Видео

🛂🌏👤☯️🌌👣

This was awesome

Bro introduced unstated propositions

Bro introduced unstated proposition 😔

I don't think this logic is correct. We need prior knowledge to estimate probability, but our knowledge might not be correct. In your example of the dealt card, you think that the probability of getting a red king is 3.6% because you know how the standart deck of cards works. But what you don't realize is that the card is Uno wild card. We cannot accurately predict the probability of something that we have no knowledge about, like the existence of god. The teapot analogy doesn't state that the teapot doesn't exist or that the probability of its existence is laughably low. No, it states that if we cannot interact with the teapot (or god) in any meaningful way, than it doesn't matter if it exists, and if it doesn't matter ,than we might as well say that it doesn't exist. It might, but we don't have reasons to care. The Flying Spaghetti Monster goes further and states that if god exists, it might be the FSM. And the argument of our prior knowledge of pasta doesn't work, because according to pastafarians the spagetty was created in the shape and form of SFM, not the other way around. Sorry for mistakes, and god bless you. R'amen.

... but the Babelfish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't.

This really did help me so much! My exam is today and I have been religiously studying this video. You break it down in a way that was easy for me to understand and memorize.

Thank you so much for presenting the "equations" of Formal Logic L:anguage in this clear fashion. The use of actrual sentences in the examples was miraculous! You have helped me to see the light...even if a dim light;-)

strawman

That is really helpful.

So on what basis would anyone believe in the Uniformity of Nature which is the foundation of science? In other words, based on inductive reasoning, how do you "know" tomorrow will be like today?

Lee Steven Jackson Anthony Harris Mary

A lot of people say that it's not murder because for some reason the baby isn't alive. Then how does it suddenly become alive as soon as it comes out of the womb? It doesn't make sense. Makes me wanna ask them what Miscarriages are.

U beautiful human being u saved me

I could hug you for this!!!!!!!!!!!

The whole trouble was when Socrates said in public that the God's and Goddesses if Divine should be Perfect which they were not in the Sacred Texts, making the logic loving crowd, and especially the powerful logic loving politicians who were not too good at logic, worry that if the God's and Goddesses needed to be Perfect to be Divine then that would mean Humanity would never be Perfect as they are not and indeed so worried about it, probably couldn't get it off their minds, that they Killed Socrates for saying it in public, forced him to suicide in fact. Everything has been downhill from then except for one time a great Healer came called Jesus whom we all got together and killed hoping He would save us and now we eat his flesh and drink his blood and carry around the instrument of his murder to say we really believe He was a good guy and we conquer in His name though one of His best lines was "Blessed Is The Peacemaker" and though he never hurt anyone except fish. All of which seems to prove that God is quite a grumpy bugger and we had better be careful, even if He doesn't exist or if we can never know Him. Good Luck.

No way you just made it sound comprehensible, my teacher started talking like Shakespeare talking about this…. 😭

beautifully put, thanks

Helpful, thank you

Thank You! The teapot and flying spaghetti monster analogy had always given me this weird feeling in the mind. It was weird to use this to say, therefore 'God' is a joke.

a test right next to this vid fisically hurts me autism test

So if I weigh the arguments (some of which are shown at 8:51), THEN I can conclude that God's probability is laughably low?

A beautiful video, thank you!

Love it

Where is this guy... he should be recognized by the world

This is so interesting !!! thanks a lot <3

possibly the worst use of a Venn diagram on the Internet

Thanks so much for this. Very well explained and easily understood. Fantastic teaching 👍👍👍

This argument boils down to a casual definition of facts vs an all-encompassing definition of opinions. Rather than abandon this way of classifying thought, it seems to me we need robust definitions of facts and opinions. We need definitions that differentiate between the casual usage and the 'scientific' usage of those definitions. Facts based on empirical evidence, which isn't guessed at, or based simply on the biggest numbers. eg statistical belief. but based on repeatability. Facts that aren't first culturally shared and expected. As we debate usage, we have the prospect of A/i and its sea of meta purporting to be facts. A techy version of opinions that circulates in the absence of contradictions, as though it were facts. If we can't agree on this classification of thought and truth, then what hope have we in this A/i future.

This teaching was so retarded o, my fuckin god, Jesus fuckin christ, lord have fuckin mercy on me ..got dam this teaching was so retarded....

Thank you very much, I've learned a lot from you.

like very very genius content bro

I was stuck at what is Sound not SOund cogent and not cogent. Now I understand. Much appriciated your explanation bro

Is there such a thing as objective reality? I can't see it with my eyes. I think my eyes are just practical.

so nice❤

You're amazing thank you

Your argument... is logical

Best lecture ever seen in this topic.... Thank you all the way from India

1:41

Rational raciosinio argument discussion subjetsy😂❤❤❤

Statistically the odds are in favour of the FSM than any skyman. More likelihood of alien life than skyman (pasta be his name) . In fact, when we encounter our first alien lifeform, that will signal the collapse of all religions.

excellent video. I still have a question though, when you define validity as it being impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. How exactly are you defining true here? because it can't be in relation to reality.

In my opinion, this is my opinion

Afaik Russell's teapot is used as a tool so that it's not atheist that has the burden of proof to prove god but the theist.

You're assuming that the spaghetti monster is just a normal one like spaghetti in our world but if we change that to something similar to God?

Nice

You don't understand probability, and probability has nothing to do with the analogies. They're about where the burden of proof lies when making a claim. You could have easily discovered that by simply reading the first paragraph on the Wikipedia article about Russell's Teapot. The whole article only mentions probability once, when it compares different gods. Every god is just as probable as any other god, which is not at all, until they've been proven to be probable.

Thanks for sharing! Your video makes me understand these logic fundamentals in 5 minutes!

Thanks again for this great video! What if sometimes we want to do reasoning backward, such as from conclusion to premises or from effect to causes, does this type of reasoning still falls into inductive reasoning (as we just change the direction of the reasoning) or it's something called abductive reasoning? Thanks.

Could we draw a third circle for those foxes sleep on trees?