I love how most channels with a video titled "Debunking Arguments" would indicate that it features arguments getting debunked, however with this channel I immediately guessed it would instead be about the concept of debunking arguments itself.
What a beauty. Ah, what a fine video indeed. Anywho, now to debunk the idea of time and freewill so that I can take away the foundation on which my teachers may not accept my assignment.
Great video as joe. As a Christian you are one of my favorite philosophers on RUclips. You are humble, kind and honest and have even inspired me to get into philosophy of religion at college.
Btw at 5:13 he mentions the “Alpha/Beta” wolf hierarchy that was greatly disproved. The same guy who published those findings spent a lot of time afterwards trying to undo them. Edit: found an alpha male guys💀
@@Move_I_Got_This-b3v PLEASE tell me you’re satire💀 the SAME guy who popularized the “alpha/beta” structures David Mech ended up retracting his research. He observed distorted social structures from wolves in captivity initially, and then he did the same study with wolves in the wild and didn’t find the same “dominance structure” but they actually operated as a family. A lot of people are unaware those original studies were flawed and because it appeals to pop-culture it hasn’t got away. -sincerely a sigma male💯
@@PeterParker-vi2nl He doesn't have the final say. Crocodiles have a croc-boss and they keep things in order for the females to make their selection and other jobs. For animals it's the toughest that lead. But with humans it's the ones with leadership qualities. Not the best warrior but the best leader.
@@Move_I_Got_This-b3v I’m just getting trolled aren’t I🤦🏻♂️ either way I enjoy explaining. I’d love to see you pull up studies or sources that show wolves having alpha and beta leadership systems. From what we know, that doesn’t align with current research on wolf behavior. Also your argument is confusing, you compare yourself to “croc-bosses, alpha lions” but say animals are different anyways because animals make their leaders based of “the toughest” while humans pick their based off “leadership qualities”. So which is it? Are you a merely tough animal? Or are you making a point about animals that has nothing to do with you as a human? You say, “for animals it’s the toughest that lead” but that ignores the fact Orcas pick leaders based off navigational experience not strength. And Elephants pick leaders based off age/experience not toughness. Instead of oversimplified things to “alpha” and “beta”- which doesn’t help us understand leadership success- it’s better to look specifically at qualities like emotional-intelligence, inspiring trust, and accurate knowledge rather than outdated animal dominance myths… Good piece of advice friend, don’t wear that label that says “I’m insecure and overcompensating” with ALPHA and BETA🤝 croc-boss was more funny tho😆 might make a good T-shirt, satirically of course.
I love your videos, especially the "Doing Philosophy" series! The books you recommended-Knowledge, Reality, and Value (so good!), The Philosopher's Toolkit, and Philosophy: A have been fantastic. I should be finishing them all soon. What would you recommend I read next? out of the books you recommended.
I didn't expect to be able follow this so well throughout the rest of the video after I saw the diagram at the start. About the "the sun sets tomorrow" argument, I think it falls prey to the third factor response: The regular pattern of the sun setting every day explains both the fact and the belief that the sun will set tomorrow. So if the absence of a third factor is included as a premise to the undermining of the belief, "the sun sets tomorrow" fails as an objection. Also, the video made me realize that one argument I thought of can be elegantly put as a debunking argument, namely, the debunking of the existence of a soul: P1. The soul does not influence physical reality. P2. Attitudes about the soul have been expressed in physical reality. C1. Therefore, those expressed attitudes are not caused by any actual soul, and are instead caused by something unrelated to the thing that is supposedly observed, in other words, it's an illusion. P3. You should not believe in things that you know to be just an illusion. C2. Therefore, you should not believe in the existence of a soul. In this, I only find P1 to be controversial, as it doesn't describe every concept of a "soul". But it does describe some concepts of a soul that I've heard people believe in, and if P1 is false, the existence of a soul actually becomes testable. For example, Descartes predicted that a part of the brain would be responsible for being under direct control of the brain. His specific prediction turned out to be false.
The Alpha Myth isn't real. The very author of the book which coined the behavior, confused wolf parents with a particularly dominant couple in the wild and has tried to rectify his mistake publicly every since. Hierarchies however do form within captivity, the same is true for pigs and other creatures, because it starts to get crammed
can you please do a video reviewing specifically the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism targeting naturalism and not moral realism? That would be amazing.
Thanks for the video I have a question How do you respond to someone who says, 'You cannot give what you do not have,' and to those who argue that attributes such as wisdom, strength, or willpower are actual exist so, They claim that non-existence cannot bring forth existence, and thus these attributes must originate from a being that possesses them, making this being wise, strong, and willing.
@muamalalaa9068 They say that these traits are non-existent rather than existent matters. Foolishness is the absence of wisdom, and weakness is the absence of strength. Non-existent matters do not require a being to grant them; it is the lack of granting that defines them as such.
@@scottneusen9601 I think their idea of traits differs slightly from the concept of size. Size is incidental, like saying 1+1+1=3. However, when it comes to traits like wisdom, they view it as an existential quality. Matter, being devoid of wisdom, is essentially a "0" in relation to wisdom, and no matter how much you add, it will always remain 0.
@@moushrek There are examples of blue butterfly wings which *literally* consist of non-blue parts. Even though "blueness" can easily be considered one of those "existential quality" things.
Why wouldn't physicalist beliefs in space, time and material similarly be debunked by the same kind of reasoning? It seems as though any strategy you could propose to defend physicalism from debunking arguments, could be similarly applied to protect non-physicalist views from debunking arguments.
Well, for one, spacetime and matter *literally cause* our beliefs about them. Light bounces off of material things, travels through spacetime, enters our material eyes, creates nerve impulses, and so on.
@СергейМакеев-ж2н that is only true, if physicalism is true. If physicalism is not true, then we can not say that space, time and material are the cause for our intuitions about space, time and material. Honestly, even if true-- it's unclear that we'd be able to say this.
@@naitsirhc2065 But it seems like the physical stuff does play a causal role in our mental states, even granting dualism. It sounds like you would have to assume something like parallelism or idealism to deny this. Given there are other reasons to be suspect of parallelism or idealism, then the debunking argument seems to work (since it presumably targets epiphenomenalism and interactionism).
I thought Makie in his 1982 book “the miracle of theism,” showed that socio type arguments from Marx and Frued committed the Genetic fallacy as we only care about if the belief is true or not not where they came from or were generated by. Who knows maybe that is how God created the religion beliefs.
I think evolution to debunk moral intuition is a double edged sword Why not apply it to intuition about anything else? One must equally question their logic as a whole including their empirical faculties required to deduce this idea. It appears qualia exists (it always goes back to qualia) but I cannot empirically examine it merely is THE most intuitive thing. They be using something based on intuition to question intuition to question a separate intuitive idea @w@ Then you destroy the whole tower
@@goldenalt3166 What is empiricism but one method of examination that seems to be correct or accurate? We can't actually know that it is true because we don't know truth, the substitute is our intuitions. What is logic and empiricism independent from? It is merely circular to rely on anything if the ideas are not self evident (intuitive) These base axioms are based on the intuition of the trustworthiness of their idea, even thoughts like large connected theories that seem to connect accurately and coherently we have no real reason to think makes something more likely to be true because we do not know truth, the logical coherence merely increases our prior credences which ultimately started from intuition. sorry if i be ramblin
@LBoomsky I disagree. Sense input and memory input seem to be at least to some extent independent. Thus empirical observations which consistently agree with what we remember as logically derived predictions are not merely intuition. They seem to directly affect the continued existence of other intuitions. You might categorize everything as intuition but some intuitions are clearly more reliable.
@@goldenalt3166 > Thus empirical observations which consistently agree with what we remember as logically derived predictions are not merely intuition. That's the thing why does *apparent* consistency (with our current amount of information) of an idea mean closer in line or fashion to the truth, besides that idea being self evident? It seems like it just makes an idea more intuitive, it doesn't make it more in line with truth because its either true or not and an idea can either be logically coherent with what is or can not, and that is based on trust. Ideas have a base intuitive credence and then we have further highly intuitive ideas see how they impact each other and adjust your creadences to them @w@ I do not have a base truth, I merely have ideas that seem very intuitive so that is how we trust, at last's that's how it appears to me. Morality is on the same tower as everything else, and as soon as we question that everything else we take base for granted, even those that create our understanding of logic can be kneecapped to a level we couldn't possibly comprehend because how could we know how accurate our duct tape and dna comprehensions would be to reality if at all.
Look into possibilism, iirc Kane B had something on evolution in his video on Possibilism. Or maybe it was his video on logical nihilism, I don't recall.
Moral facts would shape the evolution of morality just like physical facts shape the evolution of the physical form. You'd have to see that multiple independent lines of evolution followed the same moral facts.
@@goldenalt3166 as a real general outline, *this* short interview Alex Malpass did with Russ Shafer-Landau talks about those paradigms. Russ has several good publications about Moral Realism arrived at without a need for strict empiricism. ruclips.net/video/zRQk9AaPbQY/видео.html
You call this a dialectic but it is the opposite of dialectic. Dialectic is an internal critique. You are trying to provide a better alternative from an external stand point.
It's really fascinating that Joe went through all this trouble of trying to justify moral and mathematical platonism, and in the whole 1 hour video he doesn't even come close to offering an independently plausible justification for how we could've knowledge of acausal moral or mathematical facts.
I get you, but that's not the purpose of this particular video. This is just an overview of strategies that *can in principle* be used in this debate, not a defense of any specific strategy.
Belief systems have their own form of evolution which is not Darwinian. Why did Britain build up a big empire? They had a system in which the upper class consented to higher rates of taxation than other comparable European countries. This level of taxation allowed for the creation of what then was a very expensive thing a navy. Other countries could build ships. However for a navy to work you had to repair ships have rigging and have the ability to construct new ones. In addition you had to be able to recruit sailors train officers in things like navigation and provide stores of goods. Britain was a small country but it was able to move more through the taxation system than France or Austro Hungary. it was able to fight land wars directly paying Prussia to do the grunt work on the ground. In a similar way cities in the ancient world were in constant military conflict. A place like Rome was successful for a number of reasons. It developed ideas of courage as a good and also civic responsibility. It also developed a method of warfare using heavy infantry. It was also able to create a coalition of aligned city states. This meant that if it lost battles it could generate new armies as happened in the second world war. Thus the coemption between society generates different ways of organizing society with the poorly organized joining the dust bin of history
“The answer seems to be no” To the opening question Bad take The next move should be to realize the text had some other purpose and to adjust your interpretation accordingly
Thank you Lord for commanding Majesty of Reason to make this video. The Lord also commands me that I watch this video; it is a sin to not watch Majesty of Reason.
You are crossing a dangerous line here. I would strongly argue that this kind of reasoning could not be universalised. You cannot judge a belief based entirely on its origins. For example. Suppose that i were to argue that atheists are wrong because the origins of their beliefs come from the fact that they want to *self gratify* themselves and religion says not to do that. Atheists therefore dont belive in God because you want to *self gratify.* Would that be a reasonable argument? I might be able to show studies wjich demonstrate the correlatiim between being an atheist and *self gratification* i might even provide a study which shows that it is an addictive behavior and that people emgage in ad hoc bias and cognitive dissonance when protecting an addiction. I could provide all of that and it could even be completely true but it would not be satisfactory. It would not be satisfactory because it would not address a single argument atheists make. It would therefore be a dishonest argument. Yet by your criteria, it would be a debunking argument. Similarly it would be easy to apply this to determinism to disprove it. If we are predetermined to be either right or wrong about an argument, then the cause of our beliefs is the same either way and we could mever trust our beliefs. Determinism would then debunk itself.
Uh, let me save you time - look up Seven Virtues, then Seven Deadly Sins. They are your framework in our reality - except no substitutes (Hollywood loves these and anime too). Then look up the colors of the seven deadly sins. Then compare that to a rainbow and see how they rise up and fall back to earth as in sin belongs on the earth. Then see how Dorothy went Over the Rainbow (the covenant of man/promise of God) when she wanted to run away and met a "Fortune" teller, had a NDE due to a cyclone (when you sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind) - that's how she got to Oz - became a witch (by killing one) - just wanted to go home - was glad to get home because it was some scary stuff (Every New Age to Christianity testimony on RUclips). Then remember when Trump said 2 Corinthians 3:17 in 2016, "There's a storm coming" speech in 2018, See Ovid/Corona in 2020, and now Liberty events with his return to powah. Finally arrive at morality is a slippery slope we're all sliding down towards the Abyss and stop spending hours lost in the weeds - as any good architect knows - gotta stay high level.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Don't worry folks, the new intro you saw in the previous video will be back! I made this vid before the previous vid.
7 days ago? Further proof that Joe is a time traveller.
I love how most channels with a video titled "Debunking Arguments" would indicate that it features arguments getting debunked, however with this channel I immediately guessed it would instead be about the concept of debunking arguments itself.
What a beauty.
Ah, what a fine video indeed.
Anywho, now to debunk the idea of time and freewill so that I can take away the foundation on which my teachers may not accept my assignment.
Great video as joe. As a Christian you are one of my favorite philosophers on RUclips. You are humble, kind and honest and have even inspired me to get into philosophy of religion at college.
You're the best philosophy channel on RUclips. I love you.
sure, that's what you'd like us to think
Found his alt
What are either of you talking about?
?
@@phantom_drone I don’t even agree I’m the best philosophy channel lol. Kane B >
Btw at 5:13 he mentions the “Alpha/Beta” wolf hierarchy that was greatly disproved. The same guy who published those findings spent a lot of time afterwards trying to undo them.
Edit: found an alpha male guys💀
I have also heard about this.
No it has not been disproven.
That's just wishful beta thinking.
You have croc-bosses, alpha lions, and me.
@@Move_I_Got_This-b3v PLEASE tell me you’re satire💀 the SAME guy who popularized the “alpha/beta” structures David Mech ended up retracting his research. He observed distorted social structures from wolves in captivity initially, and then he did the same study with wolves in the wild and didn’t find the same “dominance structure” but they actually operated as a family. A lot of people are unaware those original studies were flawed and because it appeals to pop-culture it hasn’t got away.
-sincerely a sigma male💯
@@PeterParker-vi2nl
He doesn't have the final say.
Crocodiles have a croc-boss and they keep things in order for the females to make their selection and other jobs.
For animals it's the toughest that lead.
But with humans it's the ones with leadership qualities.
Not the best warrior but the best leader.
@@Move_I_Got_This-b3v I’m just getting trolled aren’t I🤦🏻♂️ either way I enjoy explaining.
I’d love to see you pull up studies or sources that show wolves having alpha and beta leadership systems. From what we know, that doesn’t align with current research on wolf behavior.
Also your argument is confusing, you compare yourself to “croc-bosses, alpha lions” but say animals are different anyways because animals make their leaders based of “the toughest” while humans pick their based off “leadership qualities”. So which is it? Are you a merely tough animal? Or are you making a point about animals that has nothing to do with you as a human?
You say, “for animals it’s the toughest that lead” but that ignores the fact Orcas pick leaders based off navigational experience not strength. And Elephants pick leaders based off age/experience not toughness.
Instead of oversimplified things to “alpha” and “beta”- which doesn’t help us understand leadership success- it’s better to look specifically at qualities like emotional-intelligence, inspiring trust, and accurate knowledge rather than outdated animal dominance myths…
Good piece of advice friend, don’t wear that label that says “I’m insecure and overcompensating” with ALPHA and BETA🤝 croc-boss was more funny tho😆 might make a good T-shirt, satirically of course.
Whence we see Joe's video through the bell messengers, we click and watch.
I love your videos, especially the "Doing Philosophy" series! The books you recommended-Knowledge, Reality, and Value (so good!), The Philosopher's Toolkit, and Philosophy: A have been fantastic. I should be finishing them all soon. What would you recommend I read next? out of the books you recommended.
I didn't expect to be able follow this so well throughout the rest of the video after I saw the diagram at the start.
About the "the sun sets tomorrow" argument, I think it falls prey to the third factor response: The regular pattern of the sun setting every day explains both the fact and the belief that the sun will set tomorrow. So if the absence of a third factor is included as a premise to the undermining of the belief, "the sun sets tomorrow" fails as an objection.
Also, the video made me realize that one argument I thought of can be elegantly put as a debunking argument, namely, the debunking of the existence of a soul:
P1. The soul does not influence physical reality.
P2. Attitudes about the soul have been expressed in physical reality.
C1. Therefore, those expressed attitudes are not caused by any actual soul, and are instead caused by something unrelated to the thing that is supposedly observed, in other words, it's an illusion.
P3. You should not believe in things that you know to be just an illusion.
C2. Therefore, you should not believe in the existence of a soul.
In this, I only find P1 to be controversial, as it doesn't describe every concept of a "soul". But it does describe some concepts of a soul that I've heard people believe in, and if P1 is false, the existence of a soul actually becomes testable. For example, Descartes predicted that a part of the brain would be responsible for being under direct control of the brain. His specific prediction turned out to be false.
Perhaps a distinction between 'manifest reality' and 'physical reality' might help (or not)?
The Alpha Myth isn't real. The very author of the book which coined the behavior, confused wolf parents with a particularly dominant couple in the wild and has tried to rectify his mistake publicly every since. Hierarchies however do form within captivity, the same is true for pigs and other creatures, because it starts to get crammed
Great vid. Can you do one on EAAN?
Been searching for videos on that. So many different takes but I would love to hear the MoR take!
Oppy put the argument to rest in his Naturalism and Religion, page 72-73.
Joe, how can I know about ongoing debatea in different fields of philosophy?
The Bermuda triangle myth isn't true, it is not a higher chance of dying within the arbitrary triangle on boat or planes or something else
can you please do a video reviewing specifically the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism targeting naturalism and not moral realism? That would be amazing.
The evolutionary argument for the supernatural? Oh do tell!!
Babe wake up!! New MoR video just dropped!
Babe wake up, I'm single!
37:56 Well, I'm not one to morally condemn people for having innocent fun, but I've certainly met people who are!
Do they consider it "innocent" fun?
Thanks for the video
I have a question
How do you respond to someone who says, 'You cannot give what you do not have,' and to those who argue that attributes such as wisdom, strength, or willpower are actual exist so, They claim that non-existence cannot bring forth existence, and thus these attributes must originate from a being that possesses them, making this being wise, strong, and willing.
What about traits like foolishness or weakness? Don't they require a being possessing these traits to grant them to humans?
@muamalalaa9068 They say that these traits are non-existent rather than existent matters. Foolishness is the absence of wisdom, and weakness is the absence of strength. Non-existent matters do not require a being to grant them; it is the lack of granting that defines them as such.
That's clearly false though, right? If I built an infinitely high brick wall out short bricks then the wall is still short?
@@scottneusen9601 I think their idea of traits differs slightly from the concept of size. Size is incidental, like saying 1+1+1=3. However, when it comes to traits like wisdom, they view it as an existential quality. Matter, being devoid of wisdom, is essentially a "0" in relation to wisdom, and no matter how much you add, it will always remain 0.
@@moushrek There are examples of blue butterfly wings which *literally* consist of non-blue parts. Even though "blueness" can easily be considered one of those "existential quality" things.
Why wouldn't physicalist beliefs in space, time and material similarly be debunked by the same kind of reasoning?
It seems as though any strategy you could propose to defend physicalism from debunking arguments, could be similarly applied to protect non-physicalist views from debunking arguments.
Well, for one, spacetime and matter *literally cause* our beliefs about them. Light bounces off of material things, travels through spacetime, enters our material eyes, creates nerve impulses, and so on.
@СергейМакеев-ж2н that is only true, if physicalism is true.
If physicalism is not true, then we can not say that space, time and material are the cause for our intuitions about space, time and material.
Honestly, even if true-- it's unclear that we'd be able to say this.
@@naitsirhc2065 Physicalists begging the question? Stop the presses.
@@naitsirhc2065 This seems like exactly what's addressed at 42:10.
@@naitsirhc2065 But it seems like the physical stuff does play a causal role in our mental states, even granting dualism. It sounds like you would have to assume something like parallelism or idealism to deny this. Given there are other reasons to be suspect of parallelism or idealism, then the debunking argument seems to work (since it presumably targets epiphenomenalism and interactionism).
Well at least I wasn't bamboozled
I accidentally stumbled on a gold mine!
The author, was MAD GAS CAR
Bro why Christian apologetics hate you??
The D)lessed Attitudes
u made a typo in the title unless u actually mean aguments and not arguments
can't believe i missed that lolol
@ lol it happens
He also spelled "debunked" wrong in the comic sans text
@@Greyz174 i think this is meta-irony, and if so you're so good at it that i really can't tell lol
@@MajestyofReason thanks
I thought Makie in his 1982 book “the miracle of theism,” showed that socio type arguments from Marx and Frued committed the Genetic fallacy as we only care about if the belief is true or not not where they came from or were generated by. Who knows maybe that is how God created the religion beliefs.
I think evolution to debunk moral intuition is a double edged sword
Why not apply it to intuition about anything else?
One must equally question their logic as a whole including their empirical faculties required to deduce this idea.
It appears qualia exists (it always goes back to qualia) but I cannot empirically examine it merely is THE most intuitive thing.
They be using something based on intuition to question intuition to question a separate intuitive idea @w@
Then you destroy the whole tower
Logic and empirical faculties are not simply intuitions. They are independently testable with novel predictions.
@@goldenalt3166
What is empiricism but one method of examination that seems to be correct or accurate? We can't actually know that it is true because we don't know truth, the substitute is our intuitions.
What is logic and empiricism independent from?
It is merely circular to rely on anything if the ideas are not self evident (intuitive)
These base axioms are based on the intuition of the trustworthiness of their idea, even thoughts like large connected theories that seem to connect accurately and coherently we have no real reason to think makes something more likely to be true because we do not know truth, the logical coherence merely increases our prior credences which ultimately started from intuition.
sorry if i be ramblin
@LBoomsky I disagree. Sense input and memory input seem to be at least to some extent independent. Thus empirical observations which consistently agree with what we remember as logically derived predictions are not merely intuition.
They seem to directly affect the continued existence of other intuitions. You might categorize everything as intuition but some intuitions are clearly more reliable.
@@goldenalt3166 > Thus empirical observations which consistently agree with what we remember as logically derived predictions are not merely intuition.
That's the thing why does *apparent* consistency (with our current amount of information) of an idea mean closer in line or fashion to the truth, besides that idea being self evident?
It seems like it just makes an idea more intuitive, it doesn't make it more in line with truth because its either true or not and an idea can either be logically coherent with what is or can not, and that is based on trust.
Ideas have a base intuitive credence and then we have further highly intuitive ideas see how they impact each other and adjust your creadences to them @w@
I do not have a base truth, I merely have ideas that seem very intuitive so that is how we trust, at last's that's how it appears to me.
Morality is on the same tower as everything else, and as soon as we question that everything else we take base for granted, even those that create our understanding of logic can be kneecapped to a level we couldn't possibly comprehend because how could we know how accurate our duct tape and dna comprehensions would be to reality if at all.
Look into possibilism, iirc Kane B had something on evolution in his video on Possibilism. Or maybe it was his video on logical nihilism, I don't recall.
Do any moral realists think the evolution of morality- justifies it? As a moral realist, I never thought that.
Moral facts would shape the evolution of morality just like physical facts shape the evolution of the physical form.
You'd have to see that multiple independent lines of evolution followed the same moral facts.
@@goldenalt3166 as a real general outline, *this* short interview Alex Malpass did with Russ Shafer-Landau talks about those paradigms. Russ has several good publications about Moral Realism arrived at without a need for strict empiricism. ruclips.net/video/zRQk9AaPbQY/видео.html
You call this a dialectic but it is the opposite of dialectic. Dialectic is an internal critique. You are trying to provide a better alternative from an external stand point.
It's really fascinating that Joe went through all this trouble of trying to justify moral and mathematical platonism, and in the whole 1 hour video he doesn't even come close to offering an independently plausible justification for how we could've knowledge of acausal moral or mathematical facts.
I get you, but that's not the purpose of this particular video. This is just an overview of strategies that *can in principle* be used in this debate, not a defense of any specific strategy.
First or something
Second etc
Nerd
Belief systems have their own form of evolution which is not Darwinian. Why did Britain build up a big empire? They had a system in which the upper class consented to higher rates of taxation than other comparable European countries. This level of taxation allowed for the creation of what then was a very expensive thing a navy.
Other countries could build ships. However for a navy to work you had to repair ships have rigging and have the ability to construct new ones.
In addition you had to be able to recruit sailors train officers in things like navigation and provide stores of goods.
Britain was a small country but it was able to move more through the taxation system than France or Austro Hungary. it was able to fight land wars directly paying Prussia to do the grunt work on the ground.
In a similar way cities in the ancient world were in constant military conflict. A place like Rome was successful for a number of reasons. It developed ideas of courage as a good and also civic responsibility. It also developed a method of warfare using heavy infantry. It was also able to create a coalition of aligned city states. This meant that if it lost battles it could generate new armies as happened in the second world war.
Thus the coemption between society generates different ways of organizing society with the poorly organized joining the dust bin of history
“The answer seems to be no”
To the opening question
Bad take
The next move should be to realize the text had some other purpose and to adjust your interpretation accordingly
LOL.
Debate Jay Dyer
Thank you Lord for commanding Majesty of Reason to make this video. The Lord also commands me that I watch this video; it is a sin to not watch Majesty of Reason.
can you respond to my comment on your last video? i’m curious
I debunk you, with your own video. I win. Close the internet please. It's over. Done. We need a new thig, this one is finished.
Hire a video editor, show your face and boom
Yeah that’s nice and all but genetic fallacy therefore wrong bye
Based off of your voice I thought you were an evangelical. Good to know you're not
You are crossing a dangerous line here. I would strongly argue that this kind of reasoning could not be universalised. You cannot judge a belief based entirely on its origins.
For example. Suppose that i were to argue that atheists are wrong because the origins of their beliefs come from the fact that they want to *self gratify* themselves and religion says not to do that. Atheists therefore dont belive in God because you want to *self gratify.* Would that be a reasonable argument? I might be able to show studies wjich demonstrate the correlatiim between being an atheist and *self gratification* i might even provide a study which shows that it is an addictive behavior and that people emgage in ad hoc bias and cognitive dissonance when protecting an addiction. I could provide all of that and it could even be completely true but it would not be satisfactory. It would not be satisfactory because it would not address a single argument atheists make. It would therefore be a dishonest argument. Yet by your criteria, it would be a debunking argument.
Similarly it would be easy to apply this to determinism to disprove it. If we are predetermined to be either right or wrong about an argument, then the cause of our beliefs is the same either way and we could mever trust our beliefs. Determinism would then debunk itself.
Uh, let me save you time - look up Seven Virtues, then Seven Deadly Sins. They are your framework in our reality - except no substitutes (Hollywood loves these and anime too). Then look up the colors of the seven deadly sins. Then compare that to a rainbow and see how they rise up and fall back to earth as in sin belongs on the earth. Then see how Dorothy went Over the Rainbow (the covenant of man/promise of God) when she wanted to run away and met a "Fortune" teller, had a NDE due to a cyclone (when you sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind) - that's how she got to Oz - became a witch (by killing one) - just wanted to go home - was glad to get home because it was some scary stuff (Every New Age to Christianity testimony on RUclips). Then remember when Trump said 2 Corinthians 3:17 in 2016, "There's a storm coming" speech in 2018, See Ovid/Corona in 2020, and now Liberty events with his return to powah. Finally arrive at morality is a slippery slope we're all sliding down towards the Abyss and stop spending hours lost in the weeds - as any good architect knows - gotta stay high level.
Dear lord....