You guys seriously need to cut this crap of pretending a definition is an argument. I don't believe anyone could seriously be this obtuse, so it's clearly an act. Imagine doing this with anything else. It's patently absurd. You can obviously understand what the concept / definition of Superman is even if you don't believe Superman exists. Definitions merely describe CONCEPTS, so that the person arguing for that concept doesn't need to repeat the entire definition every time they want to communicate that concept. The definition itself is not an argument. Your interlocutor later argues FOR that concept... and that is a completely separate act. Every worldview is going to have numerous claims which are necessarily true within that system. So, you don't need to accept the Christian God actually exists just to understand what the concept is which is being communicated. Seriously, you guys would never be doing this with any other topic. If you applied the same absurd tactic to anything else you'd immediately realize how asinine it truly is.
Imagine if we did this to you guys. "I reject your definition of the laws of logic because you can't prove they're necessarily true within your system" ... and then we refuse to listen to any argumentation for WHY they'd be true just because you'd have to use the words "laws of logic" to argue for them, and we've rejected that definition. That's what you're doing, in reverse.
He's mislead so many weakened people. If you've talked to any of them before his "courses," they're just looking for anything to hold onto, and he sold them a way to attack someone else's questions, and tricked them into thinking that it justifies their belief.
@@mumsie-uk2it The big words with unclear definitions sound impressive until you realize they are just window dressing for an argument that leads nowhere.
@Shaun Folk I mean... I see where you are coming from, but I just can't find entertainment in this type of argument. Presups are already bad but this is just the worst type of that.
Jenna, he was not confused. Instead, he was trying to confuse you. From the outset, he knew very well that his so-called definition was a claim which he would never be able to prove but he simply kept denying it hoping that you would give him a pass. You should not have allowed him to continue when he refused to prove his claim. Jim was quicker at seeing his presuppositional apologetics.
The idea is that he can give a definition of god without making any claims about wether that god actually exists or not. He can still analyse the logical implications of the belief or disbelief in that hypothetical god. At least, if the definition doesn't contradict its self. In this case he asks if she believes that there is an ultimate fundamental blabla cause for all the facts that she is acquainted with. When she says that she denies that, then the logical entailment is that she believes that she can have facts without an ultimate cause. That is a positive claim. If she says that she doesn't know, then he can ask her: Is your claim that you don't know a fact? And if yes , do you believe that you can have that fact without an ultimate cause? Then she can choose for an infinite regress of I don't know statements what would be quite absurd in my eyes or she will have to admit that she positively believes that she can have facts without an ultimate cause. Implicit in the notion of an ultimate cause is that it's the cause of all facts. So if she can have 1 fact (namely: that she doesn't know) that is not ultimately caused by that ultimate cause then that ultimate cause can't logically coexist in that world. So by logical entailment, her position implies the falsity of a ultimate cause. Whether she realises it or not and how unintuitive it may seem, it just logically follows that her position entails the falsity of God defined as the ultimate cause for all facts. I would say though, that the personal property that was included in the definition is not neccessary to reach this conclusion. So this argument doesn't show that one can not be neutral towards the personal property of this definition. So I think that's kinda cheeky of him to include that. And you sort of complimenting Jim for his contribution is very weird to me. First of all he wanted to dismiss the definition to instead work with his definition of god as a spaghettiball. If you are gonna be that silly then you shouldn't go sit there and take on these calls. Second, he gave 2 arguments for his claim that one can always take a neutral position and im curious if you are impressed with his reasoning. 1. We can always take a neutral position because philosophers say so. 2.We can always take a neutral position no matter what you say because we can always take a neutral position.
She has gotten better over the years but she has a long ways to go. She has difficulty understanding a lot of the theist positions despite having a background as one, and seems more concerned with being polite than being effective at engaging and calling bullshit.
@Quack Epistemologist My definition of Quack Epistemologist is that he's a troll who worships Darth Dawkins. Am I just stating my definition, or have I made a claim?
@@kaiza6467 A definiton is not a claim. It's just: When I say this word, this is what I mean. So for example, if you would say: I define ydrojlom as a troll then I won't take that personal because it's merely a definiton. There is no synthetic identity there between me and your description because it's merely a defenition.. Do you understand?
It was fun to hear her reaction to this bully. She really frustrated him with her honest confusion. I think she truly is ingenuous- refreshing, but her method takes a lot longer to put the trolls in their place.
@Quack Epistemologist They can be if they include claims about reality. Dude's definition of god is that god is responsible for everything that exists in the world and not contingent on anything else. That is a claim. Not only that, his definition also includes the statement that god has to exist. Another claim. If my definition of the sun includes a statement that it circles above a flat Earth inside of a dome, then within my definition I am claiming that the Earth is flat.
He also just repeats one thing the entire call and expects to convince people by the rambling. But, he had a fall out with his mentor, derp dorkins, so he quit all the presup
@@lightbeforethetunnel you can’t be serious. The hosts take unreasonable amounts of time talking to Robin and explain the same thing over and over and he doesn’t listen. He’s either incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest. The fact that he, and apparently you, don’t understand the “rebuttal” doesn’t mean one wasn’t presented.
Yes and in the process he showed us all that he is willing to be dishonest using his false type of faith (spiritual conviction) that is not reliant on proof. He is strongly devoted to a false faith that does not have any evidence for complete trust or confidence in someone or something no matter what they say. It is the false representation of faith that all theists of all types are strongly indoctrinated into by the religion that has devious doctrines.
He says he is not making a claim, but is basing his arguments on the properties a god might have if one existed that would require all negative responses to be a denial. So he is basing his ideas on the properties of something not known to exist and that may not exist. Kind of how your parents might have frightened you into behaving because otherwise some fearsome monster that they know doesn't exist would punish you using its powers.
I had my doubts, but as soon as I heard the start of the "fundamental and necessary" schtick, I immediately knew this caller was going to be another person trying to be that one guy who I refuse to name.
@@mackhomie6 Darth Dawkins, the wife and child abuser, failed dentist who lives with his mother in his 60's, and spends all day, every day being a dipshit on Discord
Jim: You can't define God into existence. Robin: I'm not defining God into existence, I just define God as something that necessarily exists. Well gosh darnit that really makes me doubt my atheism.
This one should have been easy. The framing is flawed. "If we agree to define god as that which is the fundamental, personal, cause and grounds for all reality..." Caller was literally saying, If we agree there must be a god then you cannot hold the neutral agnostic position. This is correct. The issue is, atheists do not agree to that initial premise. If we did, we would be theists.
Agreed, but the goal of presup is to baffle, silence, and dismiss both atheists and Christians who don’t hold to their weird Calvinist interpretation of Christianity. They want to lead their interlocutor into a verbal trap, the culminations of which is the supposed revelation of their opponents “incoherence”. They will never define their terms as that would give the game away at the outset.
Exactly he's presenting a situation in which the person he's talking to agrees with his definition when in reality they do not. If they did agree then yes they wouldn't be neutral, but they don't agree that's the whole point.
Presup bullshid from a different angle. “If we define God as the thing I’ve already concluded to be real and necessary, you can’t be neutral toward it.” Yeah, mate, I can, until it’s demonstrated as real and not just asserted, Alejandro clone.
Jenna is phenomenal and I absolutely love her...but she can be too trusting and too easily give people the benefit of the doubt when they don't deserve it. This guy's intentions were obvious from the start and he did not deserve to be treated with kid gloves.
Every host has their own approach. As long as she's fighting for truth, she's good. BUT i won't deny I loved when Matt would come down like a sledgehammer, on a dishonest caller.
@@charliedsurf1267 I absolutely agree with you. I said what I said and, though I still believe it to be true, I wouldn't have Jenna any other way. She really is fantastic just the way she is.
I don't see it that way. She is trying to understand how people think by granting positions she doesn't believe. It's a respectable epistemological approach. Sometimes you have to dive deeper into people's minds to find something that can be used to help that person.
@@tsdbhg that might be true if you have someone that is trying to have a honest conversation. the special pleading robin and most presuppositionalists start with leads me to believe that they trying to stay on their script and aren't in search looking for sincere answers.
He didn't make any claim that it exists. He just gave a definition of a hypothetical and wanted to give a deductive argument that shows that one can not be neutral towards this hypothetical. So it would be illogical to respond like that.
@@kentonbaird1723 I think you might mean that you don't have a reason te accept that the defined thing in question exists. That's different than rejecting a definition. I don't reject the definition of a unicorn while I dont hold the proposition to be true. Are you following that?
@@kentonbaird1723 Let me ask this in a different way. Is a Unicorn defined as a horse with a horn on his head? Would you reject this definiton because you presumably don't have a reason to accept that a unicorn exists?
I think we could have taken care of Robin's argument a bit earlier by pointing out that defining God as a prerequisite to existence is just a claim wrapped in a definition -- that claim being that there *IS* a prerequisite to existence at all. That claim would have to be supported. If we accept for the sake of argument that existence has a prerequisite intelligence... sure, it's pretty hard to take the atheistic position. But there's no obligation to accept such a huge unsupported assertion to begin with.
No, the definition is a hypothetical and he wanted to give a deductive argument that shows that one can not be neutral towards that hypothetical definition. He never made any claims about wether that hypothetical is actually true or did he ? But I must admit that it's very cheeky of him to smuggle in the personal property into the definition while that property is not neccessary to reach the conclusion. So in order words, the argument doesn't show that one can not be neutral towards the personal property of the ultimate cause.
@@ydrojzelf He defined God in such a way as to give him the answer he wanted to hear. He may as well have defined God as "a being that you cannot be neutral about" and spared us a half hour of pedantic bullshit.
@@ydrojzelf he "defines" it the way he does so he can get the person to agree on that defintion, then he slips right over and demands that the other person disprove that definition. It's just a dishonest way of making a claim then shifting the burden of proof.
I actually had to stop listening because of this guy. He pulled out ALL the stops and used every fallacy in the book. And I did not like how the hosts handled this, this is where Matt's brutish manner comes in handy.
I stopped listening after 8 minutes because the call was too hard to follow, too much talking over, couldn't even get to the point of the guy making an argument, it got me frustrated. I find Jim was overly defensive, you need to give the guy a chance. If you disagree with a position or a definition, hear why the person presents it. Or ask what they mean or why they use it, don't just say "no it's not" or "I reject it" before we even get to understand what he wants to do with it.
I actually liked the way that Jim handled it because a lot of presups try to define a term in such a way that if you agree with them they can follow the same similar script that they want to use. Don't allow them to muddy the conversation with their bullshit
at the bottom of robin's argument was that atheists can't prove god doesn't exist therefore their position is illogical...lol bro look up burden of proof..
I think what the caller's trying to say is that if you're not convinced that god exists, you live your life as if god doesn't exist, and therefore the implication of that is that your position is that god does not exist. That is a totally absurd way of trying to put the burden of proof on those who do not accept the claim and a massive lack of understanding of basic logic. This guy's very confused.
Robin is a prime example of the mindmelt one has to undergo to convince oneself that logic reasoning can totally be amalgemated with a deist worldview and to feel one had the upper hand in this conversation
The script was supposed to go: Caller: Let's pretend we define god as fundamental and necessary. Hosts: OK Caller: Now you have to prove god doesn't exist. You can't say 'I don't know' because you agreed god is fundamental and necessary. Gotcha!
I hope Jenna has met enough of these folks by now to understand that Robin was not confused, but was looking for answers to fit his PreSup script. She seems so sweetly naive here.
I think he was trying to define god such that is necessary for you to take a position (pretty much define it into existence). He pretended it was just a thought experiment but tried to use that definition to "prove" that you must be a hard atheist under any definition. I think the best response to him would have been: I don't invoke (at least on a conscience level) that god in taking position so that god either doesn't exist or I am not aware that it does so I am justified in saying that I don't know.
Nobody "Must" Falsify ANY claim on any Deity. If I just do not care if the Christian version of God exists, or the Hindu version of God exists, why would I waste my time looking at it? The only reason anyone who is not convinced that a Christian God exists, in the US, is that Christians push their sense of the world on others . If Christians just left things alone, nobody would care, at all.
It's quite simple, actually. If by definition this god exists, then I reject this concept until enough evidence is presented. There could be something godlike in the multiverse, omniverse or cosmos, but until there's evidence, it's stupid to say you believe in it.
Jenna says "you lost me"...... that's because Robin isn't making any sense.... he's simply trying to force his definition on to everyone else and shift the burden of proof..... Again 🤦
His line of thought comes down to : "You are wrong because I'm right, and I'm right because I say so. Now stop being stupid and just believe. Now I state that you are wrong and you admitted it, at least that's what I claim, so see I'm smarter then you and I'm right."
The definition of "God" unto itself was not the caller's problem. His problems were: A. Bringing behavior (affirmation or denial) into this discussion. 1st, believers and a nonbelievers do not necessarily behave differently in society. 2nd, you can not believe and still behave as if you do. Many atheists are forced to out of necessity. 3rd, God doesn't really dictate how you should behave. Theists can say he does, but their behaviors in society are diverse and in no way nail down affirming or denying behaviors. B. If his argument does not rely on God even existing and it is merely a thought experiment, then it is worthless at best and fallaciously begging the question at worst. "If God exists, then I am right." "Cool story, bro, but how do you know you're right?"
The idea is that he can give a definition of god without making any claims about wether that god actually exists or not. He can still analyse the logical implications of the belief or disbelief in that hypothetical god. At least, if the definition doesn't contradict its self. In this case he asks if she believes that there is an ultimate fundamental blabla cause for all the facts that she is acquainted with. When she says that she denies that, then the logical entailment is that she believes that she can have facts without an ultimate cause. That is a positive claim. If she says that she doesn't know, then he can ask her: Is your claim that you don't know a fact? And if yes , do you believe that you can have that fact without an ultimate cause? Then she can choose for an infinite regress of I don't know statements what would be quite absurd in my eyes or she will have to admit that she positively believes that she can have facts without an ultimate cause. Implicit in the notion of an ultimate cause is that it's the cause of all facts. So if she can have 1 fact (namely: that she doesn't know) that is not ultimately caused by that ultimate cause then that ultimate cause can't logically coexist in that world. So by logical entailment, her position implies the falsity of a ultimate cause. Whether she realises it or not and how unintuitive it may seem, it just logically follows that her position entails the falsity of God defined as the ultimate cause for all facts. I would say though, that the personal property that was included in the definition is not neccessary to reach this conclusion. So this argument doesn't show that one can not be neutral towards the personal property of this definition. So I think that's kinda cheeky of him to include that. Furthermore, Jim gave 2 arguments for his claim that one can always take a neutral position and im curious if you are impressed with his reasoning. 1. We can always take a neutral position because philosophers say so. 2.We can always take a neutral position no matter what you say because we can always take a neutral position
Humans create gods. This is why all gods are personal. Robin inadvertently demonstrates this by mind-forging a god that is philosophically necessary. Robin thinks he has created a very powerful god indeed. Robin still holds an empty cup as he rides into the sunset on his philosophically necessary rainbow unicorn.
Caller's whole argument is that if you agree with him that he is correct about god then you can't disagree with him. Totally circular argument using special pleading.
I’m a rock hard atheist about 60% of the day, even when I’m asleep! I’m only soft when I have to listen to people like Robin and even then I’m thinking about being hard again
It's so cute how they think they are coming in tricking ppl into agreeing that it's a position we can't say "i don't know" about like we don't obviously know that they're going to come back later and say we both have the burden of proof now. Inherently dishonest argument. She was right to go down that line and could have pushed much harder because that's something It's going to take a ton to prove. Which he cannot prove. It would turn logic on it's head.
Presup is built on making assertions and demands and running away. The script is basically define a god into existence, reject basic logic, shift the burden of proof, antagonize, the run away/mute. It's the weakest apologetic and somehow the most popular lately.
You can define your terms however you want but if the CONCEPT described by your terms doesnt comport with reality then you have to DEMONSTRATE it. Im sorry that you dont have a demonstration that logic is wrong but you dont just get to define "i dont know" out of existence.
He is trying to paint all atheist as hard so he can claim them to be irrational and since his belief is also irrational then he cant be blamed since everybody is irrational. Its his personal protective shield against reason.
Also Robin’s word salad of nonsense is one of the reasons that I am an atheist. Anyone who attempts to just presume god makes me go into atheism more because when you presume something you are telling me that you don’t actually know if it exists.
He said that the only reason you can reject a definition is if you find an inconsistency. Christian: (noun) Someone who worships Allah and follows the Qur'an.
Really disappointed in Jenna. How is it possible that she hasn’t heard these idiots with the same script calling in over and over. DD acolytes. He didn’t call to have a discussion and you gave him a half hour of airtime to spew his nonsense and now he’ll go brag to D about how much of your time he wasted. Jesus Jenna. Pay attention.
I can’t stand this guy but this isn’t word salad dude. Word salad is common among those with brain damage, schizophrenics and people suffering psychotic episodes. Looks more like this. Never up into door and why through any yellow be lesson hair hat. Please don’t misuse the term as an insult for jackasses like this guy.
"Atheism is not a rtational position to have..." That's because you don't understand what the position is all about, once you learn that, you'll realize it is the most rational position to hold.
The good old "if I'm right, I'm right" thought experiment was bad enough, but he was basically saying they can't disagree with any of his thoughts either, because "it's just a hypothetical". What a clown! 🤡
I think that the caller's idea is: if you add necessary to a definition, then if you think such a thing can exist or might exist, then it must exist (because if there is a universe in which it does exist, then it is necessary, so also exists in our universe). I don't necessarily agree with this, but this is, I think, the idea. However, you can still say "I don't know", because maybe you don't have an opinion either way. When you say that you don't know if X exists, that does not mean that you think it might. It does not mean anything Is there any question for which the answer "I don't know" is not valid? I don't think so. For example, you can ask "are you aware of yourself?", "is your leg touching the floor?", "are you thinking of a number right now"? I think "I don't know" is completely valid in all those questions.
Jim barrows: "We can always take a neutral position no matter what you say because there always is a neutral position." Great reasoning of a great mind.
Reminds me a little bit of the ontological argument. Anselm’s brand of sleight-of-hand going on. Here’s the defeator: until he’s established his concept, it can’t be a basis for predication.
Robin's statement about atheists is even loaded. sneaking the world denial is dishonest. And he give a special pleading for his god. he defines it and then uses it how we can not have facts. That is an argument. And his whole position is just a earth size argument from personal incredulity.
He doesn't explain why this definition is necessary for the hypothetical to work. He doesn't explain how this definition of god actually necessitates a dual, or polar, position. And he doesn't demonstrate how anything accepted within this hypothetical proves that soft atheism can't exist in reality - if that was his point. The only way for the hypothetical to work is by accepting the definition to be true - and doing so without being given a reason why this definition should be accepted as true. It's begging the question because it's basically a statement assumed to be true with no evidence other than the statement, a.k.a he avoids answering the important question. I understand he's not making a claim himself about the truth of the definition in reality. But the definition for the purposes of the hypothetical acts as a premise. The premise being that God is x, y, z. Accepting the definition within the hypothetical is to accept it as a premise. And Jim's point was: the hypothetical forces you to accept this definition, which he couldn't agree with because there's no reason to accept that definition of God. It does not comport to reality, and there's no good reason to move forward with the hypothetical given that the caller can't demonstrate why this definition is necessary or reasonable. Even if the logic was internally consistent within the hypothetical - that has nothing to do with positions in reality that are not confined to these rules. The full argument is something like: In this hypothetical where you accept the definition of God as x, y and z for reasons I won't explain, you cannot be neutral towards that position for reasons I can't explain. Therefore, soft atheism doesn't exist in reality for reasons I can't explain. None of it connects, or seems to matter. It sounds highly confused.
I would love for somebody to just drop something that proves their god and changes reality for all of us, that would be amazing. It will never happen though.
It was not shifting the burden of proof. It was smuggling the existence of the being in the definition. "We'll define a god as someone (who exists and) sustains all (because if it doesn't exist it does nothing), so if you do not reference it then your world stops making sense because it ignores my god which I defined as existing, and denying to me is the same as ignoring me therefore you are my enemy". So, a presupositionalist.
Philosophy includes critical thinking, logic, reasoning, syllogisms, and truth tables. The "true"/"false" premises of a syllogism are either "accepted" or "not accepted". "Accepted" means you believe them. The reasons and reasonableness of your "acceptance" of the premises deserve debate. "Not accepted" runs the gamut of being not convinced for whatever reason, to believing or accepting things that refute or are the opposite of the premises. Once the debate over the premises is done, and if the premises are accepted, at least for the sake of the argument at hand, then there is no middle ground. The truth tables and syllogisms built from those premises are valid or invalid. There is no middle ground for valid and invalid. So when discussing philosophy with people, ALWAYS distinguish the true/false premise debate part from the valid/invalid syllogism part. In the true/false premise debate, there is a fuzzy middle ground of "I don't know". The "I don't know", by default, lands on the side on "false premise" or non-acceptance of premise. But it also can land on the "true premise" or acceptance of premise side if you simply say "I'll accept the premise for the sake of argument". In this case, typically you know the syllogism's structure itself is invalid, so you "temporarily" accept the premise just to illustrate that even if it were true, the syllogism itself is invalid, so the premise doesn't matter in this particular argument. People confuse true/false with valid/invalid in the context of philosophy. In laypeople's world, those are somewhat interchangeable. But in the philosophy world, they are not. A premise can be "true", "not false", "not true", or "false". "True" means accepted by both arguers, at least for the sake of this argument. "Not false" is not a typical position that one takes in a philosophy premise debate. "Not true" typically lands on the "false" or non-acceptance of the premise side. And "false" is non-acceptance of the premise. Debate continues until both sides land squarely in declaring each premise to be "true" or "false". Once that is squarely decided, there is no middle ground. The argument ends unless both sides land squarely on every premises' being "true", at least for the sake of this argument. A philosophy argument cannot continue unless both parties land on the "true" side of all premises. Once the premises are accepted as true, then there is no middle ground. The syllogisms built from those premises are either valid or invalid. There is no middle ground of "I don't know" at that point. The conclusion from a validly constructed syllogism from accepted as true premises is true. There's no "I don't know" for that conclusion. There's no "false" for that conclusion. And as far as valid/invalid goes, there's no "not valid" or "not invalid" middle ground.
6:00 You CAN disagree with a definition if the definition is making a statement about the actual reality-base properties of the thing, which is what Robin's definition of God does. The example I always go to is "I define a unicorn to be a horse with a horn that exists". There is nothing logically contradictory in there - horses, horns and existing are all valid things. Npt that it's relevant here but there's nothing biologically wrong either - plenty of extant animals have horns of some kind. So can we conclude unicorns exist? It's in the definition? No, because I'm making an assertion about an actual thing in reality, not an abstract concept - I cannot define a unicorn into existence. Robin does exactly that with his god - by putting 'necessary' into the definition he's making an assertion that must be demonstrated because he's making a statement about reality. What, if anything, is NECESSARY for reality? We have no idea but Robin claims to and so in the case of this definition he DOES have some work to do before others will accept his definition. The problem for him is that the "work to do" is the very thing he's trying to prove - the existence of a god. So it boils down to "We'll accept Robin's definition of a god he uses to prove a god exists if we know it is valid. And we'll know it is a valid definition when he's proved a god exists". So he's right if he's right. It's sufficient but he hasn't shown it necessary that he's right.
We're engaging in a thought experiment and so you have to accept my definition. That's not a thought experiment, that's just a believe in what I do and so agree with me. If you insert your own logic his falls apart.
Jim, you need to listen more and break down the issue with a callers argument. ‘I reject your definition’ doesn’t really get you anywhere with the caller nor does it educate the audience. The issue with Robin’s definition is that it crams about 3 separate ideas into one package. It contests that there is a requirement for an ultimate foundation to facts (as opposed to facts being relative or whatever), it contends that the foundation is the same for all possible facts within reality, and it contends that this foundation is a personal being. With each one of those contentions a person can accept as true, reject as false, or withhold belief. Stringing them together makes it harder to discuss them, but even with the three claims being amalgamated into the ‘god’ label a person can still accept that all three propositions are true, reject one or more as false, or withhold belief and say ‘I don’t know if any or all of the three points are true’.
Simple breakdown of caller's argument: Premise 1 - The definition of God is the personal, necessary cause for all temporal states of affairs. Premise 2 - If you do not acknowledge God as the cause when explaining facts or making claims, then you do not believe in God. Conclusion - It is impossible to be neutral towards the idea of God as defined. There is a big problem with this argument. The conclusion depends on the acceptance of the definition of God as provided. If someone is unsure that the definition is true (or that God even exists) then it is possible to remain neutral. The argument essentially carries a huge implied "IF" in the first premise.
It’s a presup bowl of nonsense which went on for far to long. Jim was right. He tried to define his ‘god’ into existence, and first in chain of order. He forgot to mention how his ‘god’ got there (special pleading). They should have stopped him at the point jim got annoyed. Was long enough.
This guy is asking "if you believed in God would you then believe in God?"...ok but you understand that's a pointless question. If I agree with your specific definition of God then that automatically means I believe in God, which nullifies your question.
I feel like this was the least honest call I have listened to, yet. Right from the jump the caller wanted HIS definition to be accepted, while rejecting that anything else could be redefined ad-hoc on a whim. He did this knowing his definition was the entire basis on his "thought experiment", while claiming definitions were irrelevant. Absolute dishonesty.
The caller threw an word salad,analogies, and scenarios at the show hosts and he got frustrated when the hosts said "You don't need 10 words when you can use 1 or 2, so get to your point"
If someone asks if I believe it is possible for any god to exist, I'm a soft atheist. But so far for every god ever presented to me, I'm a hard atheist.
When asked for clarification, he asks if they "deny the existence" of god. That assumes that any gods exist. Even hard atheists simply state that the person actively believes gods don't exist. It says NOTHING about whether gods exist or not.
He said that "definitions aren't claims" while trying to smuggle his claims into his definition. What a piece of work. 🤦♂️
@Quack Epistemologist he is literally claiming the thing he is describing exists because he says that at the beginning of the call
Like Katt Williams said... nothing worse than a smart, dumb mutha...
This is JRobin, he's a DD acolyte and a real slimeball.
You guys seriously need to cut this crap of pretending a definition is an argument. I don't believe anyone could seriously be this obtuse, so it's clearly an act.
Imagine doing this with anything else. It's patently absurd. You can obviously understand what the concept / definition of Superman is even if you don't believe Superman exists.
Definitions merely describe CONCEPTS, so that the person arguing for that concept doesn't need to repeat the entire definition every time they want to communicate that concept.
The definition itself is not an argument.
Your interlocutor later argues FOR that concept... and that is a completely separate act.
Every worldview is going to have numerous claims which are necessarily true within that system. So, you don't need to accept the Christian God actually exists just to understand what the concept is which is being communicated.
Seriously, you guys would never be doing this with any other topic. If you applied the same absurd tactic to anything else you'd immediately realize how asinine it truly is.
Imagine if we did this to you guys. "I reject your definition of the laws of logic because you can't prove they're necessarily true within your system" ... and then we refuse to listen to any argumentation for WHY they'd be true just because you'd have to use the words "laws of logic" to argue for them, and we've rejected that definition.
That's what you're doing, in reverse.
I'm a hard atheist, but my brain is softer having listened to Robin's claims and arguments.
When Jim starts getting heated, that says something.
Softer than Jim’s ass.
I'm with Jim 💯. Matt would have demolished him.
I'm a soft atheist. The sound of Robin's voice made me shrivel up into a stack of dimes
@@newwaveknight1
Means that the person he's talking to is beyond the ability to comprehend
This lame attempt to define god into existence shouldn’t have gone beyond the five minute mark.
Right???!
Just a Darth Dawkins minion with presup garbage.
Darth Dawkins has been such a cancer to the online discourse community.
He's mislead so many weakened people. If you've talked to any of them before his "courses," they're just looking for anything to hold onto, and he sold them a way to attack someone else's questions, and tricked them into thinking that it justifies their belief.
Exactly. How do people hear his nonsense and then think it makes sense to them? And worse, perpetuate it.
@@mumsie-uk2it The big words with unclear definitions sound impressive until you realize they are just window dressing for an argument that leads nowhere.
@Shaun Folk I mean... I see where you are coming from, but I just can't find entertainment in this type of argument. Presups are already bad but this is just the worst type of that.
How is Jenna unaware of this?
Jenna, he was not confused. Instead, he was trying to confuse you. From the outset, he knew very well that his so-called definition was a claim which he would never be able to prove but he simply kept denying it hoping that you would give him a pass. You should not have allowed him to continue when he refused to prove his claim. Jim was quicker at seeing his presuppositional apologetics.
The idea is that he can give a definition of god without making any claims about wether that god actually exists or not. He can still analyse the logical implications of the belief or disbelief in that hypothetical god. At least, if the definition doesn't contradict its self. In this case he asks if she believes that there is an ultimate fundamental blabla cause for all the facts that she is acquainted with. When she says that she denies that, then the logical entailment is that she believes that she can have facts without an ultimate cause. That is a positive claim. If she says that she doesn't know, then he can ask her: Is your claim that you don't know a fact? And if yes , do you believe that you can have that fact without an ultimate cause? Then she can choose for an infinite regress of I don't know statements what would be quite absurd in my eyes or she will have to admit that she positively believes that she can have facts without an ultimate cause. Implicit in the notion of an ultimate cause is that it's the cause of all facts. So if she can have 1 fact (namely: that she doesn't know) that is not ultimately caused by that ultimate cause then that ultimate cause can't logically coexist in that world. So by logical entailment, her position implies the falsity of a ultimate cause. Whether she realises it or not and how unintuitive it may seem, it just logically follows that her position entails the falsity of God defined as the ultimate cause for all facts. I would say though, that the personal property that was included in the definition is not neccessary to reach this conclusion. So this argument doesn't show that one can not be neutral towards the personal property of this definition. So I think that's kinda cheeky of him to include that. And you sort of complimenting Jim for his contribution is very weird to me. First of all he wanted to dismiss the definition to instead work with his definition of god as a spaghettiball. If you are gonna be that silly then you shouldn't go sit there and take on these calls. Second, he gave 2 arguments for his claim that one can always take a neutral position and im curious if you are impressed with his reasoning.
1. We can always take a neutral position because philosophers say so.
2.We can always take a neutral position no matter what you say because we can always take a neutral position.
She has gotten better over the years but she has a long ways to go. She has difficulty understanding a lot of the theist positions despite having a background as one, and seems more concerned with being polite than being effective at engaging and calling bullshit.
@Quack Epistemologist My definition of Quack Epistemologist is that he's a troll who worships Darth Dawkins.
Am I just stating my definition, or have I made a claim?
@@kaiza6467 A definiton is not a claim. It's just: When I say this word, this is what I mean. So for example, if you would say: I define ydrojlom as a troll then I won't take that personal because it's merely a definiton. There is no synthetic identity there between me and your description because it's merely a defenition.. Do you understand?
It was fun to hear her reaction to this bully. She really frustrated him with her honest confusion. I think she truly is ingenuous- refreshing, but her method takes a lot longer to put the trolls in their place.
He defines god into exsistance and states he doesn’t make a claim.
@Quack Epistemologist They can be if they include claims about reality.
Dude's definition of god is that god is responsible for everything that exists in the world and not contingent on anything else. That is a claim.
Not only that, his definition also includes the statement that god has to exist. Another claim.
If my definition of the sun includes a statement that it circles above a flat Earth inside of a dome, then within my definition I am claiming that the Earth is flat.
it's nothing more that a slimy way to shift the burden of proof. his next step was "how is it that god does not exist?"
Jim I love your irritability on this call HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH.... amazing... I want a shirt that says "My god is a giant bowl of spaghetti"
I would pay money for this shirt. Spaghetti is love. Spaghetti is life.
Jim was able to see it coming a mile away and would have none of it. Bravo!
@@EMBPercussion A great pasta 🍝 dish is a lovely thing. And a good spaghetti is high on that list. I guess just depends on who is making it.
"God's a spaghetti monster, THANKS, Richard!"
Please block Robin, he wastes way too much time and limits conversations with Honest interlocutors.
Seconded
He also just repeats one thing the entire call and expects to convince people by the rambling.
But, he had a fall out with his mentor, derp dorkins, so he quit all the presup
Translation: We don't have any refutation so block him.
@@lightbeforethetunnel "translation: I don't like how easily they refute my position."
@@lightbeforethetunnel you can’t be serious. The hosts take unreasonable amounts of time talking to Robin and explain the same thing over and over and he doesn’t listen. He’s either incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest. The fact that he, and apparently you, don’t understand the “rebuttal” doesn’t mean one wasn’t presented.
There is a German proverb: Empty barrels make the most noise. Robin is the ultimate empty barrel.
We Dutch say that too...
That's brilliant.
I' m german and I never heard that proverb.
@@nic969 Now you have
@@nic969you must not be a TRUE German 😂
“Let me explain this.”
You don’t need to explain it. You need to PROVE it.
All this caller wanted to do was shift the burden of proof.
That’s all any caller or believer in these threads does.
Yes and in the process he showed us all that he is willing to be dishonest using his false type of faith (spiritual conviction) that is not reliant on proof. He is strongly devoted to a false faith that does not have any evidence for complete trust or confidence in someone or something no matter what they say. It is the false representation of faith that all theists of all types are strongly indoctrinated into by the religion that has devious doctrines.
atheism is right
He says he is not making a claim, but is basing his arguments on the properties a god might have if one existed that would require all negative responses to be a denial. So he is basing his ideas on the properties of something not known to exist and that may not exist. Kind of how your parents might have frightened you into behaving because otherwise some fearsome monster that they know doesn't exist would punish you using its powers.
@@AlDunbar atheism is right when your dead you stop existing the afterlife doesn’t exist
I had my doubts, but as soon as I heard the start of the "fundamental and necessary" schtick, I immediately knew this caller was going to be another person trying to be that one guy who I refuse to name.
darth douchebaggins?
EDIT "fundamental causing ground"... oh so I was right. It is one of /them/
It is such dishonest bullshit, it's a very crude attempt to force the acceptance of a presupposition. In this discussion it cannot be accepted.
I'm doing to know who you're referring to
He’s a presuppositionalist that’s pretty much it.
@@mackhomie6 Darth Dawkins, the wife and child abuser, failed dentist who lives with his mother in his 60's, and spends all day, every day being a dipshit on Discord
Jim: You can't define God into existence.
Robin: I'm not defining God into existence, I just define God as something that necessarily exists.
Well gosh darnit that really makes me doubt my atheism.
This one should have been easy. The framing is flawed. "If we agree to define god as that which is the fundamental, personal, cause and grounds for all reality..." Caller was literally saying, If we agree there must be a god then you cannot hold the neutral agnostic position. This is correct. The issue is, atheists do not agree to that initial premise. If we did, we would be theists.
Agreed, but the goal of presup is to baffle, silence, and dismiss both atheists and Christians who don’t hold to their weird Calvinist interpretation of Christianity. They want to lead their interlocutor into a verbal trap, the culminations of which is the supposed revelation of their opponents “incoherence”. They will never define their terms as that would give the game away at the outset.
Exactly he's presenting a situation in which the person he's talking to agrees with his definition when in reality they do not. If they did agree then yes they wouldn't be neutral, but they don't agree that's the whole point.
I'm glad you see the trick he's attempting. it's gross.
Presup bullshid from a different angle.
“If we define God as the thing I’ve already concluded to be real and necessary, you can’t be neutral toward it.”
Yeah, mate, I can, until it’s demonstrated as real and not just asserted, Alejandro clone.
Jenna is phenomenal and I absolutely love her...but she can be too trusting and too easily give people the benefit of the doubt when they don't deserve it. This guy's intentions were obvious from the start and he did not deserve to be treated with kid gloves.
Every host has their own approach. As long as she's fighting for truth, she's good.
BUT i won't deny I loved when Matt would come down like a sledgehammer, on a dishonest caller.
@@charliedsurf1267 I absolutely agree with you. I said what I said and, though I still believe it to be true, I wouldn't have Jenna any other way. She really is fantastic just the way she is.
@@elminster298 In any case, she's no shrinking violet.
I don't see it that way. She is trying to understand how people think by granting positions she doesn't believe. It's a respectable epistemological approach. Sometimes you have to dive deeper into people's minds to find something that can be used to help that person.
@@tsdbhg that might be true if you have someone that is trying to have a honest conversation. the special pleading robin and most presuppositionalists start with leads me to believe that they trying to stay on their script and aren't in search looking for sincere answers.
I love that Jim doesn't allow Robin to create a smoke screen with all of Robin's bullshit.
Their first response should be: “you can’t define things into existence.”
He didn't make any claim that it exists. He just gave a definition of a hypothetical and wanted to give a deductive argument that shows that one can not be neutral towards this hypothetical. So it would be illogical to respond like that.
@@ydrojzelf only under his hypothetical, and even then it implies you already believe, it doesn't make sense
@@kentonbaird1723 In virtue of what ?
@@kentonbaird1723 I think you might mean that you don't have a reason te accept that the defined thing in question exists. That's different than rejecting a definition. I don't reject the definition of a unicorn while I dont hold the proposition to be true. Are you following that?
@@kentonbaird1723 Let me ask this in a different way. Is a Unicorn defined as a horse with a horn on his head? Would you reject this definiton because you presumably don't have a reason to accept that a unicorn exists?
I think we could have taken care of Robin's argument a bit earlier by pointing out that defining God as a prerequisite to existence is just a claim wrapped in a definition -- that claim being that there *IS* a prerequisite to existence at all. That claim would have to be supported.
If we accept for the sake of argument that existence has a prerequisite intelligence... sure, it's pretty hard to take the atheistic position. But there's no obligation to accept such a huge unsupported assertion to begin with.
No, the definition is a hypothetical and he wanted to give a deductive argument that shows that one can not be neutral towards that hypothetical definition. He never made any claims about wether that hypothetical is actually true or did he ? But I must admit that it's very cheeky of him to smuggle in the personal property into the definition while that property is not neccessary to reach the conclusion. So in order words, the argument doesn't show that one can not be neutral towards the personal property of the ultimate cause.
@@ydrojzelf He defined God in such a way as to give him the answer he wanted to hear. He may as well have defined God as "a being that you cannot be neutral about" and spared us a half hour of pedantic bullshit.
@@ydrojzelf he "defines" it the way he does so he can get the person to agree on that defintion, then he slips right over and demands that the other person disprove that definition. It's just a dishonest way of making a claim then shifting the burden of proof.
special pleading 101: Its true for everything except my thing
This is the most elaborate and dishonet way of shifting the burden of proof.
I actually had to stop listening because of this guy. He pulled out ALL the stops and used every fallacy in the book. And I did not like how the hosts handled this, this is where Matt's brutish manner comes in handy.
I stopped listening after 8 minutes because the call was too hard to follow, too much talking over, couldn't even get to the point of the guy making an argument, it got me frustrated.
I find Jim was overly defensive, you need to give the guy a chance. If you disagree with a position or a definition, hear why the person presents it. Or ask what they mean or why they use it, don't just say "no it's not" or "I reject it" before we even get to understand what he wants to do with it.
I had the same thought watching it live, Matt would have obliterated this duplicitous bozo.
@@tonygilmour1842 probably why he called on a day Matt wasn’t there
I actually liked the way that Jim handled it because a lot of presups try to define a term in such a way that if you agree with them they can follow the same similar script that they want to use. Don't allow them to muddy the conversation with their bullshit
@@tonygilmour1842 Check out episode 25:08 to see Matt obliterate this duplicitous bozo.
at the bottom of robin's argument was that atheists can't prove god doesn't exist therefore their position is illogical...lol bro look up burden of proof..
I think what the caller's trying to say is that if you're not convinced that god exists, you live your life as if god doesn't exist, and therefore the implication of that is that your position is that god does not exist. That is a totally absurd way of trying to put the burden of proof on those who do not accept the claim and a massive lack of understanding of basic logic.
This guy's very confused.
“You have to work with the definition I provided.”
Wanna bet?😈
Robin is a prime example of the mindmelt one has to undergo to convince oneself that logic reasoning can totally be amalgemated with a deist worldview and to feel one had the upper hand in this conversation
don't kid yourself. he is very much a christian
@@TheSnoeedog that’s what he said
The script was supposed to go:
Caller: Let's pretend we define god as fundamental and necessary.
Hosts: OK
Caller: Now you have to prove god doesn't exist. You can't say 'I don't know' because you agreed god is fundamental and necessary. Gotcha!
I hope Jenna has met enough of these folks by now to understand that Robin was not confused, but was looking for answers to fit his PreSup script. She seems so sweetly naive here.
Robin is at best a first year community college philosopher
Maybe at the university of Darth-knobheadedness
Looks more like a pre-kindergarten philosopher.😂
Doubtful. He's just another of Gary Milne's altar boys.
not even that.
I think he was trying to define god such that is necessary for you to take a position (pretty much define it into existence). He pretended it was just a thought experiment but tried to use that definition to "prove" that you must be a hard atheist under any definition. I think the best response to him would have been: I don't invoke (at least on a conscience level) that god in taking position so that god either doesn't exist or I am not aware that it does so I am justified in saying that I don't know.
He was simply trying to waste as much time on the show for bragging rights amongst the Garth Hawkins tribe.
This guy is a real wordsmith, using his temporal optimistic transitional pseudo concepts to display his view.
Another Darth clone.
Robin: "My definitions aren't claims or assertions. Also, your definition is a claim or assertion."
Man Jim was on fire with this guy
Nobody "Must" Falsify ANY claim on any Deity. If I just do not care if the Christian version of God exists, or the Hindu version of God exists, why would I waste my time looking at it? The only reason anyone who is not convinced that a Christian God exists, in the US, is that Christians push their sense of the world on others . If Christians just left things alone, nobody would care, at all.
It's quite simple, actually. If by definition this god exists, then I reject this concept until enough evidence is presented. There could be something godlike in the multiverse, omniverse or cosmos, but until there's evidence, it's stupid to say you believe in it.
30 minutes that will never come back. Pure waste of time.
Jenna says "you lost me"...... that's because Robin isn't making any sense.... he's simply trying to force his definition on to everyone else and shift the burden of proof.....
Again 🤦
When I go to sleep at night I would say I'm generally a soft Atheist.
The mornings are a different story ;)
I'm a hard atheist when Kayla Jane Danger puts out a new video lol.
pmsl That comment deserved way more appreciation :-)
woke up in the woods there son?
@@hippie1685 😁
His line of thought comes down to :
"You are wrong because I'm right, and I'm right because I say so. Now stop being stupid and just believe. Now I state that you are wrong and you admitted it, at least that's what I claim, so see I'm smarter then you and I'm right."
"You have to work with my definition"???
Ahahahahahaha 😂😂😂😂😂
The definition of "God" unto itself was not the caller's problem. His problems were:
A. Bringing behavior (affirmation or denial) into this discussion. 1st, believers and a nonbelievers do not necessarily behave differently in society. 2nd, you can not believe and still behave as if you do. Many atheists are forced to out of necessity. 3rd, God doesn't really dictate how you should behave. Theists can say he does, but their behaviors in society are diverse and in no way nail down affirming or denying behaviors.
B. If his argument does not rely on God even existing and it is merely a thought experiment, then it is worthless at best and fallaciously begging the question at worst.
"If God exists, then I am right." "Cool story, bro, but how do you know you're right?"
This was rather well put. Thanks for taking the time to write it!
His definition may not have been the problem, but it was still a shit definition regardless.
The idea is that he can give a definition of god without making any claims about wether that god actually exists or not. He can still analyse the logical implications of the belief or disbelief in that hypothetical god. At least, if the definition doesn't contradict its self. In this case he asks if she believes that there is an ultimate fundamental blabla cause for all the facts that she is acquainted with. When she says that she denies that, then the logical entailment is that she believes that she can have facts without an ultimate cause. That is a positive claim. If she says that she doesn't know, then he can ask her: Is your claim that you don't know a fact? And if yes , do you believe that you can have that fact without an ultimate cause? Then she can choose for an infinite regress of I don't know statements what would be quite absurd in my eyes or she will have to admit that she positively believes that she can have facts without an ultimate cause. Implicit in the notion of an ultimate cause is that it's the cause of all facts. So if she can have 1 fact (namely: that she doesn't know) that is not ultimately caused by that ultimate cause then that ultimate cause can't logically coexist in that world. So by logical entailment, her position implies the falsity of a ultimate cause. Whether she realises it or not and how unintuitive it may seem, it just logically follows that her position entails the falsity of God defined as the ultimate cause for all facts. I would say though, that the personal property that was included in the definition is not neccessary to reach this conclusion. So this argument doesn't show that one can not be neutral towards the personal property of this definition. So I think that's kinda cheeky of him to include that. Furthermore, Jim gave 2 arguments for his claim that one can always take a neutral position and im curious if you are impressed with his reasoning.
1. We can always take a neutral position because philosophers say so.
2.We can always take a neutral position no matter what you say because we can always take a neutral position
Humans create gods. This is why all gods are personal. Robin inadvertently demonstrates this by mind-forging a god that is philosophically necessary. Robin thinks he has created a very powerful god indeed. Robin still holds an empty cup as he rides into the sunset on his philosophically necessary rainbow unicorn.
Caller's whole argument is that if you agree with him that he is correct about god then you can't disagree with him. Totally circular argument using special pleading.
This level of stupidity and dishonesty needs a special name.
Its called....PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGETICS!!
I’m a rock hard atheist about 60% of the day, even when I’m asleep! I’m only soft when I have to listen to people like Robin and even then I’m thinking about being hard again
It's so cute how they think they are coming in tricking ppl into agreeing that it's a position we can't say "i don't know" about like we don't obviously know that they're going to come back later and say we both have the burden of proof now.
Inherently dishonest argument. She was right to go down that line and could have pushed much harder because that's something It's going to take a ton to prove. Which he cannot prove. It would turn logic on it's head.
Presup is built on making assertions and demands and running away.
The script is basically define a god into existence, reject basic logic, shift the burden of proof, antagonize, the run away/mute. It's the weakest apologetic and somehow the most popular lately.
You can define your terms however you want but if the CONCEPT described by your terms doesnt comport with reality then you have to DEMONSTRATE it. Im sorry that you dont have a demonstration that logic is wrong but you dont just get to define "i dont know" out of existence.
First let me define god: it's something you can't say "I don't know" to. Checkmate.
He denies making a claim because he knows he can't defend one with evidence.
He is trying to paint all atheist as hard so he can claim them to be irrational and since his belief is also irrational then he cant be blamed since everybody is irrational. Its his personal protective shield against reason.
Also Robin’s word salad of nonsense is one of the reasons that I am an atheist. Anyone who attempts to just presume god makes me go into atheism more because when you presume something you are telling me that you don’t actually know if it exists.
Presuppositional apologetics. Van Til, Sye Ten Bruggencate, Darth Dawkins. Always the same circular nonsense.
Robin's argument boils down to, "you have to agree with everything I say."
He said that the only reason you can reject a definition is if you find an inconsistency.
Christian: (noun) Someone who worships Allah and follows the Qur'an.
Really disappointed in Jenna.
How is it possible that she hasn’t heard these idiots with the same script calling in over and over. DD acolytes.
He didn’t call to have a discussion and you gave him a half hour of airtime to spew his nonsense and now he’ll go brag to D about how much of your time he wasted.
Jesus Jenna. Pay attention.
This guy is the king of word salad.
I can’t stand this guy but this isn’t word salad dude. Word salad is common among those with brain damage, schizophrenics and people suffering psychotic episodes. Looks more like this.
Never up into door and why through any yellow be lesson hair hat.
Please don’t misuse the term as an insult for jackasses like this guy.
The Caesar of Salads?
"Atheism is not a rtational position to have..."
That's because you don't understand what the position is all about, once you learn that, you'll realize it is the most rational position to hold.
The good old "if I'm right, I'm right" thought experiment was bad enough, but he was basically saying they can't disagree with any of his thoughts either, because "it's just a hypothetical". What a clown! 🤡
How did this last 30 mins 🤦♂️
I think that the caller's idea is: if you add necessary to a definition, then if you think such a thing can exist or might exist, then it must exist (because if there is a universe in which it does exist, then it is necessary, so also exists in our universe). I don't necessarily agree with this, but this is, I think, the idea. However, you can still say "I don't know", because maybe you don't have an opinion either way. When you say that you don't know if X exists, that does not mean that you think it might. It does not mean anything
Is there any question for which the answer "I don't know" is not valid? I don't think so. For example, you can ask "are you aware of yourself?", "is your leg touching the floor?", "are you thinking of a number right now"? I think "I don't know" is completely valid in all those questions.
I am the personal cause of all temporal states of affairs. You have to accept it. There, it’s true.
Jim barrows: "We can always take a neutral position no matter what you say because there always is a neutral position." Great reasoning of a great mind.
Or: We can always take a neutral position because philosophers say so.
Also just taken what Robin said all he did was define a word and then attempted to attach that word to a nonexistent atheist word view
If your definition smuggle in demands, it can be rejected without needing to be contradictory
Reminds me a little bit of the ontological argument. Anselm’s brand of sleight-of-hand going on. Here’s the defeator: until he’s established his concept, it can’t be a basis for predication.
Robin's statement about atheists is even loaded. sneaking the world denial is dishonest. And he give a special pleading for his god.
he defines it and then uses it how we can not have facts. That is an argument. And his whole position is just a earth size argument from personal incredulity.
Stop taking Robin's calls. Please. He has proven many times that he is incapable of honest conversation.
He doesn't explain why this definition is necessary for the hypothetical to work. He doesn't explain how this definition of god actually necessitates a dual, or polar, position. And he doesn't demonstrate how anything accepted within this hypothetical proves that soft atheism can't exist in reality - if that was his point.
The only way for the hypothetical to work is by accepting the definition to be true - and doing so without being given a reason why this definition should be accepted as true. It's begging the question because it's basically a statement assumed to be true with no evidence other than the statement, a.k.a he avoids answering the important question. I understand he's not making a claim himself about the truth of the definition in reality. But the definition for the purposes of the hypothetical acts as a premise. The premise being that God is x, y, z. Accepting the definition within the hypothetical is to accept it as a premise. And Jim's point was: the hypothetical forces you to accept this definition, which he couldn't agree with because there's no reason to accept that definition of God. It does not comport to reality, and there's no good reason to move forward with the hypothetical given that the caller can't demonstrate why this definition is necessary or reasonable.
Even if the logic was internally consistent within the hypothetical - that has nothing to do with positions in reality that are not confined to these rules.
The full argument is something like: In this hypothetical where you accept the definition of God as x, y and z for reasons I won't explain, you cannot be neutral towards that position for reasons I can't explain. Therefore, soft atheism doesn't exist in reality for reasons I can't explain. None of it connects, or seems to matter.
It sounds highly confused.
I would love for somebody to just drop something that proves their god and changes reality for all of us, that would be amazing. It will never happen though.
It was not shifting the burden of proof. It was smuggling the existence of the being in the definition.
"We'll define a god as someone (who exists and) sustains all (because if it doesn't exist it does nothing), so if you do not reference it then your world stops making sense because it ignores my god which I defined as existing, and denying to me is the same as ignoring me therefore you are my enemy". So, a presupositionalist.
nahh forget it it ended being a shift of the burden of proof
I have an acronym I'd like to suggest: SPI for Special Pleading Idiot. Robin is specimen Zero. You gave him way more time than he deserved.
Robin: “Let me just explain this.”
You don’t need to explain it. You need to prove it.💩
“Am I soft or am I hard? Am I soft or am I hard?”
How did hosts and caller keep a straight face? I was cracking up 😂
'Do you want to talk to robin about hard vs soft atheists?'
'no, not really, but ok!' 😂
If we agree to define God as a delusion, then we could have ended this call 29 minutes ago.
Philosophy includes critical thinking, logic, reasoning, syllogisms, and truth tables.
The "true"/"false" premises of a syllogism are either "accepted" or "not accepted". "Accepted" means you believe them. The reasons and reasonableness of your "acceptance" of the premises deserve debate. "Not accepted" runs the gamut of being not convinced for whatever reason, to believing or accepting things that refute or are the opposite of the premises.
Once the debate over the premises is done, and if the premises are accepted, at least for the sake of the argument at hand, then there is no middle ground. The truth tables and syllogisms built from those premises are valid or invalid. There is no middle ground for valid and invalid.
So when discussing philosophy with people, ALWAYS distinguish the true/false premise debate part from the valid/invalid syllogism part. In the true/false premise debate, there is a fuzzy middle ground of "I don't know". The "I don't know", by default, lands on the side on "false premise" or non-acceptance of premise. But it also can land on the "true premise" or acceptance of premise side if you simply say "I'll accept the premise for the sake of argument". In this case, typically you know the syllogism's structure itself is invalid, so you "temporarily" accept the premise just to illustrate that even if it were true, the syllogism itself is invalid, so the premise doesn't matter in this particular argument.
People confuse true/false with valid/invalid in the context of philosophy. In laypeople's world, those are somewhat interchangeable. But in the philosophy world, they are not. A premise can be "true", "not false", "not true", or "false". "True" means accepted by both arguers, at least for the sake of this argument. "Not false" is not a typical position that one takes in a philosophy premise debate. "Not true" typically lands on the "false" or non-acceptance of the premise side. And "false" is non-acceptance of the premise. Debate continues until both sides land squarely in declaring each premise to be "true" or "false". Once that is squarely decided, there is no middle ground. The argument ends unless both sides land squarely on every premises' being "true", at least for the sake of this argument.
A philosophy argument cannot continue unless both parties land on the "true" side of all premises.
Once the premises are accepted as true, then there is no middle ground. The syllogisms built from those premises are either valid or invalid. There is no middle ground of "I don't know" at that point. The conclusion from a validly constructed syllogism from accepted as true premises is true. There's no "I don't know" for that conclusion. There's no "false" for that conclusion. And as far as valid/invalid goes, there's no "not valid" or "not invalid" middle ground.
Robin didn’t give his argument in syllogistic form because he likes to equivocate on that very distinction.
6:00 You CAN disagree with a definition if the definition is making a statement about the actual reality-base properties of the thing, which is what Robin's definition of God does.
The example I always go to is "I define a unicorn to be a horse with a horn that exists". There is nothing logically contradictory in there - horses, horns and existing are all valid things. Npt that it's relevant here but there's nothing biologically wrong either - plenty of extant animals have horns of some kind. So can we conclude unicorns exist? It's in the definition? No, because I'm making an assertion about an actual thing in reality, not an abstract concept - I cannot define a unicorn into existence. Robin does exactly that with his god - by putting 'necessary' into the definition he's making an assertion that must be demonstrated because he's making a statement about reality. What, if anything, is NECESSARY for reality? We have no idea but Robin claims to and so in the case of this definition he DOES have some work to do before others will accept his definition.
The problem for him is that the "work to do" is the very thing he's trying to prove - the existence of a god. So it boils down to "We'll accept Robin's definition of a god he uses to prove a god exists if we know it is valid. And we'll know it is a valid definition when he's proved a god exists". So he's right if he's right. It's sufficient but he hasn't shown it necessary that he's right.
We're engaging in a thought experiment and so you have to accept my definition.
That's not a thought experiment, that's just a believe in what I do and so agree with me.
If you insert your own logic his falls apart.
Everything Jim said was on point. Saw right thru the nonsense and kept it simple. The rest of the conversation was just ridiculous.
Jim, you need to listen more and break down the issue with a callers argument. ‘I reject your definition’ doesn’t really get you anywhere with the caller nor does it educate the audience. The issue with Robin’s definition is that it crams about 3 separate ideas into one package. It contests that there is a requirement for an ultimate foundation to facts (as opposed to facts being relative or whatever), it contends that the foundation is the same for all possible facts within reality, and it contends that this foundation is a personal being. With each one of those contentions a person can accept as true, reject as false, or withhold belief. Stringing them together makes it harder to discuss them, but even with the three claims being amalgamated into the ‘god’ label a person can still accept that all three propositions are true, reject one or more as false, or withhold belief and say ‘I don’t know if any or all of the three points are true’.
I'm a hard atheist, I took way too much Viagra and now it won't go down.
Simple breakdown of caller's argument:
Premise 1 - The definition of God is the personal, necessary cause for all temporal states of affairs.
Premise 2 - If you do not acknowledge God as the cause when explaining facts or making claims, then you do not believe in God.
Conclusion - It is impossible to be neutral towards the idea of God as defined.
There is a big problem with this argument. The conclusion depends on the acceptance of the definition of God as provided. If someone is unsure that the definition is true (or that God even exists) then it is possible to remain neutral. The argument essentially carries a huge implied "IF" in the first premise.
That was miserable to get through. Wow.
@23:07 There it is. The Gary Milne buzzwords: fundamental and ultimate.
Robin is like the verbal version of the quick-change artists that my store warns the cashiers about.
He's trying so hard to control the conversation and it's just not working out for him 😂
Jim called this guy a troll halfway into this call. That was correct. They should’ve hung up.
It’s a presup bowl of nonsense which went on for far to long. Jim was right. He tried to define his ‘god’ into existence, and first in chain of order. He forgot to mention how his ‘god’ got there (special pleading). They should have stopped him at the point jim got annoyed. Was long enough.
This guy is asking "if you believed in God would you then believe in God?"...ok but you understand that's a pointless question. If I agree with your specific definition of God then that automatically means I believe in God, which nullifies your question.
Oh gawd JRobin has picked up Darth's condensing "Ok?"
Condensing?
I have no desire to listen to "Robin" ever again. Please consider not allowing Robin on your show again.
I feel like this was the least honest call I have listened to, yet. Right from the jump the caller wanted HIS definition to be accepted, while rejecting that anything else could be redefined ad-hoc on a whim. He did this knowing his definition was the entire basis on his "thought experiment", while claiming definitions were irrelevant. Absolute dishonesty.
The caller threw an word salad,analogies, and scenarios at the show hosts and he got frustrated when the hosts said "You don't need 10 words when you can use 1 or 2, so get to your point"
All his word play boils down to "you claim to not believe in God but can't prove God doesn't exist so you're irrational. "
Well you can't reject MY definition, otherwise my whole script breaks down!
2000 years of Christian mumbo-jumbo and still words, words and more word salad without dressing
If someone asks if I believe it is possible for any god to exist, I'm a soft atheist. But so far for every god ever presented to me, I'm a hard atheist.
When asked for clarification, he asks if they "deny the existence" of god. That assumes that any gods exist. Even hard atheists simply state that the person actively believes gods don't exist. It says NOTHING about whether gods exist or not.