beliefs (such as “I exist”) are self-justifying in virtue of the experience that grounds it?
As a complete side note, I don’t know about you, but I certainly have a lot more sympathy for the chill, anti apologetics, academic type theists the more I read about epistemology. There’s no easy answers.
I hope you do discuss language and pronunciation one day. While I agree much of it doesn't matter, I'm from the UK and the American pronunciation of 'vehicle', 'herb' and 'solder' are some of the funniest to a native English speaker.
(Btw, some British accent pronunciations are even more grating to my ears, so I'm not just picking on Americans).
I immediately imagined a miraculous testimony: Imagine that someone started giving their testimony and you couldn't even understand the sounds they made, let alone imagine it being a language you're hearing or a voice and then you're phone lit up and gave 11 dimensional math explaining how the universe formed and you handed it over to mathematicians and physicists and they all come to the same conclusion that this maths not only works but also gives testable predictions that then turn out to pan out as well. If someone came to me with a testimony like that, I'd be happy to call that miraculous and ask for the cure(s)/therapies for all cancers and HIV/AIDS. Oh, and if they want coffee, but I ask everyone that so that goes without saying for me.
Which of Humes books do you recommend reading first?
I would also like to know this
An enquiry concerning human understanding
In regards to epistemology, you should also consider reading Hegel‘s Phenomenology of Spirit
Dear lord.
@@alexisdumas84 it talks about scepticism to a great deal;) what‘s the problem?
@@lendrestapas2505 Just joking about the fact that Hegel is... Intimidating.
Opening my mouth and having a blackhole appear to consume the table sounds like my childhood
You ate many tables as a kid?
Was hoping for something re: Is-Ought. :-(
I’m donating my body to science fiction.
Where would you recommend starting with Hume?
Is It Like Today ?
World Party .
BANG !
The miracle statement is form of legal reasoning. In essence it means you would need an even greater miracle to prove a miracle but you would need greater evidence for that miracle and so on. Essentially miracles will be forever out of reach.
If going back and back and back... is infinite regress...
is the "seeking forward to prove the miracle at hand"... infinite progress?
I'm sorry I don't understand. It seems to me that the "lesser miracles" mentioned are simply not miracles. So why call them miracles at all?
Clearly semantics, but if you have a dichotomy between two miracles, you have a bad definition of "miracle."
But even in a situation where two miracles create a dichotomy as described, I would say that the testimony doesn't "establish the miracle," but the reasoning behind "the testimony's fallaciousness would be a greater miracle" would establish the miracle.
I can't get beyond the "resurrection of Jesus" not being known to all mankind. An event of that magnitude should have been REVEALED worldwide.
I offered to do the pr, but god thought he would be better at it himself.
Look where that got us.
I mean, according to the book it wasn't even the only resurrection that weekend, so maybe that's why no one thought it worth mentioning.
@@jamesanthony5874 True. People got resurrected all over the place. If you hadn't been resurrected at least once, people would snub you.
But the cryo freezing thing is a total scam.
It's only a scam in cases where the provider claims revival is any level of certain. Most do not. Most understand it's just a hope, but also that there is no other reasonable alternative thing to hope for, scientifically.
@@solaryon8711 but it's not that it's just not certain. It's near impossible.
@@russellward4624 What gives you the impression that it always will be?
@@solaryon8711 can you give me another example where you can sell an idea thats compelty impossible now. Has no indication that it will ever become possible let alone plausible? They just prey on people fear of dying providing them false hope for an incredible monthly fee.
@@russellward4624 Naturally not. Once again however, most cryonics enthusiasts understand that there is no guarantee of revival. It's not sold as an absolute certainty. I think it's perfectly conceivable, given our rate of technological increase in the last 200 years alone, that humans -may- eventually have such tech as to be able to construct a biological brain from scratch (without memory information). I understand we're not talking near future here. It could be millions of years before that sort of thing becomes possible, but again, I'm sure most cryonics enthusiasts understand this. It's a question of absolute certainty of death versus a possibly small chance at a future life.
Edit: I will admit Alcor's website does not use much uncertain terminology. You could definitely get the wrong impression if you were uninformed, from the website. I am quite confident however that many people ask what the chances are when signing up, and I cannot imagine they would be told it's a certainty. To know more we would have to actually try calling them to see how they pitch it.
Matt, you misspelled "sketicial" in your video description.
His Mom says what? Someone please tell me the word.
She pronounces “wash” as “warsh”
Mark the time.
@Matt Dillahunty PLEASE may i ask where is your mother from sounds like german/dutch "germanic language group" me being dutch found it funny worst "sausage" :)
Speaking of pronounciation... My folks taught me to say "warsh", but only for the geological feature while the verb for "to clean" was always pronounced "wash". I still have to pause before telling someone to take a right when they come to the wash or I'll say warsh instead. .lol.
I am from England, UK.
What is a warsh? I genuinely don't know what you Americans are talking about here.
A wash is still a wash, either the verb or the geographical feature in British English. (Rhymes with kosh, tosh, nosh, gosh etc.)
Yeah wash is a badly pronounced word in the south, but I have one better than that, my mom says “nords” all the time and it means “in other words”. It drives me crazy
I think that Hume's razor is a form of Occams razor.
Using Occam's Razor, it's simpler to believe Jesus did perform all the miracles He did than it is to go into a large conspiracy of people deciding to make it up together to the point of martyrdom.
@@christianthinker2536
It's easier to believe that men made up stories, than to believe that a man performed "miracles."
I don't think you should use the term "miracle" alone in this discussion (and similar ones). From the start I think you should say "claim" or "claim of a miracle." Aren't all ostensible miracles just claims? Calling something a miracle to begin with strikes an odd note to me; it seems in some way to lack clarity.
"cited occurence"?
No they aren't all just claims. The Vatican investigates different miracles and has strict criteria.
@@christianthinker2536 That just makes them "investigated claims". And hjaving criteria for miracles is cargo cult science.
No, worse. because cargo cult natives had "yes, we definitely saw the giant bird land. and all the people and cargo get out from the bird." So now doing the rituals to bring back the giasnt birds.
You've just got a book that claims there wasa giant bird.
@@brucebaker810 These claims are real. Ask any Catholic exorcist.
Is matt an expert of such subjects?.
Nope
Comment
Your mic looks like a blue armoured archer that’s about to shoot you in the face.
You should never judge people based on regional/demographic pronunciations - that is a bigoted thing to do. And you can't pretend that "you can't say warshed because there's no 'r' in wash" has any validity as an argument with respect to English, because the correspondence between spelling and pronunciation in English is very low. It's similar to claiming that 'aks' isn't a word, though in that example the bigotry is clearer due to the population that tends to use that pronunciation.
👏👏👏👏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🖖🖖🖖🖖🖖
Algorithm comment
Dworsche?
@Gamias Thsmanassou thanks…what is it?
Mark the time.
*Warsh* (wash)
Lol my mom still accents the second syllable in the word 'cafe'
Where's the debate?
What is a "miracle"?
Is it a real event that is miraculous, or is it a supernatural (imaginary) event?
How is the existence of aliens that have never visited earth a miracle?
Verbal diarrhea.
This is not a debate channel. This is Matt Dillahunty's view on certain topics.
It is a monologue only.
The wise person proportions their confidence to the evidence.- What evidence does the atheist have that god does not exist?
@New Hope Enterprises What evidence do you have that your so-called god exists? Until you provide it there's no reason or me to believe in it.
Atheists aren't asserting that. As you probably have already oft been informed.
Do you think everything is true until proven fals? What your Evidence Unicorns aren't real?Got none... Don't worry nobody would expect you to give Evidence for the non-existing cause that would be an impossible thing to do if such a Beeing doesn't Exists!!!THINK ABOUT IT!!! If it exists on the other hand (PROposition) there should be plenty of EVIDENCE to support your proposition. Maybe you also wanna look up burden of proof
As an atheist I don't necessary claim there is no god simply that I lak a believe in god/s
@New Hope Enterprises We're still waiting on that god proof. Have you tried asking your god what you need to say to prove it exists? Have you considered choosing another god to believe in? Maybe one that shows up now and then?
@@exceptionallyaverage3075 God and Holy Beings do show up a lot in many of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Marian apparitions happen for instance.
You're absolutely right, a person's confidence in something should be proportional to the evidence for it. Your problem though, is that you are convinced that my evidence for God is not good enough, not only for you, but you'd argue that it shouldn't be good enough for me either. I've seen you do it to many people as well as to your own mother, which by the way, I'm still curious about, as to what you might attribute her seeing a demon, if your're not convinced she truly saw one and she's not a liar?
Could he attribute her experience to being mistaken? Shouldn't that option be obvious to you? He actually talked about this very thing in this video. In fact it was the closing point.
You've said you agree with Hume's premise and Matt even addressed that that proportionality should apply in both directions, both to being too confident and to not being confident enough.
Matt has also said that revelation is necessarily first person. What that means is that your experience, that you find convincing, _can't_ be sufficient for anyone else but you and the reverse is true as well.
Actually Matt has not addressed your evidence. You have not presented your evidence. It does speak volumes to your confidence level that it is good evidence if you start with the assumption that it will be rejected and decline to present it though.
@@BigRalphSmith but how was she mistaken? What is his hypothesis about why and what she saw in the first place? His incredulity in her actually having seen a demon, is in large part evidence that he believes she herself does not have a good reason for her own belief and thus a disuassion for her to continue to have this belief.
@@Locust13 actually I have presented good evidence to Matt in other posts and forums and my including it here has nothing to do with my confidence level in my evidence but rather a testament to my lack of confidence in the recipient of said evidence, to recognize my evidence as good and reasonable based on his own preconceived notions.
@@lindal.7242 Who's to say how she was mistaken? How could anyone else possibly know the real reasons why someone mistakes one thing for something else?
Do you think she saw a demon?
Do you think demons are real?
Do you think she has "good reason" to think she saw a demon?
Have _you_ ever seen a demon?
How about a ghost?
Bigfoot?
Space aliens?
Can you imagine Hume listening to Matt’s explanation of the vaccine?… pathetic
Why would Hume listening be pathetic?
@@SansDeity you’re a statist Matt. And you worship cronyism. Which NGOs pay you, I forget?
'The wise person.'
The de-gendering pandering to the perpetually offended, now that's what I call cringe.