So far what I'm getting of the conversation is: "How did you decide that those were the attributes a god needed?" "Well, I started by assuming it must be the Christian god and went from there." I think I've found the problem.
What's frustrating about these debates is there's a bunch of jargon and concepts thrown around with no shame. "Contingent being", "predication", grounds for rationalization, etc. But then we learn the guy doesn't even know what "trivial" means even though he has no problem just dismissing what his interlocutor asks using the word.
The phrase, "by the impossibility of the contrary" is the moment where the Pre-sup attempts to burden-shift the argument onto their interlocutor. The phrase, "the folly, absurdity, or irrationality of any other world-view" is yet another attempt to shift the burden onto their interlocutor to defeat their presupposed Christian world-view which they have offered without any support, but merely the assertion that it cannot be any other way--that essentially, the comprehensibility of the universe and everything in it is wholly dependent upon the Christian God and the Christian world-view of God as creator and revelator of everything that is. The Presuppositional apologist essentially enters the game declaring victory before the first word is even spoken by his interlocutor while defending none of their claims or assertions they merely presuppose, instead demanding that their opponent disprove their unwarranted, unsupported assertions. As most experienced debaters are well aware, gratuitous assertions may be gratuitously dismissed absent evidence and reason supporting them (making them no longer gratuitous) The presupposition makes no warranted or supported assertions, so the proper response is to simply dismiss their claims as the wholly unsupported and unwarranted claims that they are. Any appeal to an argument from absurdity will at best be supported with the most brittle and dry of a straw man that they can muster; and any claim as to the impossibility of the contrary will likewise be met with equally contrived and unthought-out rhetoric as to make a philosophy school drop-out to blush with embarrassment by proxy.
Well, if we grant the presupper everything in their worldview (for the purpose of an internal critique) we will indeed arrive at the conclusion that all other worldviews fail. But if you stop and think about it, that's not really surprising is it? If you grant pretty much _anyone_ everything in their worldview, all other (significantly different) worldviews necessarily fail. They are for the most part mutually exclusive. The fact that the Christian worldview concludes all the rest don't work is neither interesting or unexpected. It's a great big nothing-burger. The question to ask the presupper is why you should care what their worldview says about yours, since you already reject their presuppositions in the first place. If you valued _those_ presuppositions and their entailments, you'd already be a Christian presuppositionalist.
me: the only possible case is that god does not exist. derwood: what's your argument for that? me: it's true by the impossibility of the contrary. KEvron
Uh. Try looking up what a reductio ad absurdum is. That's what is meant by impossibility of the contrary. Its a perfectly valid form of argumentation, commonly used.
The accusation of burden shifting is false. This is simply a debate between two competing systems (worldviews). Both sides have an equal burden in worldview debates to provide argumentation for why their entire worldview system is more rational than the opposition. It's rich you guys attempt to claim it's burden shifting because you guys are so used to arbitrarily beginning with the assumption your worldview is true (by default, without reason), focusing entirely on attacking competing worldviews and then declaring victory by being "not convinced" by them, which is a textbook appeal to ignorance fallacy. There is no such thing as a "default worldview" that automatically becomes true if you complain about someone else's worldview.
And I'll prove it is actually YOU doing what you accuse others of right now with one question. Why is your current worldview true? (Try giving a rational reason that isn't a logical fallacy, evasion tactic, or bickering over definitions)
@@mybad2603 First of all, there’s no evidence of “generations” saying the “the Bible is true because God says so” & furthermore, even if that actually were the case it’s COMPLETELY FALLACIOUS! The amount of people that believe something says NOTHING regarding as to whether or not it’s actually true!!! Also, yeah I’m smarter because the average person today is smarter than even the most educate/deep thinkers from 2,000 years ago! #reality
@@acason4 No, you said that all generations that preceeded us were delusional. That means that you think you're smarter and truthful than every single generation that preceded us. Basically all the finest minds like Nikola Tesla, Issac Newton, Thomas Aquinas etc were all delusional. You know the best.
True in so many ways. He spake our reallity into existance so without words there would be no omnipotence so no god. Also without words maybe noone ever would have made that shit up in the first place.
I love how they claim that the law of excluded middle, rules out something being it’s negation for the purposes of creating a dichotomy in regards to belief. But magically the sky wizard is immune to this by being both singular and plural. Being it’s own negation and illogical.
So, you simply choose a bunch of necessary attributes for your deity based on post-hoc references to the Bible - a book of claims - and then pretend that this confection establishes the existence of that Deity. Unbelievable. And if JT wasn't being dishonest, then he was being stupid.
Exactly! This silly effort to "list attributes of the necessary being behind predication" is nothing more than taking one's own view of God, then cobbling a reason why each of these properties are somehow necessary. It's 100% _ad hoc_ in every detail. For example, this god must be Tribune because... uhhh... because... umm... because love is "other centered," so therefore this completely-perfect god must have separate bits so that each bit could love the other bit or else love wouldn't exist. Okay... So where did hate come from? Who did God hate: Jesus or the Holy Spirit? Where did sex come from? Who did God have sex with? Jesus? The Holy Spirit? Both?? Nah, they'll tell you that hate and sex and bicycle riding and ping pong and grilled cheese sandwiches could all exist (in potential) inside this wholly complete god... but for some reason, this wholly-complete god couldn't possibly possess the potential for love if there were only one unified, wholly-complete god! That's just ONE example! Your point covers _literally every one_ of the purported "necessary attributes" of the "necessary god."
The funnier thing is that there are also references in the Bible that challenge these necessary attributes. In Genesis, Yahweh says that "He NOW knows that Abraham is a faithful servant" after the almost sacrificing his son. There is a passage in I Kings that talks about Yahweh allowing false revelations to be sent which then questions the validity of any revelation that one receives. The funniest thing is that when presented with the Bible verses challenging Yahweh's qualification to have the necessary attributes, I get told by presuppers that I am not interpreting the Bible correctly because I have not accepted the Holy Spirit. In order to get the Holy Spirit, one must accept the Word of God. But why should I accept the Word of God when it may be a false revelation? This is where most presuppers including JT have disengaged.
funnier still; presup is based on classical theism, which was invented by theologians and philosophers, nashed up with trinitarianism (ditto), not anything actually biblical.
AJ...in order to make this prediction did you invoke the necessity of necessitating the necessary ultimate which necessarily is the disembodied mind of of Quetzalcoatl? Checkmate! 🙂
I don't see the problem with that... I mean... I'm Superman, cause it's necessary that I am superman, therefore I am Superman... Well, I'm gonna fly now, BYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy...............
Interesting points Jack brings up here. Why do the presups always point to this group of necessary attributes (Omni, Omni,Omni,etc.) but don't include stuff like being born in Bethlehem, walking on water and having 12 buddies? It would seem that these would be just a as necessary as the others if you're going to stump for the christian god.
Simple. It's because they're claiming to present the _necessary_ criteria, they're actually just presenting the _sufficient_ criteria which is a much lower bar. It's just another trick designed to confuse people that aren't intimately familiar with the terminology used. Most of presup is designed to use language that has common and philosophical definitions and then equivocate between the two. That way you're using words that are familiar so the argument seems to make sense, but the context the words are being used is unfamiliar so their interlocutors don't typically catch the misuse/abuse of the terminology.
Oppy called out DD on this exact same thing. Pre-sups constantly attempt to make their deity as thin as possible to make it a smaller target. The comedy being that they are talking about something they believe is all encompassing.
I would love to sit down with Ton Loc (aka Ton Def) to go through this video to review Jack Angstreich's demeanor. "Why are you over talking me???" "THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED YOU!" "Do you need me to repeat the question? I'll repeat the question..." Surely Ton Loc would assert that Jack is way out of line, irrationally hot-headed, and just a plain ol' jerk. Surely Ton Loc would make all of those criticisms without ever realizing that he is criticizing all of those obnoxious behaviours that he praises in his Lord and Savior, Darth Dawkins. He would remain clueless throughout.
Or... Use a voice changer to make DD sound like Jack or Vice versa... The plan fails though because it hinges on some things that Ton Loc doesn't have. The ability to self reflect and a sense of shame.
The chances of getting any two theists to agree on what this "revelation" means to prove that god exists much less that any gods exist is quite a stretch.
Maybe within christianity, in islam revelation is quite clear. For example, Mohammed got a revelation from god that existing, non islamic religious stuff, was allowed within conquered land. Now this was good for peacekeeping, but it was most impopular with the religious leaders and they claimed Mohammed was not a true muslim. An other example, shortly afterwards Mohammed got a revelation from god that existing, non islamic religious stuff, was not allowed within conquered land. People asked about the previous revelation, and Mohammed said it was a message from the devil. The next question asked was why he knew this revelation was from god and the previous one from the devil and not both from the devil. Mohammed said it was revealed to him by god that it was god and not the devil. As you can see, revelation is quite clear.
@@MDHilgersom But the problem with Islam is because an internal critique rests upon the bible.. the law of moses (which is endorsed by the quran) says that any future prophet that comes along should be judged by the previous revelation, and when you look at the quran you see what it says is in conflict with the teachings of moses, david and jesus (Christian community at the time referred to the NT as the Gospel which is what the word injeel also means).
@@mybad2603 Read my response again, you can maybe detect something in my response, almost like I don't endorse islam. Also, quran indeed claims that the bible is right, but that the christians, and especially the jews, are misinterpreting the bible. So, your point seems irrelevant.
@@MDHilgersom i never heard a muslim saying that christians are misinterpreting the bible. if the muslim would argue then the same logic could apply to his quran, they argue that the bible was changed.
Jack is the atheist equivalent to DD. The sad part of it is I share Jack's view and that's why I feel more embarrassed to listen to him because of his bad manners. I don't care how DD behaves since I already dismiss his claims as nonsensical.
@@justanothernick3984 I respect your opinion. I just totally disagree, especially when his interlocutor isn't humble enough to admit that their argument is invalid or just bogus...especially after he takes his time explaining the interlocutor own position to them, because they don't understand it. Honestly, he is justifiably irritated in my book. Besides, philosophy debates get heated all the time...nothing new there
@@JohnEButton They don't understand but a rational (a more rational) person should and behave accordingly. That's kind of my point. He can be furious for all I care but it doesn't justify behaving in a childish manner. Like a representative of the law can't behave like the criminal he is about to apprehend. Certain ways of conduct hold higher ethical standards, wouldn't you agree? I think you get my point.
force of will to counter your counter point, then I tap 3 mana to play revelatory knowledge which gives me magical special knowledge which I dont need to explain how I got which tells me stuff only I can know. anyway my cat is god and you need to repent.
Presups do this weird thing where they throw out random philosophical sounding critiques (like “that’s just trivial” or “that’s a category error” or whatever) but never know what the thing they think they are throwing out means.
@@midlander4 I tell people if they say “that’s a category error” the next question needs to be “what’s the predicate?” They are going to say “what?” And just keep asking for the predicate. A category error is an error in predication where you apply a quality (a predicate) to an object or thing that fundamentally can’t have that quality. Like how the number 2 (if it’s real) doesn’t have a color or how books can’t sleep and sleep can’t go 95 miles an hour. Presups think a category error is just “when god is in a different category you can’t say he’s evil.”
yeah it ultimately makes his case seem a little weaker as people have trouble completely understanding someone who is angry since their emotions instead of rational thought get triggered
@@AntiTekk Exactly. What a joy it would be to watch Jack casually dismantle opponents while maintaining good humor and a respectful disposition. I enjoy listening to his substance, but I cringe at his gratuitously angry, belittling delivery. Because of it, I find myself often skipping over videos that feature him.
Totally agree. I don't mind it as much when his interlocutor is clearly dishonest, but in this case I think he was dealing with a blithering idiot. He started out really well in this one to be fair. I've always found it a weird choice to engage presups when dishonesty and/or stupidity angers you that much.
That's one of those debate bro moves, though: "You seem triggered." "You need to calm down." I've seen Tom, et al, do it too, and it always seems like a dominance flex and not anything substantial. In this case it seems like another dodge. Jack explained nearly immediately afterwards JT was being dishonest, thus his response. And presups like DD, JRobin, just love to bait.
when talking to an adult, you would consider it a provocation if they started saying obviously false or trivial things in response to your queries, but what we forget is these are people with adult bodies but they have turned off their ability to reason for themselves, so they repeat the script, no matter how much it appears they are being deceitfully or deceptively stupid in their responses.
The ironic thing is that if the presuppositionalist would stop adopting such indefensible positions they could have a much stronger apologetic Just approach discussions with the modest claim that this “worldview” is a better account than the interlocutors instead of adopting strong categorical claims like “the impossibility of the contrary…” I think most people would be better persuaded by their account rather than the absurd claims they think derive from that account
They do it for the same reason that they claim an omni-omni god. Ego. They have to have the biggest bestest mostest god, otherwise somebody might be able to claim a biggester bestester mostester god that could beat their god. They could claim a really smart, really powerful, god that would be much more plausible (or actually possible, for that matter) but their egos won't allow them to diminish their biggest bestest mostest concept.
Also, this presup BS is not a performance given to convince nonbelievers; it is 100% a gaslighting technique that is used to 'knock down' anyone who would dismantle religious nonsense. The typical narcissist MO. If I can convince everyone that those who won't validate my fragile ego are wrong, I prove I am bigger, better, know more, I am more special. And y'all better recognize.
@@AntiTekkRepeating a claim is _stating a declarative sentence_ which _expresses a proposition_ (which has a truth value). Asking a question is _uttering an interrogative sentence_ which does not express a proposition and therefore does not have a truth value. Asking people to justify the first premise of the TAG argument is not repeating a claim, it's exposing the presuppers double standard and failure to justify the claim they're making. Asking follow-up questions in order to hammer home that point is also not _"repeating the claim"._
@@AntiTekk No, Jeff is another atheist. Jack was just pointing out that there are several videos on RUclips of Jeff essentially asking several presuppers the same question that Jack is asking J.T. here, and all of them miserably failing to answer it. Edit: the timestamp for reference - 3:46
"I do not accept" is not a claim, unless you are inside the person's head and are attesting that the person is lying, and rather DOES accept, which is now a claim that YOU must defend.
JT didn’t even provide an argument, he just restated the assertion that without the Christian god there is no predication, which is a claim that is not justified. God how do people bullshit themselves into believing this stuff?
So as soon as I hear a Christian say "revelation", my immediate response is how did you validate that the revelation that you received was true? What methodology was used to determine the truth?
Except.. It turns out that he didn't even have a vehicle at all, even after he'd equivocated himself down to just a mere mower's existence in need of defending... At which point a narcissistic mental melt down occurs, and then doubling down on the insanity that is trying to gaslight the interlocutor into agreeing that repeatedly attempting to define a fine Italian sports car into existence was successful, and that he's totally not just miming sitting in the driver seat, hands held at an imaginary wheel. It's hilarious It is the presup way.
This guy is the best !!! Destroy these idiots that come in with a script. Who was the soy boy who asked him to take a chill pill ?? This is a perfect. He needs to put Darth in his place.
I love Jack. He is so good at articulating his logical criticisms and holding their feet to the fire. Reminds me of Matt Dillahunty. The problem though is that I think he expects too much from the presups because he gets very angry and keeps asking them why they don't answer the question. He should just realize that they don't understand and probably genuinely think that they've adequately answered the question. It's not always dishonesty.
@Bruce Wayne: That may be true up until the point that he explains to them that they haven't answered the question and how the haven't answered the question but the just keep repeating the same answer. At that point they are being dishonest. It's at that point he gets angry. Then you have TonLoc chiming in talking about let him finish when he wholy supports himself and DD not letting letting people finish their answer.
@@fatman957 *That may be true up until the point that he explains to them that they haven't answered the question and how the haven't answered the question but the just keep repeating the same answer. At that point they are being dishonest. It's at that point he gets angry.* - The way I see it, there's no reason to think that they agree that they haven't answered the question. They think they have and that's why they will repeat the same answer. So yeah I don't see the dishonesty.
@@brucewayne7875 I see what your saying and respect that. I never thought about it like that so thanks for explaining the way you did. Also how where you able to post what I said in your response? That's some cool shit that needs to be done all the time. It will clear up a lot of confusion in messages. And don't tell me you just typed it cause some are to long for that.
@@fatman957 No worries. I like to explain things in a clear manner to avoid too much back and forth. Haha I agree that posting what the other person said and then responding to it is helpful in clearing up conflusion. I highly recommend it. The way I do it is I just copy your message and paste it but I put a star(*) at the beginning and one at the end of your message in order to make it bold. Make sure not to leave any spaces between the first * and the first character and the last * and the last character. You should be able to see right after you post the message anyway if it worked or not because if it didn't then you'll see the * still in your post where you were copying the other person, and if it did work you'll just see the text in bold. Hopefully that made sense. Another few cool things you can do is -strikethrough- where you just surround the text with a hyphen(-) and _italic_ where you surround the text with an underscore(_).
@@brucewayne7875 you must be doing it from a computer or laptop? I'm on my phone. Android, I don't want to hear nothing about the difference between Android and I phone. 🤣🤣🤣
Listening to presups avoid answering questions makes me ponder if they know their position is baseless, or if they have so intellectually lazy that they don't even bother to think about what is being said.
Definitions of predication noun (logic) a declaration of something self-evident; something that can be assumed as the basis for argument Why does there have to be grounds for Predication? We can all talk, we can all understand each other, we can all participate in the discussion. We don't need this grounds for predication. This has to be the Christian god thing is NOT necessary.
It is not about actually being able to predicate as much as why are we able, metaphysically speaking. Christians think that coming up with a reason with no argument or proof is better than saying I don't know.
"I have already given the justification for why I am able to predicate."-- JT. No sir, you have given you opinion as to why you can predicate, you have not given the reasoning/evidence that your predication are actually true or not. All you have done is stack a so many claims on top of one another that you can compete with the Tower of Babel. (Irony: both were trying to reach God and failed miserably).
Presup is so mind numbing and dishonest. No one presupposes their religious beliefs. You rationalize your way to them. The issue is there always seems to be faulty rationalizations in coming to a religious belief
This presup Clown wasn't worth Jack's time once he said he didn't even know what a tortology was......especially as he kept using it to make his point.
presups always act and argue the exact same and its always just total nonsense. Any argument were I can use the same point to equally argue that my cat is god it shows the weakness of the argument.
you my cat is god because its necessary for predication and I can justify it because of the impossibility of the contrary and that justifies it because my cat is necessary which now proves my cat is god from an assertion of an assertion which justifies the assertion by repeating the SAME FUCKING THING OVER AND OVER. by a presups logic my cat is now god and they must repent and accept my cat as god.
The presupp only seems to work if you blindly engage with their argument and agree that yes, in fact you have no justification, seems like a shifting of a burden of proof to me 🤔
God needing to have multiple persons within him to truly be a “personal” god prior to creation is interesting but flawed. It’s sort of like plantingas argument that god needs to be 3 people in order to be love, because you need someone to love in order to be love. However this fails because the type of “personal” that god is prior to creation does change when god creates, since he’s personal toward humans, in a different sense than he’s personal toward the persons within him.
Why would anybody have to disprove someone's presupposition? You disprove claimed facts and arguments, but something someone simply has chosen to presuppose?
Darth usually talks so much shit I rarely get to hear the Presup argument without all the song and dance to hear just how silly it is. "He must be one and he must also be diversified within his oneness..." What?!...WHAT?!?
Their claim is basically if a God had the ability to create a universe and all the shit in it, including us, but was not both one and many in and of himself, there is no way he could make it so you could tell there are two apples and three bananas in the fruit bowl on your table. I wish I was kidding.
in JT's worldview, Christian says "1+1=2" is predication. Non-believer says "1+1=2" is not predication. Is this not a contradiction in JT's worldview??? In JT's worldview, "1+1=2" is fact and not a fact at the same time.
Time seems to have all the attributes required for predication. Time is omnipresent, omniscient, diverse yet unified, always truth-revealing, and unchanging. YHWH is simply an anthropomorphization of time.
@@legendary3952 All actual states of affairs are temporal by definition; therefore time is aware of all states of affairs. I realize "aware" is being used a bit loosely here, so it might be more sensible to say something like "nothing happens outside of time." Time never reveals falsehoods, as "truth" is synonymous with that which is revealed through time. I don't think you could ever argue that the "present" is false, right? So time is always truth-revealing.
@@NullHypatheist Yeh I like the idea behind it really. It actually works It just wasn’t obvious to me the first time. The only thing I don’t understand is the bottom line. Could you explain it in a different way. Sorry I’m dumb or just not getting the last part 🥴
@@legendary3952 Thanks! I'm still fleshing out this idea... haven't really shared it with too many people yet; glad it's resonating. The bottom line I think is this: Presuppers insist that the Christian God must exist because it's the only thing that has all the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. They like to ask the atheist: "If not the Christian God, what is your necessary precondition for intelligibility?" Atheists never really respond to this question, but instead focus on the presup claims (as you hear Jack do in this video). I think "time" is an answer the atheist can offer, and I'm curious how the likes of Slick would respond.
Presup arguments are redundant so I can understand Jack's frustration but as an antitheist I find his attitude embarrassing to the non theist, he's angry all the time and his 'shouty' style does nothing to deliver his message.
Poor JT. His new presup-truck looked so powerful in the showroom, but it actually has very little horsepower.
Lemon law that mf
Powered by 1 gerbil, named Darth
Turns out there was no truck, and no showroom.
So far what I'm getting of the conversation is:
"How did you decide that those were the attributes a god needed?"
"Well, I started by assuming it must be the Christian god and went from there."
I think I've found the problem.
What's frustrating about these debates is there's a bunch of jargon and concepts thrown around with no shame. "Contingent being", "predication", grounds for rationalization, etc. But then we learn the guy doesn't even know what "trivial" means even though he has no problem just dismissing what his interlocutor asks using the word.
That's because presups don't understand what any of the words they use mean. You can tell this by their unwillingness to define terms.
yeah, pretty dishonest. well said, Joe.
How do you get this far into philosophy jargon and then seemingly respond like you’ve never heard what a tautology is. Fucking crazy
Which always irked me the most that Darth gets mad at "community college level philosophy" terms and then he uses Christian philoso babble
@@vivahernando1 JFC, I’m glad someone else sees it. I thought I was talking crazy pills here for a minute.
The phrase, "by the impossibility of the contrary" is the moment where the Pre-sup attempts to burden-shift the argument onto their interlocutor. The phrase, "the folly, absurdity, or irrationality of any other world-view" is yet another attempt to shift the burden onto their interlocutor to defeat their presupposed Christian world-view which they have offered without any support, but merely the assertion that it cannot be any other way--that essentially, the comprehensibility of the universe and everything in it is wholly dependent upon the Christian God and the Christian world-view of God as creator and revelator of everything that is. The Presuppositional apologist essentially enters the game declaring victory before the first word is even spoken by his interlocutor while defending none of their claims or assertions they merely presuppose, instead demanding that their opponent disprove their unwarranted, unsupported assertions. As most experienced debaters are well aware, gratuitous assertions may be gratuitously dismissed absent evidence and reason supporting them (making them no longer gratuitous) The presupposition makes no warranted or supported assertions, so the proper response is to simply dismiss their claims as the wholly unsupported and unwarranted claims that they are. Any appeal to an argument from absurdity will at best be supported with the most brittle and dry of a straw man that they can muster; and any claim as to the impossibility of the contrary will likewise be met with equally contrived and unthought-out rhetoric as to make a philosophy school drop-out to blush with embarrassment by proxy.
Well, if we grant the presupper everything in their worldview (for the purpose of an internal critique) we will indeed arrive at the conclusion that all other worldviews fail. But if you stop and think about it, that's not really surprising is it? If you grant pretty much _anyone_ everything in their worldview, all other (significantly different) worldviews necessarily fail. They are for the most part mutually exclusive. The fact that the Christian worldview concludes all the rest don't work is neither interesting or unexpected. It's a great big nothing-burger. The question to ask the presupper is why you should care what their worldview says about yours, since you already reject their presuppositions in the first place. If you valued _those_ presuppositions and their entailments, you'd already be a Christian presuppositionalist.
me: the only possible case is that god does not exist.
derwood: what's your argument for that?
me: it's true by the impossibility of the contrary.
KEvron
Uh. Try looking up what a reductio ad absurdum is.
That's what is meant by impossibility of the contrary. Its a perfectly valid form of argumentation, commonly used.
The accusation of burden shifting is false. This is simply a debate between two competing systems (worldviews). Both sides have an equal burden in worldview debates to provide argumentation for why their entire worldview system is more rational than the opposition.
It's rich you guys attempt to claim it's burden shifting because you guys are so used to arbitrarily beginning with the assumption your worldview is true (by default, without reason), focusing entirely on attacking competing worldviews and then declaring victory by being "not convinced" by them, which is a textbook appeal to ignorance fallacy.
There is no such thing as a "default worldview" that automatically becomes true if you complain about someone else's worldview.
And I'll prove it is actually YOU doing what you accuse others of right now with one question.
Why is your current worldview true?
(Try giving a rational reason that isn't a logical fallacy, evasion tactic, or bickering over definitions)
Listening to a presup debate is like watching a game of Three Card Monte where there is no queen.
😂😂😂
Basically.. yeah.. now that you put it that way.
the good thing though is the presup has the cards face up.
@@HarryNicNicholasand will still insist they've won a fair game
Wow, Jack is a Bulldog. I like the way he won't let them slide from the point.
Just discovered Jack Angstreich today and I love him.
“God revealed to me the Bible is true”… 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
#delusional
So you think you're smarter than all the generations that preceded us who said the same thing?
@@mybad2603
First of all, there’s no evidence of “generations” saying the “the Bible is true because God says so” & furthermore, even if that actually were the case it’s COMPLETELY FALLACIOUS! The amount of people that believe something says NOTHING regarding as to whether or not it’s actually true!!! Also, yeah I’m smarter because the average person today is smarter than even the most educate/deep thinkers from 2,000 years ago!
#reality
@@acason4 No, you said that all generations that preceeded us were delusional. That means that you think you're smarter and truthful than every single generation that preceded us. Basically all the finest minds like Nikola Tesla, Issac Newton, Thomas Aquinas etc were all delusional. You know the best.
God exists because words…
Presup is garbage becaaaaaaauuuuuuse?
God exist because of my feel feels.
“I’ve been doing this for 10 years since Xbox live. Hence I’m right”.
True in so many ways. He spake our reallity into existance so without words there would be no omnipotence so no god. Also without words maybe noone ever would have made that shit up in the first place.
and 'I know because i know because i know'. It's an infant's logic.
I love how they claim that the law of excluded middle, rules out something being it’s negation for the purposes of creating a dichotomy in regards to belief. But magically the sky wizard is immune to this by being both singular and plural. Being it’s own negation and illogical.
So, you simply choose a bunch of necessary attributes for your deity based on post-hoc references to the Bible - a book of claims - and then pretend that this confection establishes the existence of that Deity. Unbelievable.
And if JT wasn't being dishonest, then he was being stupid.
Exactly! This silly effort to "list attributes of the necessary being behind predication" is nothing more than taking one's own view of God, then cobbling a reason why each of these properties are somehow necessary. It's 100% _ad hoc_ in every detail.
For example, this god must be Tribune because... uhhh... because... umm... because love is "other centered," so therefore this completely-perfect god must have separate bits so that each bit could love the other bit or else love wouldn't exist.
Okay... So where did hate come from? Who did God hate: Jesus or the Holy Spirit?
Where did sex come from? Who did God have sex with? Jesus? The Holy Spirit? Both??
Nah, they'll tell you that hate and sex and bicycle riding and ping pong and grilled cheese sandwiches could all exist (in potential) inside this wholly complete god... but for some reason, this wholly-complete god couldn't possibly possess the potential for love if there were only one unified, wholly-complete god!
That's just ONE example! Your point covers _literally every one_ of the purported "necessary attributes" of the "necessary god."
The funnier thing is that there are also references in the Bible that challenge these necessary attributes. In Genesis, Yahweh says that "He NOW knows that Abraham is a faithful servant" after the almost sacrificing his son. There is a passage in I Kings that talks about Yahweh allowing false revelations to be sent which then questions the validity of any revelation that one receives.
The funniest thing is that when presented with the Bible verses challenging Yahweh's qualification to have the necessary attributes, I get told by presuppers that I am not interpreting the Bible correctly because I have not accepted the Holy Spirit. In order to get the Holy Spirit, one must accept the Word of God. But why should I accept the Word of God when it may be a false revelation? This is where most presuppers including JT have disengaged.
funnier still; presup is based on classical theism, which was invented by theologians and philosophers, nashed up with trinitarianism (ditto), not anything actually biblical.
My prediction: New presupper, same garbage argument, same dishonest behavior.
AJ...in order to make this prediction did you invoke the necessity of necessitating the necessary ultimate which necessarily is the disembodied mind of of Quetzalcoatl? Checkmate! 🙂
@@russwren3373 How old are you? 🤣
@@nollattacykel I'm old enough to have moved out of my mom's basement.
@@russwren3373 🤣👏👏
@@nollattacykel
how wet is that blanket?
KEvron
"The Christian God is necessary because he's necessary, basically because I say so, he revealed it."
I don't see the problem with that... I mean... I'm Superman, cause it's necessary that I am superman, therefore I am Superman... Well, I'm gonna fly now, BYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy...............
Interesting points Jack brings up here.
Why do the presups always point to this group of necessary attributes (Omni, Omni,Omni,etc.) but don't include stuff like being born in Bethlehem, walking on water and having 12 buddies? It would seem that these would be just a as necessary as the others if you're going to stump for the christian god.
Simple. It's because they're claiming to present the _necessary_ criteria, they're actually just presenting the _sufficient_ criteria which is a much lower bar. It's just another trick designed to confuse people that aren't intimately familiar with the terminology used. Most of presup is designed to use language that has common and philosophical definitions and then equivocate between the two. That way you're using words that are familiar so the argument seems to make sense, but the context the words are being used is unfamiliar so their interlocutors don't typically catch the misuse/abuse of the terminology.
@@ajhieb well stated…although your comment is prevacated and acatemically written..respect.
Oppy called out DD on this exact same thing. Pre-sups constantly attempt to make their deity as thin as possible to make it a smaller target. The comedy being that they are talking about something they believe is all encompassing.
Presup is designed to take the focus off what the babble actually says. They know that it is a dead end
As WLC said, "When it comes to Christianity, I lower the epistemological bar because I want it to be true".
"Before I justify my claim you have to justify the grounds upon which you can even ask me to justify my claim" duck, dodge, prevaricate. 🤦
Jack is the anti-Darth. Equal measures of wrath.
I would love to sit down with Ton Loc (aka Ton Def) to go through this video to review Jack Angstreich's demeanor.
"Why are you over talking me???" "THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED YOU!" "Do you need me to repeat the question? I'll repeat the question..."
Surely Ton Loc would assert that Jack is way out of line, irrationally hot-headed, and just a plain ol' jerk.
Surely Ton Loc would make all of those criticisms without ever realizing that he is criticizing all of those obnoxious behaviours that he praises in his Lord and Savior, Darth Dawkins. He would remain clueless throughout.
Or... Use a voice changer to make DD sound like Jack or Vice versa...
The plan fails though because it hinges on some things that Ton Loc doesn't have. The ability to self reflect and a sense of shame.
In times like these we need more Jack.
The chances of getting any two theists to agree on what this "revelation" means to prove that god exists much less that any gods exist is quite a stretch.
Maybe within christianity, in islam revelation is quite clear.
For example, Mohammed got a revelation from god that existing, non islamic religious stuff, was allowed within conquered land. Now this was good for peacekeeping, but it was most impopular with the religious leaders and they claimed Mohammed was not a true muslim.
An other example, shortly afterwards Mohammed got a revelation from god that existing, non islamic religious stuff, was not allowed within conquered land. People asked about the previous revelation, and Mohammed said it was a message from the devil. The next question asked was why he knew this revelation was from god and the previous one from the devil and not both from the devil. Mohammed said it was revealed to him by god that it was god and not the devil.
As you can see, revelation is quite clear.
@@MDHilgersom But the problem with Islam is because an internal critique rests upon the bible.. the law of moses (which is endorsed by the quran) says that any future prophet that comes along should be judged by the previous revelation, and when you look at the quran you see what it says is in conflict with the teachings of moses, david and jesus (Christian community at the time referred to the NT as the Gospel which is what the word injeel also means).
@@mybad2603 Read my response again, you can maybe detect something in my response, almost like I don't endorse islam.
Also, quran indeed claims that the bible is right, but that the christians, and especially the jews, are misinterpreting the bible. So, your point seems irrelevant.
@@MDHilgersom i never heard a muslim saying that christians are misinterpreting the bible. if the muslim would argue then the same logic could apply to his quran, they argue that the bible was changed.
It'll never happen.
15:13 Wow Ton Loc has an issue with overtalking. I'm sure he consistently calls that out every time he sees it.
Sweet baby jesus jack is setting all kinds of right records.
you, right, spin, right, me, right? round, right, baby, right, round, right, baby, right, round, right
Jack did an excellent job of clearly explaining the presups non-sense
Jack is the atheist equivalent to DD.
The sad part of it is I share Jack's view and that's why I feel more embarrassed to listen to him because of his bad manners.
I don't care how DD behaves since I already dismiss his claims as nonsensical.
@@justanothernick3984 he is nothing like DD. That's called false equivalency...
@@JohnEButton
I expect more of a guy representing rationality.
Don't know what to tell you. He is conducting himself poorly.
@@justanothernick3984 I respect your opinion. I just totally disagree, especially when his interlocutor isn't humble enough to admit that their argument is invalid or just bogus...especially after he takes his time explaining the interlocutor own position to them, because they don't understand it. Honestly, he is justifiably irritated in my book. Besides, philosophy debates get heated all the time...nothing new there
@@JohnEButton
They don't understand but a rational (a more rational) person should and behave accordingly. That's kind of my point.
He can be furious for all I care but it doesn't justify behaving in a childish manner.
Like a representative of the law can't behave like the criminal he is about to apprehend. Certain ways of conduct hold higher ethical standards, wouldn't you agree?
I think you get my point.
If JT ever talked to Dork Dunkins, how long do you think he'd last before DD kicked him out?
About zero seconds. DD won't entertain any time at all with Jack.
He's probably already blocked him for having truck with the unbelievers.
"I summon my counter point, and invoke it to destroy your rebuttal"
This isn't a magic spell, you have to actually say your counter point.
force of will to counter your counter point, then I tap 3 mana to play revelatory knowledge which gives me magical special knowledge which I dont need to explain how I got which tells me stuff only I can know.
anyway my cat is god and you need to repent.
Presups do this weird thing where they throw out random philosophical sounding critiques (like “that’s just trivial” or “that’s a category error” or whatever) but never know what the thing they think they are throwing out means.
Absolutely right. It's just cringe, isn't it?
@@midlander4 I tell people if they say “that’s a category error” the next question needs to be “what’s the predicate?” They are going to say “what?” And just keep asking for the predicate. A category error is an error in predication where you apply a quality (a predicate) to an object or thing that fundamentally can’t have that quality. Like how the number 2 (if it’s real) doesn’t have a color or how books can’t sleep and sleep can’t go 95 miles an hour.
Presups think a category error is just “when god is in a different category you can’t say he’s evil.”
The presupper had 1 good point: Jack needs to take a chill pill.
yeah it ultimately makes his case seem a little weaker as people have trouble completely understanding someone who is angry since their emotions instead of rational thought get triggered
@@AntiTekk Exactly. What a joy it would be to watch Jack casually dismantle opponents while maintaining good humor and a respectful disposition. I enjoy listening to his substance, but I cringe at his gratuitously angry, belittling delivery. Because of it, I find myself often skipping over videos that feature him.
Totally agree. I don't mind it as much when his interlocutor is clearly dishonest, but in this case I think he was dealing with a blithering idiot. He started out really well in this one to be fair. I've always found it a weird choice to engage presups when dishonesty and/or stupidity angers you that much.
That's one of those debate bro moves, though: "You seem triggered." "You need to calm down." I've seen Tom, et al, do it too, and it always seems like a dominance flex and not anything substantial. In this case it seems like another dodge. Jack explained nearly immediately afterwards JT was being dishonest, thus his response. And presups like DD, JRobin, just love to bait.
all the idiot had to do was give an argument and he kept saying "because the contrary is impossible". I would be angry too
'what I've said so far is reasonable'
'IF' the Christian god exists...
Well that's a nice "If" you have there...
Big if, true.
if atheism is true there are no absolutes, which is ironic because that statment would then be absolute.
Atheism is self refuting
@@mybad2603 unsupported conclusion with no facts in evidence to support it. That's a nice claim you have there, however that's all it is.
@@JosephKano Goodluck having absolutes as an atheist.
@@mybad2603 If atheism is true then there is no god. Not all absolutes are god (or would be if it existed), so your first premise is a non-sequiter
when talking to an adult, you would consider it a provocation if they started saying obviously false or trivial things in response to your queries, but what we forget is these are people with adult bodies but they have turned off their ability to reason for themselves, so they repeat the script, no matter how much it appears they are being deceitfully or deceptively stupid in their responses.
The ironic thing is that if the presuppositionalist would stop adopting such indefensible positions they could have a much stronger apologetic
Just approach discussions with the modest claim that this “worldview” is a better account than the interlocutors instead of adopting strong categorical claims like “the impossibility of the contrary…”
I think most people would be better persuaded by their account rather than the absurd claims they think derive from that account
They do it for the same reason that they claim an omni-omni god. Ego. They have to have the biggest bestest mostest god, otherwise somebody might be able to claim a biggester bestester mostester god that could beat their god. They could claim a really smart, really powerful, god that would be much more plausible (or actually possible, for that matter) but their egos won't allow them to diminish their biggest bestest mostest concept.
Also, this presup BS is not a performance given to convince nonbelievers; it is 100% a gaslighting technique that is used to 'knock down' anyone who would dismantle religious nonsense.
The typical narcissist MO. If I can convince everyone that those who won't validate my fragile ego are wrong, I prove I am bigger, better, know more, I am more special. And y'all better recognize.
Jeff has been doing a great job too.
repeating the claim is doing a great job?
@@AntiTekkRepeating a claim is _stating a declarative sentence_ which _expresses a proposition_ (which has a truth value). Asking a question is _uttering an interrogative sentence_ which does not express a proposition and therefore does not have a truth value. Asking people to justify the first premise of the TAG argument is not repeating a claim, it's exposing the presuppers double standard and failure to justify the claim they're making. Asking follow-up questions in order to hammer home that point is also not _"repeating the claim"._
@@AntiTekk You do know that Brenda was referring to Jeff, not JT (not the presupper in the video), right?
@@ConceptCollection I thought the J stood for Jeff
Is Jack also called Jeff?
@@AntiTekk No, Jeff is another atheist. Jack was just pointing out that there are several videos on RUclips of Jeff essentially asking several presuppers the same question that Jack is asking J.T. here, and all of them miserably failing to answer it.
Edit: the timestamp for reference - 3:46
I have a question. How could a God know it is all-knowing? It wouldn't know what it doesn't know.
I experienced the requisite amount of yelling, as advertised. Thank you! 🙇🏽♂️
1:30 well.. those were certainly all words... but I'm no closer to understanding how god revealed himself to you.
"Did you get that Tom Rabbittt?"
Tom Rabbittt likes to record things for RUclips.
my church doesn't allow predicating. might lead to dancing.
😂😂😂
"I do not accept" is not a claim, unless you are inside the person's head and are attesting that the person is lying, and rather DOES accept, which is now a claim that YOU must defend.
Presup: Using a lot of words (not a lot of variety, just quantity) to say nothing.
I already laid out how God is real because if God is real then God is real.
Bulletproof argument 👌🤪
swallowed the whole script but didn't know the common use of trivial.
Why just allow yourself to be completely gullible, when you can make yourself look completely dishonest too?
Because the narcissistic world view is a hell of a drug.
JT didn’t even provide an argument, he just restated the assertion that without the Christian god there is no predication, which is a claim that is not justified. God how do people bullshit themselves into believing this stuff?
Have we reached the end of the presup debate bro saga? If so, this an ending worthy of Game of Thrones....
But why male models
Jack is the atheist version of Darth Dawkins.
So as soon as I hear a Christian say "revelation", my immediate response is how did you validate that the revelation that you received was true? What methodology was used to determine the truth?
Jack Angstreich = best atheist debater
This is the biggest decimation of a presup I’ve ever heard oh my fucking god lol
Dude thought he bought a Maserati with the Ferrari engine, only to show up to the race a find out he has a lawnmower under the hood. Lololol
Except.. It turns out that he didn't even have a vehicle at all, even after he'd equivocated himself down to just a mere mower's existence in need of defending...
At which point a narcissistic mental melt down occurs, and then doubling down on the insanity that is trying to gaslight the interlocutor into agreeing that repeatedly attempting to define a fine Italian sports car into existence was successful, and that he's totally not just miming sitting in the driver seat, hands held at an imaginary wheel.
It's hilarious
It is the presup way.
Where is this pre supp factory that keeps churning out these robots.
Honestly thought JT stood for Jeff Trimble
So basically the argument is that it's impossible and anything else is just absurd. 😂 Okay, okay, got it.
Every time Jack speaks I want to play the drinking game. "RIGHT"?
Funny, and right up there with DD’s use of the word “OK.”
@@tsnide34 also DD's "now". Funny dudes for sure.
The problem with presup arguments is that they are indistinguishable from bullsh!t. JT has not (yet) resolved that issue.
Basically, It’s not the same because I used different words. 🤦♂️
Man that was brutal!
I feel a kinship with Jack's anger.
The position “god is necessary” is just the same claim as “the contrary is impossible.”
Yes!
Love to see Jack hold these dishonest presuppers feet to the fire
Jeff Trimble gets an honorable mention
This guy is the best !!! Destroy these idiots that come in with a script. Who was the soy boy who asked him to take a chill pill ?? This is a perfect. He needs to put Darth in his place.
I love Jack. He is so good at articulating his logical criticisms and holding their feet to the fire. Reminds me of Matt Dillahunty. The problem though is that I think he expects too much from the presups because he gets very angry and keeps asking them why they don't answer the question. He should just realize that they don't understand and probably genuinely think that they've adequately answered the question. It's not always dishonesty.
@Bruce Wayne: That may be true up until the point that he explains to them that they haven't answered the question and how the haven't answered the question but the just keep repeating the same answer. At that point they are being dishonest. It's at that point he gets angry. Then you have TonLoc chiming in talking about let him finish when he wholy supports himself and DD not letting letting people finish their answer.
@@fatman957 *That may be true up until the point that he explains to them that they haven't answered the question and how the haven't answered the question but the just keep repeating the same answer. At that point they are being dishonest. It's at that point he gets angry.*
- The way I see it, there's no reason to think that they agree that they haven't answered the question. They think they have and that's why they will repeat the same answer. So yeah I don't see the dishonesty.
@@brucewayne7875 I see what your saying and respect that. I never thought about it like that so thanks for explaining the way you did. Also how where you able to post what I said in your response? That's some cool shit that needs to be done all the time. It will clear up a lot of confusion in messages. And don't tell me you just typed it cause some are to long for that.
@@fatman957 No worries. I like to explain things in a clear manner to avoid too much back and forth. Haha I agree that posting what the other person said and then responding to it is helpful in clearing up conflusion. I highly recommend it. The way I do it is I just copy your message and paste it but I put a star(*) at the beginning and one at the end of your message in order to make it bold. Make sure not to leave any spaces between the first * and the first character and the last * and the last character. You should be able to see right after you post the message anyway if it worked or not because if it didn't then you'll see the * still in your post where you were copying the other person, and if it did work you'll just see the text in bold. Hopefully that made sense. Another few cool things you can do is -strikethrough- where you just surround the text with a hyphen(-) and _italic_ where you surround the text with an underscore(_).
@@brucewayne7875 you must be doing it from a computer or laptop? I'm on my phone. Android, I don't want to hear nothing about the difference between Android and I phone. 🤣🤣🤣
If there was a sign language interpreter for this I am sure she would be rolling her eyes and moving her hand down and up and with wrist muscles.
Right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right....
Anyone that is impressed by the presup worldview schtick is seriously dense.
Listening to presups avoid answering questions makes me ponder if they know their position is baseless, or if they have so intellectually lazy that they don't even bother to think about what is being said.
Big words and obfuscation don’t make up for lack of evidence for extravagant claims.
Who was the dip stick yapping like a Chihuahua in the background? Sounds like Tonguelok.
Definitions of predication
noun (logic) a declaration of something self-evident; something that can be assumed as the basis for argument
Why does there have to be grounds for Predication? We can all talk, we can all understand each other, we can all participate in the discussion. We don't need this grounds for predication. This has to be the Christian god thing is NOT necessary.
It is not about actually being able to predicate as much as why are we able, metaphysically speaking. Christians think that coming up with a reason with no argument or proof is better than saying I don't know.
Yeah shit gets real when Jack goes off their script.
"I have already given the justification for why I am able to predicate."-- JT. No sir, you have given you opinion as to why you can predicate, you have not given the reasoning/evidence that your predication are actually true or not. All you have done is stack a so many claims on top of one another that you can compete with the Tower of Babel. (Irony: both were trying to reach God and failed miserably).
Absolutely destroyed
Keep tabs on this Darth clone JT. more entertainment to come from him
Presup is so mind numbing and dishonest. No one presupposes their religious beliefs. You rationalize your way to them. The issue is there always seems to be faulty rationalizations in coming to a religious belief
I don't know that they rationalize to presup, they just gobble it up and mirror their favorite brick walls
@@noahwinslow3252 the rationalization is “I can’t defend Christianity via history, science, or the Bible itself …… so let me use presup”
@@vivahernando1 rofl "I can't imagine the contrary!"
He got Jack spanked.
This presup Clown wasn't worth Jack's time once he said he didn't even know what a tortology was......especially as he kept using it to make his point.
The folly of the denial...
I hear a lot of claims but no arguments.
It’s just a claim. It’s just a claim. It’s just a claim. ‘Baby presup starts sobbing’
presups always act and argue the exact same and its always just total nonsense. Any argument were I can use the same point to equally argue that my cat is god it shows the weakness of the argument.
you my cat is god because its necessary for predication and I can justify it because of the impossibility of the contrary and that justifies it because my cat is necessary which now proves my cat is god from an assertion of an assertion which justifies the assertion by repeating the SAME FUCKING THING OVER AND OVER.
by a presups logic my cat is now god and they must repent and accept my cat as god.
The presupp only seems to work if you blindly engage with their argument and agree that yes, in fact you have no justification, seems like a shifting of a burden of proof to me 🤔
God needing to have multiple persons within him to truly be a “personal” god prior to creation is interesting but flawed. It’s sort of like plantingas argument that god needs to be 3 people in order to be love, because you need someone to love in order to be love. However this fails because the type of “personal” that god is prior to creation does change when god creates, since he’s personal toward humans, in a different sense than he’s personal toward the persons within him.
Why would anybody have to disprove someone's presupposition? You disprove claimed facts and arguments, but something someone simply has chosen to presuppose?
Jack can’t be dispassionate.
Strange how the 1st Commandment suggests that other gods DO exist besides Yahweh/Christian God.
Well... premice one is still unanswered.
Darth usually talks so much shit I rarely get to hear the Presup argument without all the song and dance to hear just how silly it is. "He must be one and he must also be diversified within his oneness..." What?!...WHAT?!?
Their claim is basically if a God had the ability to create a universe and all the shit in it, including us, but was not both one and many in and of himself, there is no way he could make it so you could tell there are two apples and three bananas in the fruit bowl on your table.
I wish I was kidding.
Presups are so annoying! He would last 2 minutes at my school and probably has mo friends!!!
Jack is insufferable. The other dude is too but at a lower volume.
A new presup....how sad for them.
How does Jack get so out of breath from talking? Jesus Christ, man. 😂
He’s always on the move
in JT's worldview, Christian says "1+1=2" is predication. Non-believer says "1+1=2" is not predication. Is this not a contradiction in JT's worldview??? In JT's worldview, "1+1=2" is fact and not a fact at the same time.
Jack A$$stretch is the evil Tardh Wadkins, or is Tardh the evil A$$stretch?
I presuppose the Greek god Zeus.
Time seems to have all the attributes required for predication. Time is omnipresent, omniscient, diverse yet unified, always truth-revealing, and unchanging.
YHWH is simply an anthropomorphization of time.
How is time _omniscient and always truth revealing_
@@legendary3952 All actual states of affairs are temporal by definition; therefore time is aware of all states of affairs. I realize "aware" is being used a bit loosely here, so it might be more sensible to say something like "nothing happens outside of time."
Time never reveals falsehoods, as "truth" is synonymous with that which is revealed through time. I don't think you could ever argue that the "present" is false, right? So time is always truth-revealing.
@@NullHypatheist Yeh
I like the idea behind it really.
It actually works
It just wasn’t obvious to me the first time.
The only thing I don’t understand is the bottom line.
Could you explain it in a different way.
Sorry I’m dumb or just not getting the last part 🥴
@@legendary3952 Thanks! I'm still fleshing out this idea... haven't really shared it with too many people yet; glad it's resonating.
The bottom line I think is this: Presuppers insist that the Christian God must exist because it's the only thing that has all the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. They like to ask the atheist: "If not the Christian God, what is your necessary precondition for intelligibility?"
Atheists never really respond to this question, but instead focus on the presup claims (as you hear Jack do in this video). I think "time" is an answer the atheist can offer, and I'm curious how the likes of Slick would respond.
wow... when the presupp starts monologuing, its just all a mess of insane words that make no sense...
Blah blah ... predication ... blah blah ... necessary precondition ... I'll repeat ... blah blah ... *HAHAHA* It is hilarious when junior presupps try, and fail, to deliver Darth's gibberish.
Jack sounds insane.
… right.
What is Jack predicating?
Presup arguments are redundant so I can understand Jack's frustration but as an antitheist I find his attitude embarrassing to the non theist, he's angry all the time and his 'shouty' style does nothing to deliver his message.
Oh jeez, those necessary attributes for the Christian god… he just keeps going