Darth Dawkins refuted by Greg Bahnsen
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 авг 2024
- Edit 6/2: There is a nuance to Plantinga's view that I learned. Plantinga thinks you can run epistemically circular arguments as long as you don't have doubts about R. The quoted passage in WTCRL doesn't make that clear. I think he follows Alston on this. Alston and Plantinga are both externalists. The main problem is that the epistemically circular argument towards proving R is couched as a conditional, which mean you say something like, "if I have R then I can show that I have R." For more details see www.iep.utm.edu...
originals:
• Darth Dawkins: How to ...
• Darth Dawkins: How to ...
Not one presup has ever demonstrated a god to exist. ever.
Circa 5:00 DD remarked: "Your ultimate authority (i.e. presupposition(s)) is just simply an unjustifiable, unverifiable assumption".
My response: DD, if you're going to stick with unjustified, unverified assumptions (i.e. presuppositions) should be rejected, then here is a syllogism. Feel free to refute it.
DD should reject his Christianity based on his own position:
1. If a worldview starts with unjustified presuppositions, then DD rejects the worldview. (DD's claim)
2. DD's worldview starts with presuppositions. (DD's admission)
3. DD *CANNOT* justify his presuppositions without arguing in a circle.
4. If DD *CANNOT* justify his presuppositions without arguing in a circle, then DD's worldview starts with unjustified presuppositions. (the informal fallacy of circulus in probando)
5. DD's worlview starts with unjustified presuppositions. (modus ponens from 3 and 4)
6. Therefore, DD rejects his worldview. (modus ponens from 1 and 5)
Warning: Be prepared for prodigious amounts of question begging, non sequiturs, and special pleading.
He'd deny premise 4 via munchausen trilemma
DD is a one-trick pony. He always asks people to justify the presuppositions.
BTW, Thanks to Floyd for notifying me of the Bahnsen clip a long time ago.
Another BTW. Thanks to Floyd for all those DD stfu meltdown clips too lol.
One of the many mistakes DD commits is to confuse what is epistemically prior to what is ontologically prior. He "accounts" for his senses, reasoning, etc. with his god (being ontologically prior to himself) but epistemically he must start with his own senses and reasoning to come to that belief. In the words of the late R.C. Sproul, we do not start with the "autonomy of the self" but rather we start with the consciousness of the self. We don't reason with other people's minds. We can only reason from our own.
Floyd Fp that’s what I call “hitting the bullseye”!
>Darth Dawkins disliked this
The only way to deal with someone like DD is to debate him in person and then slap the dog sht out of him when he interrupts you.
You don't think it's a problem you have to rely on physical violence to win a debate?
So he can assume the ultimate nature of reality and that justifies his axiom
This this dude sounds like a younger Darth perhaps? Voice is very very very similar.
This guy (DD) is so dishonest. He never explains his position to the fullest extent. Never. Essentially he is saying you cant explain X, therefore (his) God. Total rubbish.
I talked to this guy before he sounded the same way.
said it before and i'll say it again: we author our beliefs, so we're the authorities of our beliefs.
KEvron
typical from DD, "I will let you talk when I finish" then finish with a question forcing the person to answer instead of talking before interrupting the answer. What DD is doing is the words of the devil.
Hey DGH :) 2 in depth DD vids on my channel from the past few days, and one on him saying dumb stuff. He admits to believing in a hyper-evolution after the flood of noah, among other crazy things. I think it would make for some good material. I don't see the option to message your channel, so I am leaving this comment here.
I'm a Young Flat Earth Creationist Presupper.
I'm basically the boogeyman to Atheists.
I think demonstrable things in nature supercede beliefs because beliefs cannot be demonstrated nor can they lead to predictions but being able to demonstrate something goes a long way to prove reality. I don't need an ultimate authority to demonstrate air pressure.
Lmao, the end of that. He plays the part clearly. His aim isn't to change minds or teach, it's to shut his opponent up and poke holes in their thinking. He will never see that his reasoning is just as flawed if not more so. I'm betting he is trying to win these debates to convince himself that God exists or to feel superior...or both. Based on his behavior and the history of his that's been exposed, he better hope he's wrong about religion, because if he's not, hell is the only destination for him.
Your job is to shut their mouth? That shows the weakness of the Christian myth. Nobody spreading the truth or carrying a superior argument will need to shut the mouth of their opponent as the strength of their arguments juxtaposed would stand on their own merit. The tyranny of DD's approach only highlights his failure.
Where would he be without the internet??? 👌🏻🦄🐒💩⛪️
Fat, angry and alone. The same place he’s at with the internet.
pretentious crap...... i really mean i have no idea what they are talking about. 'i am not convinced that there are any gods'. Gary Milne DD will debate endlessly about the meaning of 'I am, not. convinced, and every other word anyone uses to express themselves. Its not that complicated. Gary believes in a god I don't.
The difference is the Christian God is a *Transcendental presupposition*
That probably wasn't the best name for the term because you guys conflate it with the unjustified axioms / presuppositions / brute facts you guys have in your worldviews.
*Transcendental presuppositions* are justified by their necessary existence within the metaphysical framework they exist within.
great vid :)
Thanks for the source.
i posted a new one from last night if you're interested where I actually get involved a little bit
Dillahunty would rip this guy to shreds just like he did with Sye Ten. Would love to see that 🤤😋
Haha. He sounds drunker every time I hear him. Evidence Darth?
TAG and it’s implications are not really that difficult to understand. It’s always amazing to me the somersaults of self deception that atheists have to undergo in order not to see the obvious conclusions. More mature and better atheistic philosophers that understand the argument will appeal to mystery and agnosticism because they can see that there is no way to reason out from under it. In my opinion, when you reach this level of epistemological sophistication with these surly teenage undergrad types and they still are willfully blind, your just wasting your breath.
"You use your reasoning to decide on anything, including interpretations of the Bible. What else can you use? Your foot? The buck stops with you"!
You people just don't get it, do you? All this from those who pretend to be knowledgable of scripture. I have the mind of Christ, and The Holy Spirit indwelling me, and quickening my fallibility, to therefore know and understand certain things....infallibly! I am not using "my reasoning", for it is GOD within me, who reasons specific things for me! This is the beauty of an infallible revelatory knowledge, granted by an infallible being!
Are you using your reasoning when you say that "it is GOD within me, who reasons specific things for me?" Sure you are. If it's not you reasoning when you say that then am I talking to God instead of you?
Darwin's Greatest Hits How can something be so clearly explained to you, and yet you remain completely ignorant of what was said? This is incredibly and increasingly frustrating! You are incorrect, GOD HIMSELF is doing the reasoning. Did you not get it, when I said, "I have the mind of Christ"? You and I are not on even platforms here, no matter how you'd like to imagine we are!
I'm not the only "ignorant" one. You should also call the vast majority of Christian philosophers that reject your reasoning ignorant. I don't expect to convince you about your reasoning there, but I do think I can convince you that Greg Bahnsen rejects DD's thinking that he doesn't start with an assumption, and I can convince you that Plantinga says you can't argue for the reliability of the cognitive faculties without being viciously circular. I can provide the sources since I actually read the books.
Darwin's Greatest Hits In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."
This is exactly what you've just done, regardless of whether you believe you have or not! I couldn't care less what most Christian philosophers have to say about my infallible revelation of God's existence . You're very much implying that because they put forth something, I should somehow, for some reason, stand in agreement with them! It is unfortunate that these individuals haven't had an infallible revelation of God's existence, or at least won't divulge that, and argue from that platform. It is a great disservice to Christianity, that there are renowned spokespersons, who allow philosophical discussions to dumb them down, leaving them in a stupor of uncertainty, walking away from an argument with an atheist, scratching their chins and wondering whether the God they've just argued for.......even exists! These duped individuals, in conclusion, end up uttering such nonsense as, "well, perhaps I could be mistaken. Perhaps the God I've spent my life longing after, really isn't there at all"! I'd gladly ask them, what sort of apologist are you? What sort of apologist, walks away from a line of argumentation, against the God you should know for certain exists, scratching your chin and being reduced to wondering whether this God exits or not? How pathetic!
I'm going to choose to ignore going down the drama road and focus on the issues, so answer me this: does Greg Bahnsen say "Every system must have some unproven assumptions, a starting point not antecedently established, with which reasoning begins and according to which it proceeds to conclusions?"