1:28:00 is amazing. Imagine on a piece of paper: "An argument A=B B=C THEREFORE A=C By Anonymous" Then we ask these two if the argument is sound. Their response: "Depends on whether the person who wrote this on the paper is a true Christian."
I really admire how TJump is able to keep his cool, when listening to that insufferable nonsense. It is a true superhuman feat. I could not do it, because I find these people deeply revolting. The truly simple question about Bob the house builder is insolvable to them, because their presup corruption forbids them to answer honestly. They must twist and corrupt your analogy, because it must be made to fit their warped presuppositionalism.
it's amazing that he can _follow_ the tripe these two come up with, the whole idea of presup is to make it so mind-numbingly convoluted you can't remember what stupidity it is you're dealing with, these debates seem to indicate tom is pretty smart.
It is my pet hypothesis that presuppositionalists are somehow damaged people, or perhaps they have some sort of personality disorder. I think they know there is no argument for what they believe so they gravitate toward this bullying approach that bludgeons the interlocutor with assertions. I truly believe that presuppositionalism is the apologetic of choice for assholes. No mature, well adjusted person would think "since I'm right, you can't be" is a valid way to approach anything. Bunch of twats.
You guys aren't realizing just how inexperienced you come across when you say you find others revolting for simply having a different worldview than you. Over time, you'll realize there's much more to these kind of debates than you're realizing. Typically, both sides are actually being entirely rational within the system of presuppositions they start with. But for those who don't understand worldviews, they just think the other side is being irrational when they're actually being perfectly rational within their system.
Of all the apologetics, the pre-suppositional apologetic is the most dangerous because it’s the one you’re most likely to punch the apologist in the face.
the debate in the nutshell: you aren't allowed to critique the Christian worldview unless you are a Christian and accept our specific worldview. And we refuse to consider questions Tom asks as if they were from a Christian because he isn't a Christian.
There's a reason for that. When you guys "ask questions as if you're a Christian" you're actually not presupposing the Christian worldview when you do so, since you guys don't believe or properly understand it. So, you guys end up doing internal to external critique fallacies when doing that. When you don't properly understand the differences between the Christian worldview and your own worldview, you guys automatically just replace your own presuppositions from your own worldview in place of the parts you don't understand about the Christian worldview. But since you guys don't know that you don't properly understand the Christian worldview, you don't realize you're doing it. You don't know what you don't know about it. Usually, the most common presupposition you guys don't get is the Creator-creature distinction, along with others.
@@lightbeforethetunnel To assume that just because someone isn't currently a Christian they don't understand the christian worldview, the bible, or the creator/creation distinction is a poor assumption. The problem in this particular conversation, among other things, was that the two gentlemen couldn't seem to understand what Tom was saying, even though it was painfully obvious to many of us (this former legalistic evangelical Christian included.) Even from an internal critique they could have given a better answer than they did regardless of the creator creation distinction.
@@lightbeforethetunnel you're missing the point and doing the same dishonest thing the hosts were. If "asking as if you're a Christian" is objectionable then suppose the person asking the exact same question is literally a Christian.
@@geoffschnoogs6888 The response included saying that the analogy is invalid in a paradigm-level debate because it includes the false idea that there is some worldview-neutral position to evaluate it from. There is no such worldview-neutral position. And when Tjump & other atheists constantly act like there is, incessantly, in all these debates... all they're actually doing is they're interpreting things through their own particular non-theistic worldview, without realizing they're doing this. And calling it a worldview-neutral position, when it isnt.
yeah, he thought he could throw out, i teach this and tjump would be intimidated. can't intimidate someone that knows, from the words you are using, you dont' know what you are talking about. And check out the idiot in this thread channeling his inner Andrew (The Crucible). Repeat back to me what i just said. How bout my brain won't let me repeat something that stupid LOL
They did process it. Did you not hear them say it's flawed because it presupposes that there is a worldview-neutral position to evaluate from when there is not? It isn't the analogy itself that is problematic, it's the fact Tjump's argument presupposes a worldview-neutral position to interpret it through. And when he does that, he's actually just evaluating things through his own particular non-theistic worldview and failing to realize it. You guys are all doing the same, too. And failing to realize it (and upvoting each other's posts because you agree with others who also aren't getting how paradigm-level debates work. It's sad)
@@lightbeforethetunnel everyone seems to assume satan is going to be horrid. if i go to hell then GOD is "punishing me" for my sins, but why would satan want to punish me too? satan hates christians. if i'm being punished by satan, then satan is doing god's work - that makes zero sense. hell is more likely to be eternity having WAY MORE FUN than you ever could on earth, this is what god hates, god wants you to suck his toes forever, satan is SAVING you from singing amazing grace for eternity. i see no reason why hell wouldn't be a great place to be, no mind control, no ten commandments to follow, just eternal life that you can probably quit if you get bored with learning guitar from hendrix or trying to grasp relativity from einstein. why would hell be undesirable? why would satan want to torment me - he hates god and christians, not sinners.
This is absolutely fantastic! What they are saying is that they can do an internal critique of other worldviews, but noone can make an internal critique of their chistianity! Presup is such a joke!
That's not what they are saying at all. They are saying all facts and knowledge arrive from what is ultimate. And the Christian worldview I ew points to God as ultimate. They are willing to challenge the Atheist who believes that God doesn't exist. Except the Atheist can't account for anything , they don't even try because they would mean they would have to show evidence that Atheism is rational. A that's just to difficult
@durrutti He addressed that because the Christian God is Ultimate. There is only one Truth . Something must me Ultimate and arguing against the Christian God leads to a absurdity. Tjump arguments were ridiculous, he wants to compare God's revelation to a potato. So they simply rejected his arguments. But first they had to try to understand them. It was difficult because they were so trivial that it was hard to take him seriously. And you said none of what I said addressed your arguments. But you didn't address anything I said.
@@cebro648 The point is that they, and you, are incapable of doing an internal critique, or even look outside your own worldview. Ofcourse it doesnt make sense if you start from assuming your own worldview! But doesnt mean there is a real contradiction just because it doesnt make sense to you!
@durrutti Tjump wants to say that reality is reality. And then he wants to say that every is descriptive to reality . This is his way of doing away with God who prescribed the laws of nature and reality. This is a cop out because he's using reality as a brute fact . But he isn't explaining how those brute facts are facts. Because he has nothing to ground reality. The Christian God grounds reality in his Ultimate internal nature. From this nature who can ration . We can account for contingency , consciousness, the fine tuning, Art , abstract thinking , facts , biology etc etc etc . Tjump, has no grounding . The Atheist mindset has no grounding . This is why Atheist are so afraid of bearing the burden of proof . This is why many Atheist take a very soft position like " Atheism is a lack of belief of a God " But they don't want to explain how a world without God is possible.
I’m glad there are so many people that are willing to say they teach some kind of philosophy(with degrees) and then go on to misunderstand everything philosophical. I’m a complete dunce and can understand that the potato doesn’t add anything to the definition of knowledge. Presupps be presuppin.
That's because they were just running a script. The importance of invoking thinking after God is according to presups like Bahnsen is because God is a reliable process of obtaining truths. It's a type of verification principle.
@@Doc-Pleroma-naut i think that's a good policy, i think i got more from the art room at school than any other class, religious studies, civics, even maybe physics and chemistry cos out art teacher had that ethic - don't believe me, check for yourself.
They do it so they can stick to their dialogue tree. Just canned responses they massage ever so slightly to make them seem like they're answering your question at first, but ends up becoming an answer to a question you never asked. Same thing politicians do.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - TJump has the patience of a saint, and presuppositionalists are one stage away from being committed to an asylum.
Listening to this, I vacillated between laughter and frustration so much with these guys. If they're serious, that's such a broken way to think - and one of them's a professor?!
Professor of logic, but in a theistic/baptist context, which ensures the logic is twisted, corrupted and malformed, as demonstrated clearly in this video.
…I noticed the Bahnsen tshirt on the guy on the left. I never thought such a thing would exist..then I googled and saw the plethora of presup apparel available. Yikes 😳
It sounds like you mean you can't believe anyone takes presupposing Tom's conclusion seriously. "I can't believe anyone takes presupposing one's* (own) conclusion seriously" would have made the statement much more understandable.
"I don't have an answer to your question so I will waste as much of your time as I can by pretending thatI don't understand your question" what a dishonest way to debate.A house is a house weather or not Bob exist
Warning: to anyone who is a novice in philosophical concepts, don't just accept what Tom is saying and regurgitate it thinking you're going to be making sound philosophical claims. When he says," in philosophy knowledge is justified, true belief," he is misrepresenting "philosophy." Yes, that concept exists as _a_ philosophical concept, but that isn't what "philosophy says" knowledge is; that is _one_ epistemic model that offers one definition for knowledge, just one. It also has issues, such as is demonstrated with Gettier cases. Also, JTB requires certain assumptions about truth, which Tom accepts only _one_ example of _in philosophy,_ namely, the correspondence theory of truth. That theory of truth also has problems, which includes the epistemic barrier to confirming what reality actually is, being that one cannot step outside of their own limited perception of experience to confirm the "reality" of what they are interpreting _through_ their experience. In order to determine that something meets all the requisite criteria (being a belief, which is justified, and which is also true) you must be able to determine that the thing is actually true (real), which requires knowledge (though that isn't even coherent, being that you have to step outside of the only way we know of to assess and obtain knowledge), which then refers back to JTB. That is circular. Or, it requires some type of coherence theory, to ensure that what you're saying is true simply refers to other concepts that you have, and is consistent with those concepts; however, that is a different theory of truth. That aside, and with respect to the theist's claims, one of these guys asserted that they start with the word of God. But they don't start there. In order to be able to understand the words that they are reading, which they believe are from God, requires them to first understand language, a specifically language at that, and to have meaning already assigned to the words within that language to then apply to what they are calling the word of God. So, even if they claim to be conceptually starting with what they are calling the word of God, they don't actually start there as their concepts are built on prior constructions formed through their experiences.
I hate when presups say they start with God. They start with themselves choosing to believe in their "special infallible revelation". There is no other way.
The way they pretend not to understand questions shows they are not trying yo understand the question, but they are only listening for hooks to go back to the presup stick in order to have a "good reason" to not answer.
Christians: It's true because of this other belief that I have, that I know you also don't believe in, and that is going to remain completely unsupported!
"HI, we are the super nice presups, we are very nice and courteous! We are however, presups, so unless you are also a Reformed Christian, you have an incoherent worldview and thus can never be right about anything ever. What you can do, is go crawl in a hole and wait for judgementl. Because you don't do it our way, you can't do it. But we are nice.?"
@@charlieinwhite How do you define knowledge in your nonChristian Satanism? Or are you going to dodge it like the special pleading hypocrite you are? "seek and and you will find......and do everything in love"--The Holy Bible
At 40:00, I am done. Unless I'm grossly misunderstanding their position, I believe that once someone says they can't be wrong about something, it's pointless to continue a conversation. That being said, I respect your commitment to this TJump.
"You can't do a reductio on our worldview because you don't accept our worldview. Because if you did you'd believe our worldview. And we know our worldview is correct because we did reductio on your worldview without accepting it... But scripture/revelation so..."
1:30:00 love this. they spend ages telling tom he can't answer the question cos he's not regenerate, but now they can't answer the question even though they "are".
as frustrating as it was to watch everyone go in circles for 2 hours, i’m glad i was able to watch this. it gives a pretty clear example of what presuppositionalists do: they’re like the soccer team who claims to have the keys to the soccer field, proudly proclaiming “unless all you other teams admit that we won, you can’t even begin to start playing soccer” unbeknownst to them, the area they claim to have the “keys” to is just an open field. they seem to have a misunderstanding of what things like logic and reason are and thus shove them into this category of “immaterial realities”, thinking they are objective trophies to be claimed rather than processes and heuristics humans have developed over the generations to try to understand reality.
Presups always claim they can't understand what is being asked of them. An idiot could! Just utterly dishonest, right to the core of their ridiculous non-argument.
It’s telling how they can’t justify their own assertions, they only ever rip on the “materialist worldview.” Someone needs to tell them that they’re engaged in fallacious thinking. Attacking your opponents position does not make your position correct. You need positive EVIDENCE for your position. You can’t just make assertions and attack the other position. Their fake cordiality is cringe.
These guys are so annoying. It's like every time they are asked a question they just refuse to actually consider it or answer it honestly and instead have to deflect or delay or seemingly misinterpret it intentionally. It's impossible to know for sure but they certainly sound very disingenuous.
I've come to the realization that TJump has the most useless superpower ever: The ability to get smart people completely stuck on the simplest of questions. I have no idea how this happens.d
Summary: TJump: Let me show you why your ideas are dumb. Think of a world without sky daddy. Two dummies: B b b b b but reeeeeeeeeee. We don’t understand and how we could even think of something without sky daddy telling us we can think it and most of our brain switches off when we try to think of a world without sky daddy. (Brain freezes) TJump: No further questions your honour.
"Imagine you didn't have breakfast yesterday. How would you feel?" "But that doesn't make sense... I had breakfast yesterday." "Yes, but I want you to imagine you didn't. How would you feel?" "But... I -did- have breakfast yesterday...."
@@MINDYOUROWNBUISINESS That’s not hard to do at all. At. All. It’s called ‘a hypothetical. Children can do it. The reason why these idiots are pretending to not be able to engage honestly in a hypothetical is because they know they’ll likely get found out in logical flaws where they look like complete fools. They don’t want to do this, so they act like they can’t engage in a hypothetical because they know that sweet baby Jesus sky daddy holds the same amount of probability as a potato god in reality. Sorry about that.
This is basically two hours of the presups not liking TJump's questions and refusing to answer them. I wonder whether they realize that they absolutely did not do their position any favors by acting this way.
Wow, through all of this sophistry and pedantry disguised as philosospeak, they really reveal how truly poor they are at philosophy when they can't even engage in hypotheticals. Hypotheticals are foundational to how philosophy is done, if you ever wanted proof that apologetics and philosophy are NOT equivalent, and that apologists know this and masquerade their apologetics as philosophy to seem more reasonable, then this is it.
Just the fact that the two of them spent an hour and still can’t understand TJump’s analogy should immediately reduce their confidence in their worldview to nearly 0.
Knowing Presups, there is also a chance at least one of them understood and therefore tried to dodge the question, cause it would show the major flaw in their thinking.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't presupposing stuff and then make arguments using this presupposition as a base already is close to be braindead?
i can understand tom perfectly in everything hes saying but these two guys have spouted nothing but utter unproven constant nonsense. they might as well shorten it to god exists therefore god exists
It’s really easy (and fun) to make fun of these guys, but on a more serious note, they were not born with this presuppositional argument. At some point in their lives they became convinced of it. I mean, the level of mental incompetence and/or psychological issues you must have in order to be convinced of ANY of this, which is what happened to them, is shocking.
Tjump, so I'm clear....., Is the following what you were asking the guests? If we have exact levels of knowledge in two distinct worlds, where world 1 has a God posited as the foundation of knowledge but no God is posited as the foundation of knowledge in the 2nd world, yet everyone in both worlds have the same level of knowledge. Is the question, why add God to any of them, when both worlds have the same level of knowledge anyway? Would it also be correct that the pressup is adding God to justify the knowledge, even though declaring God as the foundation does not increase or even change the level of knowledge in the world anyway. Thank you.
It's embarrassing watching these attempts to argue presuppositionally. Seems like these guys are just trying to recreate the Bahnsen v. Stein debate without understanding how to argue their position in a novel way that shows they fully understand it. Rather, they're fishing for a "gotcha" moment to mic drop on. Ditch the script and just conversate!
1:10:40 "You became god in universe B, because you are the one defining reality" - the way these theists say 'you're raising yourself to the level of god' or 'you became god' is one of the most bizarre curiosities of the believers contortions. Like... its that blimmin easy? God is just, like some dood with the Ur-Opinion? They weirdly have this 'all of reality rests upon the plate of gods thoughts' 'but you can become like god, super easy. But don't do it, because it will piss him off.' dichotomy going on. Any theists reading this want to agree that this perspective... kind of diminishes the 'status of divinity'? Because it seems to reduce gods to just some folks with opinions.
lol this is totally a spinal tap conversation tjump: lets try a hypothetical to have a reasonable honest conversation these presups: but god goes to 11
He’s wrong about your “category error.” He’s accusing you of doing a cop out, but he’s totally wrong. Your variable syllogism was right on. There was no sticking point, the presupposes was wrong. He didn’t even know the difference between deductive and inductive. You can substitute “house” with “god” with no problem. Your argument was solid. THEY were the ones making the fallacy. They were just looking for the gotcha in your analogy. And we’ll they should, because it totally kills their “worldview.”
That was pretty painful. Tom should have stuck to his initial comment about trying to differentiate imagination and reality. They've got imagination based on the imagination of the writers of the Bible and the imagination of all the current and present readers of the Bible. Tom could imagine that God doesn't exist and the universe is eternal. He can't demonstrate that but neither can they so it's a standoff. I just saved 2 hours. You're welcome.
1:28:00 is amazing.
Imagine on a piece of paper:
"An argument
A=B
B=C
THEREFORE A=C
By Anonymous"
Then we ask these two if the argument is sound. Their response: "Depends on whether the person who wrote this on the paper is a true Christian."
This conversation absolutely exposes the incoherence of their worldview. Thank you for blowing the lid off of presuppostionalism.
Presup translation- "I will not say anything, no matter what, without asserting that you have to agree to my world view first."
I really admire how TJump is able to keep his cool, when listening to that insufferable nonsense. It is a true superhuman feat.
I could not do it, because I find these people deeply revolting.
The truly simple question about Bob the house builder is insolvable to them, because their presup corruption forbids them to answer honestly.
They must twist and corrupt your analogy, because it must be made to fit their warped presuppositionalism.
it's amazing that he can _follow_ the tripe these two come up with, the whole idea of presup is to make it so mind-numbingly convoluted you can't remember what stupidity it is you're dealing with, these debates seem to indicate tom is pretty smart.
It is my pet hypothesis that presuppositionalists are somehow damaged people, or perhaps they have some sort of personality disorder.
I think they know there is no argument for what they believe so they gravitate toward this bullying approach that bludgeons the interlocutor with assertions.
I truly believe that presuppositionalism is the apologetic of choice for assholes. No mature, well adjusted person would think "since I'm right, you can't be" is a valid way to approach anything.
Bunch of twats.
@@HarryNicNicholas Great point. I've always had trouble debating idiots, because I have trouble organizing and retaining their BS enough to respond.
@Ploskky: Well said.
You guys aren't realizing just how inexperienced you come across when you say you find others revolting for simply having a different worldview than you.
Over time, you'll realize there's much more to these kind of debates than you're realizing. Typically, both sides are actually being entirely rational within the system of presuppositions they start with. But for those who don't understand worldviews, they just think the other side is being irrational when they're actually being perfectly rational within their system.
Of all the apologetics, the pre-suppositional apologetic is the most dangerous because it’s the one you’re most likely to punch the apologist in the face.
the debate in the nutshell: you aren't allowed to critique the Christian worldview unless you are a Christian and accept our specific worldview. And we refuse to consider questions Tom asks as if they were from a Christian because he isn't a Christian.
yep.
Presuppositional apologetics is all about shutting down critiques, not honest debate.
There's a reason for that. When you guys "ask questions as if you're a Christian" you're actually not presupposing the Christian worldview when you do so, since you guys don't believe or properly understand it.
So, you guys end up doing internal to external critique fallacies when doing that. When you don't properly understand the differences between the Christian worldview and your own worldview, you guys automatically just replace your own presuppositions from your own worldview in place of the parts you don't understand about the Christian worldview.
But since you guys don't know that you don't properly understand the Christian worldview, you don't realize you're doing it. You don't know what you don't know about it. Usually, the most common presupposition you guys don't get is the Creator-creature distinction, along with others.
@@lightbeforethetunnel To assume that just because someone isn't currently a Christian they don't understand the christian worldview, the bible, or the creator/creation distinction is a poor assumption. The problem in this particular conversation, among other things, was that the two gentlemen couldn't seem to understand what Tom was saying, even though it was painfully obvious to many of us (this former legalistic evangelical Christian included.) Even from an internal critique they could have given a better answer than they did regardless of the creator creation distinction.
@@lightbeforethetunnel
you're missing the point and doing the same dishonest thing the hosts were. If "asking as if you're a Christian" is objectionable then suppose the person asking the exact same question is literally a Christian.
The fact these guys couldn’t grasp the house analogy is actually terrifying. Even worse one is a “professor”
They understood it just fine. What are you talking about? Can you repeat back to me what they said as their response, in your own words?
@geoffschnoogs6888 Can you repeat back to me what they said as their response, in your own words? To demonstrate you understood it?
@@geoffschnoogs6888 The response included saying that the analogy is invalid in a paradigm-level debate because it includes the false idea that there is some worldview-neutral position to evaluate it from. There is no such worldview-neutral position.
And when Tjump & other atheists constantly act like there is, incessantly, in all these debates... all they're actually doing is they're interpreting things through their own particular non-theistic worldview, without realizing they're doing this. And calling it a worldview-neutral position, when it isnt.
yeah, he thought he could throw out, i teach this and tjump would be intimidated. can't intimidate someone that knows, from the words you are using, you dont' know what you are talking about. And check out the idiot in this thread channeling his inner Andrew (The Crucible). Repeat back to me what i just said. How bout my brain won't let me repeat something that stupid LOL
Brilliant argument TJump. These guys don't want to give up their warm milk.
Boom!
TJ.. your grilling sessions are my favourite form of barbecue.
Lol they are playing the 'nuh uh, only people who agree with us already are even able to ask questions' card.
Imagine being an adult who is terrified to process an analogy.
They can.... They don't like the implikations
They did process it. Did you not hear them say it's flawed because it presupposes that there is a worldview-neutral position to evaluate from when there is not? It isn't the analogy itself that is problematic, it's the fact Tjump's argument presupposes a worldview-neutral position to interpret it through.
And when he does that, he's actually just evaluating things through his own particular non-theistic worldview and failing to realize it.
You guys are all doing the same, too. And failing to realize it (and upvoting each other's posts because you agree with others who also aren't getting how paradigm-level debates work. It's sad)
@@lightbeforethetunnel Nah, they just dismissed it without proccesing it, just like pressups do for anything they dont like.
What two grown idiots actually look like brain washed completely and fully unaware of their state
@@lightbeforethetunnel everyone seems to assume satan is going to be horrid. if i go to hell then GOD is "punishing me" for my sins,
but why would satan want to punish me too? satan hates christians. if i'm being punished by satan, then satan is
doing god's work - that makes zero sense. hell is more likely to be eternity having WAY MORE FUN than you ever could on earth, this
is what god hates, god wants you to suck his toes forever, satan is SAVING you from singing amazing grace for
eternity. i see no reason why hell wouldn't be a great place to be, no mind control, no ten
commandments to follow, just eternal life that you can probably quit if you get bored with learning guitar from
hendrix or trying to grasp relativity from einstein. why would hell be undesirable? why would satan want to torment
me - he hates god and christians, not sinners.
This is absolutely fantastic! What they are saying is that they can do an internal critique of other worldviews, but noone can make an internal critique of their chistianity! Presup is such a joke!
That's not what they are saying at all. They are saying all facts and knowledge arrive from what is ultimate. And the Christian worldview I ew points to God as ultimate.
They are willing to challenge the Atheist who believes that God doesn't exist.
Except the Atheist can't account for anything , they don't even try because they would mean they would have to show evidence that Atheism is rational.
A that's just to difficult
@@cebro648 Yeah, non of that adress my points.
@durrutti He addressed that because the Christian God is Ultimate. There is only one Truth . Something must me Ultimate and arguing against the Christian God leads to a absurdity. Tjump arguments were ridiculous, he wants to compare God's revelation to a potato.
So they simply rejected his arguments. But first they had to try to understand them. It was difficult because they were so trivial that it was hard to take him seriously.
And you said none of what I said addressed your arguments. But you didn't address anything I said.
@@cebro648 The point is that they, and you, are incapable of doing an internal critique, or even look outside your own worldview. Ofcourse it doesnt make sense if you start from assuming your own worldview! But doesnt mean there is a real contradiction just because it doesnt make sense to you!
@durrutti Tjump wants to say that reality is reality. And then he wants to say that every is descriptive to reality . This is his way of doing away with God who prescribed the laws of nature and reality.
This is a cop out because he's using reality as a brute fact . But he isn't explaining how those brute facts are facts. Because he has nothing to ground reality. The Christian God grounds reality in his Ultimate internal nature. From this nature who can ration . We can account for contingency , consciousness, the fine tuning, Art , abstract thinking , facts , biology etc etc etc .
Tjump, has no grounding . The Atheist mindset has no grounding . This is why Atheist are so afraid of bearing the burden of proof . This is why many Atheist take a very soft position like
" Atheism is a lack of belief of a God "
But they don't want to explain how a world without God is possible.
I’m glad there are so many people that are willing to say they teach some kind of philosophy(with degrees) and then go on to misunderstand everything philosophical. I’m a complete dunce and can understand that the potato doesn’t add anything to the definition of knowledge. Presupps be presuppin.
yep, i keep saying this, i have a crummy art degree and even i can see where tom is coming from.
That's because they were just running a script. The importance of invoking thinking after God is according to presups like Bahnsen is because God is a reliable process of obtaining truths. It's a type of verification principle.
I always tell my students don't listen to me....Thermometers have degrees and you where to stick those.
@@Doc-Pleroma-naut i think that's a good policy, i think i got more from the art room at school than any other class, religious studies, civics, even maybe physics and chemistry cos out art teacher had that ethic - don't believe me, check for yourself.
I love how presups refuse to even entertain hypothetical situations. It’s bizarre.
Presuppositionalism is a refusal to accept honest criticism no matter what. It is the pinnacle of dishonest discourse.
To need to presuppose so your ideology works is embarrassing.
They do it so they can stick to their dialogue tree.
Just canned responses they massage ever so slightly to make them seem like they're answering your question at first, but ends up becoming an answer to a question you never asked. Same thing politicians do.
Why does God let good minds go to waste like this. Good stuff, I hope the channel grows and stays monitized this time.
God figures this keeps his name in circulation. Good for business.
Wasting minds for the glory of god
I've said it before and I'll say it again - TJump has the patience of a saint, and presuppositionalists are one stage away from being committed to an asylum.
They thought they were so smart. Presup crushed under its own weight...again.
Listening to this, I vacillated between laughter and frustration so much with these guys. If they're serious, that's such a broken way to think - and one of them's a professor?!
Probably a professor of theology of some such - no critical thinking required.
Professor of logic, but in a theistic/baptist context, which ensures the logic is twisted, corrupted and malformed, as demonstrated clearly in this video.
basically they are BOTH saying they are the only true christian cos no one else can step inside the christian view.
@@RTBURGAZ Professors do not all look like Einstein. :)
It really exposes the whole professor thing.
…I noticed the Bahnsen tshirt on the guy on the left. I never thought such a thing would exist..then I googled and saw the plethora of presup apparel available. Yikes 😳
Perfect grifting material, everything, all of it.
Literally: “ You’re trying to make us use our intellect and not be morons but we’re not taking the bait!”
24:00 This is why people fly aircraft into buildings.
I still cant believe that anyone takes presupposing your conclusion seriously. It can only be explained by motivated reasoning to the ultimate degree.
It sounds like you mean you can't believe anyone takes presupposing Tom's conclusion seriously.
"I can't believe anyone takes presupposing one's* (own) conclusion seriously" would have made the statement much more understandable.
Absolutely incredible. Great job t
"You can't make an internal critique of Christianity because you're not Christian."
Paraphrased but woooww
"I don't have an answer to your question so I will waste as much of your time as I can by pretending thatI don't understand your question" what a dishonest way to debate.A house is a house weather or not Bob exist
Warning: to anyone who is a novice in philosophical concepts, don't just accept what Tom is saying and regurgitate it thinking you're going to be making sound philosophical claims. When he says," in philosophy knowledge is justified, true belief," he is misrepresenting "philosophy." Yes, that concept exists as _a_ philosophical concept, but that isn't what "philosophy says" knowledge is; that is _one_ epistemic model that offers one definition for knowledge, just one. It also has issues, such as is demonstrated with Gettier cases.
Also, JTB requires certain assumptions about truth, which Tom accepts only _one_ example of _in philosophy,_ namely, the correspondence theory of truth. That theory of truth also has problems, which includes the epistemic barrier to confirming what reality actually is, being that one cannot step outside of their own limited perception of experience to confirm the "reality" of what they are interpreting _through_ their experience. In order to determine that something meets all the requisite criteria (being a belief, which is justified, and which is also true) you must be able to determine that the thing is actually true (real), which requires knowledge (though that isn't even coherent, being that you have to step outside of the only way we know of to assess and obtain knowledge), which then refers back to JTB. That is circular. Or, it requires some type of coherence theory, to ensure that what you're saying is true simply refers to other concepts that you have, and is consistent with those concepts; however, that is a different theory of truth.
That aside, and with respect to the theist's claims, one of these guys asserted that they start with the word of God. But they don't start there. In order to be able to understand the words that they are reading, which they believe are from God, requires them to first understand language, a specifically language at that, and to have meaning already assigned to the words within that language to then apply to what they are calling the word of God. So, even if they claim to be conceptually starting with what they are calling the word of God, they don't actually start there as their concepts are built on prior constructions formed through their experiences.
I hate when presups say they start with God. They start with themselves choosing to believe in their "special infallible revelation". There is no other way.
Good job TJ great chess move with the house analogy - and they can’t handle it now they simply don’t wanna engage knowing they are trapped
T bringing logic to presups is always fascinating to watch , Bob the builder showed how flawed ther reasoning is , nice chat good work T👏👍
their* reasoning
The way they pretend not to understand questions shows they are not trying yo understand the question, but they are only listening for hooks to go back to the presup stick in order to have a "good reason" to not answer.
All of their responses were explaining why they can’t answer Tom’s questions. Or even consider his questions. So fragile, lol.
Presups: "Blah, blah".
Tom: "Why is blah, blah true?".
Presups: "Because of blah, blah."
Christians: It's true because of this other belief that I have, that I know you also don't believe in, and that is going to remain completely unsupported!
“Destroying arguments holding every thought captive to Christ.” Quote on the walls says it all. 😂
I sooo do not know what thats even trying to say.
@@redpillpusher it’s the apologist’s wet fantasy. Clearly they’re missing the mark. ;)
His sign behind him should read
"Ignoring Arguments, Denying Any Thought. Captive to Christ!"
"HI, we are the super nice presups, we are very nice and courteous! We are however, presups, so unless you are also a Reformed Christian, you have an incoherent worldview and thus can never be right about anything ever. What you can do, is go crawl in a hole and wait for judgementl. Because you don't do it our way, you can't do it. But we are nice.?"
this entire conversation:
Tom - "Tell me what your worldview is"
Them - "I reject your characterization of what my worldview is"
Seems so jarring to people to actually have to make their ideas make sense outside of the lens they’ve always seen them through.
They don’t really have ideas, just unexamined prejudices.
Those dudes are talking total gibberish!
I love how these guys expound the usual philosophical argle-bargle as though they had made discoveries of fact.
Why do they have all those books in the background? You can't convince me they could focus long enough to read a book.
I wanna break one of these down with you. Salesman levels of obfuscation.
I am now dumber for having listened to these two presups for two hours
im half an hour in and tempted to tap out with their refusal to define knowledge
@@charlieinwhite How do you define knowledge in your nonChristian Satanism? Or are you going to dodge it like the special pleading hypocrite you are?
"seek and and you will find......and do everything in love"--The Holy Bible
Check the sign behind blue hat guy. It's a declaration of limited thinking.
Dude, how can you even read that?
T jump has a mirror in his hand showing the guys a reflection of themselves and their arguing with t-jump saying that's not me in the mirror..
At 40:00, I am done. Unless I'm grossly misunderstanding their position, I believe that once someone says they can't be wrong about something, it's pointless to continue a conversation. That being said, I respect your commitment to this TJump.
"You can't do a reductio on our worldview because you don't accept our worldview. Because if you did you'd believe our worldview. And we know our worldview is correct because we did reductio on your worldview without accepting it... But scripture/revelation so..."
1:30:00 love this. they spend ages telling tom he can't answer the question cos he's not regenerate, but now they can't answer the question even though they "are".
Presuppositionql apologetics. Preventing thought since 1928.
Pastor and 'professor of logic'?... haha, I laughed so much at this, the kids thought the pope had died... ;) .. priceless...
as frustrating as it was to watch everyone go in circles for 2 hours, i’m glad i was able to watch this. it gives a pretty clear example of what presuppositionalists do:
they’re like the soccer team who claims to have the keys to the soccer field, proudly proclaiming “unless all you other teams admit that we won, you can’t even begin to start playing soccer”
unbeknownst to them, the area they claim to have the “keys” to is just an open field. they seem to have a misunderstanding of what things like logic and reason are and thus shove them into this category of “immaterial realities”, thinking they are objective trophies to be claimed rather than processes and heuristics humans have developed over the generations to try to understand reality.
Members of an international organisation of apologists are unaware of the most basic of arguments? What?
They know, they are destroyed by logic and reason.
Presups always claim they can't understand what is being asked of them. An idiot could! Just utterly dishonest, right to the core of their ridiculous non-argument.
K, I’m here,,,,,we can all relax… :-)
It’s telling how they can’t justify their own assertions, they only ever rip on the “materialist worldview.” Someone needs to tell them that they’re engaged in fallacious thinking. Attacking your opponents position does not make your position correct. You need positive EVIDENCE for your position. You can’t just make assertions and attack the other position. Their fake cordiality is cringe.
People tell them this all the time, they just say you can't tell them that, since you don't share their world view. Just dishonest to the bone.
TagYoureIt... One of the nails in the American education system's coffin. SMH....
These guys are so annoying. It's like every time they are asked a question they just refuse to actually consider it or answer it honestly and instead have to deflect or delay or seemingly misinterpret it intentionally. It's impossible to know for sure but they certainly sound very disingenuous.
And STILL!!!!! No evidence of ‘God’ 😂
shout it from the tops of the naturally occurring mountains 😂
@@redpillpusherAnd LOUD!!!!! 😂🤣
Those 2 guys are severely lost, this was funny.
By 1:14 I'm convinced they are being purposely obtuse
Here's a question for theists.
What knowledge has ever been obtained through revelation?
You’re telling me this isn’t an episode of it’s always sunny in Philadelphia?
Imagine going on a blind with these fellas. “How do you know ur actually on a date right now?” 😬
I've come to the realization that TJump has the most useless superpower ever: The ability to get smart people completely stuck on the simplest of questions. I have no idea how this happens.d
Where can I read the epistemology you wrote? I've watched so many of your videos that none of it would be a surprise. But, I wanna read it.
Potato.
im working on finishing my morality book first, me and my coauthor are on the last 2 chapters
@@TJumpGaming Looking forward to it.
Whom of these two. sold the bird Petey?
39:28 "We are not the enlightenment thinkers....." I mean this is seriously hilarious. Yes, we all know that haha
"Submit to our definition! Don't question it, just SUBMIT! - Presup clowns.
Summary:
TJump: Let me show you why your ideas are dumb. Think of a world without sky daddy.
Two dummies: B b b b b but reeeeeeeeeee. We don’t understand and how we could even think of something without sky daddy telling us we can think it and most of our brain switches off when we try to think of a world without sky daddy. (Brain freezes)
TJump: No further questions your honour.
"Imagine you didn't have breakfast yesterday. How would you feel?"
"But that doesn't make sense... I had breakfast yesterday."
"Yes, but I want you to imagine you didn't. How would you feel?"
"But... I -did- have breakfast yesterday...."
@@MINDYOUROWNBUISINESS
That’s not hard to do at all.
At. All.
It’s called ‘a hypothetical.
Children can do it.
The reason why these idiots are pretending to not be able to engage honestly in a hypothetical is because they know they’ll likely get found out in logical flaws where they look like complete fools. They don’t want to do this, so they act like they can’t engage in a hypothetical because they know that sweet baby Jesus sky daddy holds the same amount of probability as a potato god in reality.
Sorry about that.
listening to presups is like listening to the adults in charlie brown.
This is basically two hours of the presups not liking TJump's questions and refusing to answer them. I wonder whether they realize that they absolutely did not do their position any favors by acting this way.
This was rough. We couldn't get pass BOB
Oh God, you can see their brain short circuiting to the house analogy.
Wow, through all of this sophistry and pedantry disguised as philosospeak, they really reveal how truly poor they are at philosophy when they can't even engage in hypotheticals. Hypotheticals are foundational to how philosophy is done, if you ever wanted proof that apologetics and philosophy are NOT equivalent, and that apologists know this and masquerade their apologetics as philosophy to seem more reasonable, then this is it.
Just the fact that the two of them spent an hour and still can’t understand TJump’s analogy should immediately reduce their confidence in their worldview to nearly 0.
Knowing Presups, there is also a chance at least one of them understood and therefore tried to dodge the question, cause it would show the major flaw in their thinking.
Henry Ford invented cars, therefore we think Henry Ford's thoughts after him when we think about cars.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't presupposing stuff and then make arguments using this presupposition as a base already is close to be braindead?
i can understand tom perfectly in everything hes saying but these two guys have spouted nothing but utter unproven constant nonsense. they might as well shorten it to god exists therefore god exists
Love to see Tom in a good mood. Glad you moved your channel to tjump-gaming so that you can keep making content 🤟
Far worse than their delusion is their dishonesty - in the image of god, I suppose?
It’s really easy (and fun) to make fun of these guys, but on a more serious note, they were not born with this presuppositional argument. At some point in their lives they became convinced of it.
I mean, the level of mental incompetence and/or psychological issues you must have in order to be convinced of ANY of this, which is what happened to them, is shocking.
The no true scotsman fallacy taken to the extreme...
Boss, when was this debate done?
Tjump, so I'm clear....., Is the following what you were asking the guests?
If we have exact levels of knowledge in two distinct worlds, where world 1 has a God posited as the foundation of knowledge but no God is posited as the foundation of knowledge in the 2nd world, yet everyone in both worlds have the same level of knowledge.
Is the question, why add God to any of them, when both worlds have the same level of knowledge anyway?
Would it also be correct that the pressup is adding God to justify the knowledge, even though declaring God as the foundation does not increase or even change the level of knowledge in the world anyway.
Thank you.
Professor of Logic! Lol
I thought it was a sin to lie but also to take pride in titles.
47:26 you stumped them!
It's embarrassing watching these attempts to argue presuppositionally. Seems like these guys are just trying to recreate the Bahnsen v. Stein debate without understanding how to argue their position in a novel way that shows they fully understand it. Rather, they're fishing for a "gotcha" moment to mic drop on. Ditch the script and just conversate!
Yeah, I'm basically finished with people trying to logically argue god into or out of existence.
1:10:40 "You became god in universe B, because you are the one defining reality" - the way these theists say 'you're raising yourself to the level of god' or 'you became god' is one of the most bizarre curiosities of the believers contortions.
Like... its that blimmin easy? God is just, like some dood with the Ur-Opinion? They weirdly have this 'all of reality rests upon the plate of gods thoughts' 'but you can become like god, super easy. But don't do it, because it will piss him off.' dichotomy going on.
Any theists reading this want to agree that this perspective... kind of diminishes the 'status of divinity'? Because it seems to reduce gods to just some folks with opinions.
lol this is totally a spinal tap conversation
tjump: lets try a hypothetical to have a reasonable honest conversation
these presups: but god goes to 11
These two guys were a joke. A bad joke, but still a joke.
He’s wrong about your “category error.” He’s accusing you of doing a cop out, but he’s totally wrong. Your variable syllogism was right on. There was no sticking point, the presupposes was wrong. He didn’t even know the difference between deductive and inductive. You can substitute “house” with “god” with no problem. Your argument was solid. THEY were the ones making the fallacy.
They were just looking for the gotcha in your analogy. And we’ll they should, because it totally kills their “worldview.”
You can’t convince me this isn’t a comedy skit. I have no idea how they didn’t understand a basic analogy.
These guys show the absolute bankruptcy of Xtian presupp.
Why doesn't the crippled guy ask for a miracle healing on air? Would remove all doubt no?
these are the walls religion puts up in your mind. so sad
so can you be wrong? how would you know when and what you have wrong?
This felt like listening to brainwashed NPCs lol they couldn’t actually engage.
11 minutes in for any actual discussion.
No discussion took place after that point either.
That was pretty painful. Tom should have stuck to his initial comment about trying to differentiate imagination and reality. They've got imagination based on the imagination of the writers of the Bible and the imagination of all the current and present readers of the Bible.
Tom could imagine that God doesn't exist and the universe is eternal. He can't demonstrate that but neither can they so it's a standoff. I just saved 2 hours. You're welcome.