Josh’s smirk annoys me because you can tell he thinks Egnor ate with his replies to TJump’s arguments when in reality they were all evasions, strawmans, or non sequiturs
This debate is summarised as egnor makes an assertion. It gets debunked. He says ok. Moves onto next assertion. Debunked. Ok. Move onto next. Ok. Move on ….
Logic in materials... that's called a computer. A physical understanding of Quila is as a high dimensional context vector used by an attentional agent embedded in memory. Saying "Freewill is a reality" is where he really lost the debate however lol. Facts quite literally don't care about your feelings. You don't experience of choosing. You experience thoughts and predictions about choosing.
So, the best Mike can do is 'There are things we haven't explained yet, therefor God.', and when called on it, he just asserted that materialism can never explain it.
All religious apologia boils down a combination of special pleading and God of the gaps. The refutation of each is, there is no good reason to assume the anthropomorphic Judeo-Christian Yahweh specifically as the "uncaused cause" of existence; it could be a panoply of entities or something like the unconscious Force of Star Wars. God of the gaps is refuted simply by the argument that unknown does not mean unknowable; we didn't know what subatomic particles were a thousand years ago, that doesn't mean they didn't exist then. The absence of a natural explanation for something does not require the invoking of a supernatural explanation, nor does it mean that a natural explanation is impossible, which is why irreducible complexity is a logical fallacy.
to be completely fair.. .. is there a better argument for God than "there's something I can't explain so musta been Zeus"? I mean, in whatever form they take, that's pretty much all that's available to them
Tjump did not say we will be able to explain, x, in the future by natural or material things. Tjump said even if we can't explain it currently by natural, or material things, that is not evidence for dualism, and/or does not mean we won't be able to, or something very close to that. And Even if we can never explain everything by natural, or material means, that is not evidence for dualism. So us not being able to explain, x, by natural, or material things, does not remove the burden of proof from the person claiming, there is something besides the natural, or material.
you don't need neither stick nor person for rock to move - it's literally what QM randomness is about - claiming that it is not is just misunderstanding of causality - Michael is guilty of exactly that thing he is accusing Tom of
1:11:20 - regarding these "intellectual seizures", another crazy theist brought this up to Aron Ra a while ago. It's a stupid argument, and in any case it might be described as mania, where people stay awake for days at a time composing music, solving mathematical problems etc.
to me god cries for explanation not less than nature cries - so, Michael, could you please explain one more time how god non-explanation is better non-explanation than necessary nature non-explanation? how you decide what cries more? because obviously I have quite a different perspective on this issue...
"i've taken out major parts of frontal lobes while i was talking to the patient" sounds kinda disturbing. nice of him to admit his patients only have 2/3 rds of a brain. 🤣 is that some or all? and just the religious ones? ☺
1:59:00 Tom is a chemistry set! Hahaha lol 😆 🤣 😂 Tom thinks calculators are solving problems without imput. Actually, they just sit on the desk and do nothing. Actually, we are determined to have free will!
Egnor may have been a good surgeon but he is demonstrably a very poor thinker. Claiming something as true when he cannot demonstrate is true is called lying in the real world. Egnor repeatedly lies like that during the ‘discussion’. It is very telling to watch him lie so much.
The only beneficial thing from this is that a so-called expert on brains and theology can’t prove any point whatsoever. I love how his assertions about his god can be just as easily replaced and countered by removing god in any sentence and putting in the natural world.
evasion of answering "fundamental questions" is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than inventing imaginary unsubstantiated internally contradictory unfalsifiable nonsense which god is
Tom's says the telescope is not fundamental to the nature of the universe. He fails to account for the lense he is using. Use the wrong lense and you get the wrong data.
In conclusion, Tom is an example of naturalism and how it struggles to explain things. He builds on his anti-human sentiment only to destroy his own free will and personal victory over the limitations of the physical world.
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](/img/1.gif)
“why would I listen to a chemistry set?” This guy lives off of incredulity in its many forms. 😂
About 30 mins in, is that, josh thinking omg, my old hero has gone senile. How am i going to hide this from the world.
Is this the perfect definition of smelling your own farts?
😂😂.
TJump: the broad range of your understandings on so many different topics is impressive and inspiring. Keep on keeping on!
TJump knows nothing lol. He just says things but gives no sources and contradicts himself all the time.
@davidluciano9478 just say that you're too stupid to understand the conversation, it would be less embarrassing
@@davidluciano9478
Can you give me say 3 examples of him contradicting himself ?
@@Steve0272.Of course he can’t!
So rocks don't get wet unless there is a mind to observer it? I would never got to this guy to operate on me, cause he is a total coo coo.
Egnor sounds like Slick
Pompous, smug and extremely patronising
That is because he is.
Egnor's so unbearable lol
Kudos to TJ for taking on the most credible proponents of fantasy.
Josh’s smirk annoys me because you can tell he thinks Egnor ate with his replies to TJump’s arguments when in reality they were all evasions, strawmans, or non sequiturs
Oh, how I hate the whole "x DESERVES an explanation!" ("... and therefore I'll just make one up.")
Hi there special pleading nice to meet you !!!!
His last name is Ignore !
This debate is summarised as egnor makes an assertion. It gets debunked. He says ok. Moves onto next assertion. Debunked. Ok. Move onto next. Ok. Move on ….
Logic in materials... that's called a computer. A physical understanding of Quila is as a high dimensional context vector used by an attentional agent embedded in memory. Saying "Freewill is a reality" is where he really lost the debate however lol. Facts quite literally don't care about your feelings. You don't experience of choosing. You experience thoughts and predictions about choosing.
See how they run, see how they run...
"Beautiful universe" - what a joke.
So, the best Mike can do is 'There are things we haven't explained yet, therefor God.', and when called on it, he just asserted that materialism can never explain it.
All religious apologia boils down a combination of special pleading and God of the gaps. The refutation of each is, there is no good reason to assume the anthropomorphic Judeo-Christian Yahweh specifically as the "uncaused cause" of existence; it could be a panoply of entities or something like the unconscious Force of Star Wars. God of the gaps is refuted simply by the argument that unknown does not mean unknowable; we didn't know what subatomic particles were a thousand years ago, that doesn't mean they didn't exist then. The absence of a natural explanation for something does not require the invoking of a supernatural explanation, nor does it mean that a natural explanation is impossible, which is why irreducible complexity is a logical fallacy.
to be completely fair..
.. is there a better argument for God than "there's something I can't explain so musta been Zeus"?
I mean, in whatever form they take, that's pretty much all that's available to them
Michael: "Yes, I was butchering some guy's brain and then blah blah blah ...".
Egnor is wrong. Smurfism can explain everything.
Tjump did not say we will be able to explain, x, in the future by natural or material things. Tjump said even if we can't explain it currently by natural, or material things, that is not evidence for dualism, and/or does not mean we won't be able to, or something very close to that. And Even if we can never explain everything by natural, or material means, that is not evidence for dualism. So us not being able to explain, x, by natural, or material things, does not remove the burden of proof from the person claiming, there is something besides the natural, or material.
Haha, Mike talking about the Big bang 😅
I had a seizure after my brain surgery and I had abstract thoughts during it. I guess his case is completely debunked?? 🤔
you don't need neither stick nor person for rock to move - it's literally what QM randomness is about - claiming that it is not is just misunderstanding of causality - Michael is guilty of exactly that thing he is accusing Tom of
Cheesy fish therefore god
Lamposts therefore god
We shit therefore god
Air max therefore god
1:11:20 - regarding these "intellectual seizures", another crazy theist brought this up to Aron Ra a while ago. It's a stupid argument, and in any case it might be described as mania, where people stay awake for days at a time composing music, solving mathematical problems etc.
to me god cries for explanation not less than nature cries - so, Michael, could you please explain one more time how god non-explanation is better non-explanation than necessary nature non-explanation? how you decide what cries more? because obviously I have quite a different perspective on this issue...
“It has to exist…” “It must be this way…” Ok boomer.
Why are people having a debate about this. None of their definitions match up so they are talking past eachother the entire time.
I would like to know why mike thinks intellect, and will are not emergent property of the brain, or brain and body.
Why is Mike's internet awful in every debate
appealing to Aristotle with his natural philosophy is just laughable. Aquinas the same nonsense.
"i've taken out major parts of frontal lobes while i was talking to the patient" sounds kinda disturbing. nice of him to admit his patients only have 2/3 rds of a brain. 🤣 is that some or all? and just the religious ones? ☺
I’m baffled that Dr. Egnor can be rational and successful in one area and so dishonest and confused when it comes to God.
I'm sure Tjump loves debating St Thomas Aquinas...his points sorta suck likethe rest of the theist
1:59:00 Tom is a chemistry set! Hahaha lol 😆 🤣 😂
Tom thinks calculators are solving problems without imput. Actually, they just sit on the desk and do nothing.
Actually, we are determined to have free will!
Calling something "strawman" over and over is evasion and appeal to authority
Unless it is a strawman lol
"Calling something "strawman" over and over is evasion and appeal to authority"
- a strawman isn't an appeal to authority, clown
Michael presented saint Thomas to be a quite dumb person...
2:12:16 Tom has mock God for so long that he has destroyed himself!
Egnor may have been a good surgeon but he is demonstrably a very poor thinker. Claiming something as true when he cannot demonstrate is true is called lying in the real world. Egnor repeatedly lies like that during the ‘discussion’.
It is very telling to watch him lie so much.
The only beneficial thing from this is that a so-called expert on brains and theology can’t prove any point whatsoever. I love how his assertions about his god can be just as easily replaced and countered by removing god in any sentence and putting in the natural world.
Do you think Quantum Mechanics is intelligent? Tjump literally said “No”. Is not this self denial?
evasion of answering "fundamental questions" is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than inventing imaginary unsubstantiated internally contradictory unfalsifiable nonsense which god is
Boring…
arjuna. you are an extremely biased moderator.
Materialism explainations are only one dimensional. Creationism explainations are 3 dimensional and are far better.
Tom's says the telescope is not fundamental to the nature of the universe. He fails to account for the lense he is using. Use the wrong lense and you get the wrong data.
In conclusion, Tom is an example of naturalism and how it struggles to explain things. He builds on his anti-human sentiment only to destroy his own free will and personal victory over the limitations of the physical world.
Why are people having a debate about this. None of their definitions match up so they are talking past eachother the entire time.