I wouldn't assume that psychiatry is any more perfectly effective than lots of other fields, and maybe less so; but so what strikes me about the attitude of people like Darth isn't their skepticism about it, but their lack of any empathy for people who are different than they are. Is it so hard to describe him and his friends as "crazy" in any number of ways?
@lightbeforethetunnel you post this comment a lot. It's a completely unimformatve and non substantive response (I'm copying darths language if you can't tell). We might even go so far as to call it...philoso-speak or GOBBLEDYGOOK (more darth language) Can you define what it means to engage in a "paradigm level debate"? It seems to me, it's another example of a presup using special pleading to avoid defending their actual position, which is that the christian god of the bible is the source of intelligibility, and the source of intelligibility MUST HAVE some specific properties, and denial of this leads to some epistemological/ontological consequences or collapse.
@@lightbeforethetunnelcorrect. When you put the burden of proof back on atheist, their brains start shutting down. The burden of proof is on both sides to justify their worldviews.
I've found it helps to explain to them that they ALREADY HAVE affirmed the position that they predicate. Both sides of any debate ALREADY HAS affirmed that they predicate. So, they're being asked what they DO... not what they know. They're being asked to describe in what manner DO they predicate: 1: They predicate while invoking a universal mind (God) as a necessary metaphysical pre-condition, or 2. Not (No third option due to law of excluded middle) When they try choosing a third option still, i explain that when they try that it is equivalent with claiming "I don't predicate and therefore don't choose 1 or 2" which is self-refuting, since thats claiming they dont predicate while predicating. This actually seems to help a lot once they they realize theyre being asked to clarify a position they have already affirmed.
So how does all that prove an ultimate for everything, I live in the same world that you & Ding Dong (thanks to Micheal of the Canadian Atheist for that great name for the dumbass) do, don't believe in god yet am able to navigate & survive using the same physical laws & facts as you do & am not affected at all - I see the tree in my yard without god & it is still there the next day & when its windy drops its branches on my lawn which is a pain when it needs mowing. At least natural processes have actual empirical evidence to back them up unlike god which has zero actual evidence.
Not knowing the properties of this necessary metaphysical ultimate has absolutely no demonstrable consequences to predication. Full stop. Presups claim some consequences for not knowing the metaphysical ultimate? Demonstrate it. It appears this metaphysical necessity provides Intelligibility for everyone, all the time, regardless of our claims about it. For example, I can claim it's NECESSARY your car needs gasoline to operate. If you disagree, we can dump some milk in there and see what happens. The car doesn't go. I've demonstrated the necessity. Presups think their script leads to an ACTUAL loss of the ability to be intelligible...but it's just word games and semantics. Now it MAY BE THE CASE you're 100% correct about everything you claim about the metaphysical necessity, its properties and attributes. Its possible. I think it's extremely unlikely. But that doesn't turn off Intelligibility for me. Your God is still providing for me is he not? Do I make him upset for denying him and he makes my water not boil? Or turns my shoes to peanut butter? No. We don't see this. Ever. We see millions of people every day all over the world who disagree on the metaphysical ultimate...and yet Intelligibility remains. This is demonstrable
Yeah, there is no avoiding the God or not God dichotomy. Also, when they say "I don't know", they cannot defend that either. It's the assertion of that there is no sense at all of them knowing, a universal claim. And its absurd upon examination. There is some sense at least, in which we all know that transcendentals are all fundamental to our existence and intelligibility. Especially the "ground of being" transcendental. A skeptic couldn't even get out of bed in the morning, or take their next breath, if they truly did not know that something, is transcendental AND absolute. They know something at least, is my point. And the denial of that is nonsense.
The man who knows everything about everything & is willing to give you a community college lecture on it whether you want to hear it or not. I know next to zero about philosophy but I still do not see how it proves god or whatever this ultimate has to be - haven't found that I have needed an ultimate anything apart from money to get to where I am now.
I can’t do anything or know anything because I don’t have an ultimate . Nothing is intelligible because it’s not grounded in Darth’s mythical sky daddy.
Every breath you take presupposes those things which are transcendental and preconditional in reality, to human existence and intelligibility. That are known as "first principles" from metaphysics. And we find that the basic meaning of a creator belief, doesn't entail it being arbitrary. Due to how the meaning is one that fits perfectly in that metaphysical category, and constitutes the very first principle there. Its arbitrary when an atheist says or implies that we should get rid of that first principle of divinity and of ultimacy.
Which raises an interesting point- your experience has led you to certain conclusions; but there may be things you have not learned, have yet to learn, or will never learn. But still you continue to live your life. You are also able to live your without having needed to consider the issues being discussed here, and even though if you did you might find that you hold some contradictory beliefs. I supposed it's the fact that philosophical speculation, like many forms of knowledge, can be enriching but isn't essential that lead people like Darth to make threats about what will happen to you after you die, or people like Ray Comfort to compare atheism to being on a falling plane without a parachute.
Good question! What was God doing before time??? What would you say is the eternal? Do you think the universe or reality would be eternal and gives rise to all temporal and contingent things?
DD back pedaling here desperately trying to explain away the fact he was literally dragged into stunned silence by mike fahl. the entire, unedited conversation is up on YT not hard to find. DD got verbally disembowled no two ways about it 😂
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
![William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens | "Does God Exist?" | Biola University | [HD]](/img/1.gif)
Darth is quite good at scripture when he ACTUALLY GETS into it tbh.
I wouldn't assume that psychiatry is any more perfectly effective than lots of other fields, and maybe less so; but so what strikes me about the attitude of people like Darth isn't their skepticism about it, but their lack of any empathy for people who are different than they are. Is it so hard to describe him and his friends as "crazy" in any number of ways?
The key to shift the burden of proof is to define god as an ambiguous necessity...and avoid defending the Christian god at all costs
For someone claiming knowledge, Darth sure suck at showing it.
Burden of proof is equal in paradigm-level debates. Both sides necessarily have a particular worldview to defend.
@lightbeforethetunnel you post this comment a lot. It's a completely unimformatve and non substantive response (I'm copying darths language if you can't tell). We might even go so far as to call it...philoso-speak or GOBBLEDYGOOK (more darth language)
Can you define what it means to engage in a "paradigm level debate"?
It seems to me, it's another example of a presup using special pleading to avoid defending their actual position, which is that the christian god of the bible is the source of intelligibility, and the source of intelligibility MUST HAVE some specific properties, and denial of this leads to some epistemological/ontological consequences or collapse.
@@lightbeforethetunnel yet darth reruses to take on that burden. 🤣🤣
@@lightbeforethetunnelcorrect. When you put the burden of proof back on atheist, their brains start shutting down.
The burden of proof is on both sides to justify their worldviews.
How long did it take Darth to become this insufferable? Asking for a friend.
I've found it helps to explain to them that they ALREADY HAVE affirmed the position that they predicate. Both sides of any debate ALREADY HAS affirmed that they predicate.
So, they're being asked what they DO... not what they know.
They're being asked to describe in what manner DO they predicate:
1: They predicate while invoking a universal mind (God) as a necessary metaphysical pre-condition, or
2. Not
(No third option due to law of excluded middle)
When they try choosing a third option still, i explain that when they try that it is equivalent with claiming "I don't predicate and therefore don't choose 1 or 2" which is self-refuting, since thats claiming they dont predicate while predicating.
This actually seems to help a lot once they they realize theyre being asked to clarify a position they have already affirmed.
The law of excluded middle cannot be used for EVERYTHING!
So how does all that prove an ultimate for everything, I live in the same world that you & Ding Dong (thanks to Micheal of the Canadian Atheist for that great name for the dumbass) do, don't believe in god yet am able to navigate & survive using the same physical laws & facts as you do & am not affected at all - I see the tree in my yard without god & it is still there the next day & when its windy drops its branches on my lawn which is a pain when it needs mowing. At least natural processes have actual empirical evidence to back them up unlike god which has zero actual evidence.
You're a Flat Earther. Your opinion is worthless.
Not knowing the properties of this necessary metaphysical ultimate has absolutely no demonstrable consequences to predication.
Full stop.
Presups claim some consequences for not knowing the metaphysical ultimate? Demonstrate it. It appears this metaphysical necessity provides Intelligibility for everyone, all the time, regardless of our claims about it.
For example, I can claim it's NECESSARY your car needs gasoline to operate. If you disagree, we can dump some milk in there and see what happens. The car doesn't go. I've demonstrated the necessity.
Presups think their script leads to an ACTUAL loss of the ability to be intelligible...but it's just word games and semantics.
Now it MAY BE THE CASE you're 100% correct about everything you claim about the metaphysical necessity, its properties and attributes. Its possible. I think it's extremely unlikely.
But that doesn't turn off Intelligibility for me. Your God is still providing for me is he not? Do I make him upset for denying him and he makes my water not boil? Or turns my shoes to peanut butter?
No. We don't see this. Ever. We see millions of people every day all over the world who disagree on the metaphysical ultimate...and yet Intelligibility remains. This is demonstrable
Yeah, there is no avoiding the God or not God dichotomy. Also, when they say "I don't know", they cannot defend that either. It's the assertion of that there is no sense at all of them knowing, a universal claim. And its absurd upon examination.
There is some sense at least, in which we all know that transcendentals are all fundamental to our existence and intelligibility. Especially the "ground of being" transcendental. A skeptic couldn't even get out of bed in the morning, or take their next breath, if they truly did not know that something, is transcendental AND absolute.
They know something at least, is my point. And the denial of that is nonsense.
The man who knows everything about everything & is willing to give you a community college lecture on it whether you want to hear it or not. I know next to zero about philosophy but I still do not see how it proves god or whatever this ultimate has to be - haven't found that I have needed an ultimate anything apart from money to get to where I am now.
I think you missed your exit. Retardville is back there
I can’t do anything or know anything because I don’t have an ultimate . Nothing is intelligible because it’s not grounded in Darth’s mythical sky daddy.
Every breath you take presupposes those things which are transcendental and preconditional in reality, to human existence and intelligibility. That are known as "first principles" from metaphysics.
And we find that the basic meaning of a creator belief, doesn't entail it being arbitrary. Due to how the meaning is one that fits perfectly in that metaphysical category, and constitutes the very first principle there. Its arbitrary when an atheist says or implies that we should get rid of that first principle of divinity and of ultimacy.
@@ChessArmyCommander
Except it doesn’t presuppose anything . Have you been speaking to Sting ?
Which raises an interesting point- your experience has led you to certain conclusions; but there may be things you have not learned, have yet to learn, or will never learn. But still you continue to live your life. You are also able to live your without having needed to consider the issues being discussed here, and even though if you did you might find that you hold some contradictory beliefs. I supposed it's the fact that philosophical speculation, like many forms of knowledge, can be enriching but isn't essential that lead people like Darth to make threats about what will happen to you after you die, or people like Ray Comfort to compare atheism to being on a falling plane without a parachute.
What was god doing before time?
Your mom
I guess thinking therefore being? Only stupid people believe in Gods anyway,
Good question! What was God doing before time???
What would you say is the eternal? Do you think the universe or reality would be eternal and gives rise to all temporal and contingent things?
DD back pedaling here desperately trying to explain away the fact he was literally dragged into stunned silence by mike fahl. the entire, unedited conversation is up on YT not hard to find. DD got verbally disembowled no two ways about it 😂
I like how you try to be edgy
Gotta be Jewish
Who’s channel is it on?
@@-gearsgarage-
ruclips.net/video/o-8pEGF0qn4/видео.htmlsi=ibxZUwjnSUwiJegB
Garybis just a bag of nonsense, he dominated the conversation like a bully that he is.
His community college lecture script is so boring.
I know you are but who am I? 😁
@@Darth.Dawkins Me know Nothing!!!!
@@LookOutForNumberOne 😆