I love this....and hate myself for loving it. I am a bad bad person for getting so much enjoyment out of watching DD make a complete asshat of himself.
Don't beat yourself up to much Steve if it helps I for one find very few things more entertaining and satisfying as watching a pompous jackass like DD inevitably "walk himself face first into a buzzsaw" by stating something idiotic, and when he does it specifically as a result of the situations/conditions he himself created with his claims of "magic" it is just the cherry on top of the "asshat Sunday. ;~).
We need to stop giving Darth air time. All of us. He is an irrelevant word salad, providing proof of absolutely nothing. Going to the extent of ignoring his own logic to believe in the God of the Bible. He needs to go away and end his 15 minutes of semi-fame.
I watched a couple of videos today featuring this guy (had never heard of him before) and now RUclips is dishing up loads of videos featuring this presuppositional nitwit, all of which end up turning into absolute dumpster fire. It's the same thing over and over again. What an incredibly dim and rude asshole.
DDs has a serious mental disorder, maybe mental illness. The diagnostic giveaway to delusional premises is that the individual presents with incorrigibility. When it is coupled with imaginary external agencies it's schizotypal.
He's entertaining. He obviously convinces no one, and he also may be instructive as a way of learning how to pick apart bad arguments, and deal with people whose "philosophical arguments" are just masking a need to prove the validity of their own fears.
So DD rejects all inductive reasoning? Everyone uses induction everyday. He is committing the fallacy of uncertainty.The informal fallacy of arguing from uncertainty occurs when one attempts to use the tentative nature of inductive claims as a reason, in of itself, to reject an inductive claim. Inductive claims are accepted or rejected on a probabilistic basis, as per their evidence. We do not say that a good inductive argument is "valid"; rather we say it is "cogent". No one claims that induction is deductively valid since it is a different from of reasoning just like abduction is.
Yep, not to mention DD has unwittingly "determined" that any of the evidence, conclusions, discoveries. etc.... derived from the fields of statistics and analytics (at least, I think it could be argued many more field of study as well) are not only meaningless but "illogical".
i think his position is that the atheist has no justification for inductive reasoning without god as his foundation. god reveals that the universe is constant, so inductive inference is justifiable. if only he'd have specified which inferences.... derwood's also been on this kick about inductive reasoning being circular. alex malpass tried to set him straight, but it didn't stick. KEvron
That is a common argument with Presuppositionalists. They simply bring up Hume's problem with induction and then ask you to solve it. My response is that the reliability of induction is one of the presuppositions of my worldview. If the nature of the universe is stable in such a way where regularities exist, then I can use induction. If you ask me for a further account for why that is the way nature is then this is an external criticism, not an internal one, and thus you would be begging the question since you are relying on your own presuppositions about what is needed for me to account for my own. All the presupper is saying in response to the problem of induction is "God is uniform, stable, predictable, will not change his mind", which is to say the presupper merely posits what a naturalist materialist posits: that reality isn't about to change on him. It is still a faith claim. How does he know anything about their god? The Bible? How does he know the Bible will not change tomorrow? Because inductively it says it won't? That is question begging. Also, the Christian worldview cannot justify the use of induction because of their god's suspension of natural law during miracles. When a doctor finds a new cure for cancer, how can he know that is it based on the natural laws of the universe or a miracle of god? If it is from the latter, then we cannot justify that the cure will work on patients in the future. If a building remains standing in an earthquake while other structures around it collapsed, we cannot study that building because it could have remained standing by a miracle from their god. It is actually a bigger problem for them.
+ Floyd Fp Yet, they bring the induction problem to the atheist, but ignore it completely for the Christians, when they claim revelation or experience of God..... funny, no?
*"suspension of natural law during miracles."* this is a dead end; they hold that miracles are consistent with natural laws. i think your stronger argument is their use of inductive reasoning to then justify inductive reasoning. KEvron
James Tinsley Claims of revelation are immediately discounted but Weasel Craig doesn’t seem to know that. He thinks he gets to sit at the adult table with his bankrupt metaphysics.
Man this guy is a joke. It's really quite funny how serious he takes hiimself. I saw the video where Godless goes to task on him. It's hard to believe he's not just laughed at on these servers.
I think most people keep letting him talk with them is to make these videos.....It's hilarious that he doesn't realize most of his supporters are trolling him.
Mr. Dawkins is SO pedantic, and I think that his "philosophical" argumentativeness is his chance to play the role of pedant. I think he's frustrated, unsatisfied, and henpecked in real life, but here he gets to talk down to people. He's also SO unconvincing on his points (when he even gets to them). His argument is like his highly authoritarian view of "cosmology" (or what little of it he's aware of)- people must simply believe, conform, and obey, or they're automatically wrong.
There is no difference between god “supersedes the laws of physics” and god breaking them. DD is just making up that silly distinction. Anyone who encounters that argument during one of his debates should reject it as such.
So, when a believer claims that he believes in God because he had special revelation from God or had a personal experience with God, this should be invalid (or unsound) because revelation or experience is a form of induction, right? RIGHT?? Or DD is claiming that revelation is not a form of Induction (so is a Deduction then?)? DAFUQ?!? Can someone solve that one for me?
"On what basis do you assert that there are indeed causal connections" What basis??? It's a presupposition or rather your properly basic belief/ultimate standard. That's like asking what's the foundation of your foundation. Such an incoherent question.
Hey man here is the link to the mirror just in case you wanted it (feel free to delete this comment if it is something you don't want in this section) Thanks again! ruclips.net/video/TVJ9kUxIjcs/видео.html
I reject darths claim that all of us know it innately. He would need to prove that I know that instead of just asserting it. But obviously he cant so he just speaks it into being. :S
This DD is *so* tiresome ;O) Convince me that a God has *ever* revealed anything then we'd have some basis for discussion. Regarding his "supposed" revelation, the Bible..you'd have *zero* chance of convincing me. I've read it and no amount of re-reading it is going to brainwash me into believing it and all its absurdities, or worship the monster within. Defending the Bible and touting it as "God's Word" is a non starter with me, therefore any amount of "word games" won't get me past that point and any God who needs this sort of jiggery-pokery to demonstrate his existence when he could just show up, doesn't have humanities best interests at heart, IMO>
Dear Presuppositionalist Arguer...What epistemological methods are you using to determine that your so-called divine revelations are divine? And what methods are you using to determine whether they are actual revelations as opposed to your imagination, wishful thinking, a delusion, a mental disorder called schizophrenia, or a hallucination? How and what method are you using to determine that it's not a combination of any of these? And if you can rationally conquer all of these steps, then what method have you employed to determine these so-called divine revelations are not by a deceitful entity wishing to trick you? You're having to use your own reason and presuppositions to do that. Same thing we have to do with the logical absolutes. Checkmate. Game Over ....Thanks for playing.... Insert a quarter to try again.
presups have to be dumbest "world view" in that the entire thing is just special pleading, defining god into existence, god of the gaps, argument from ignorance, and basically every fallacy on earth.
I've only recently discovered the wit and wisdom of DD. It seems like he a) can't deviate from his script, b) immediately tries to set word and semantic traps for his opponents, c) tries to keep them on the defensive by constantly saying "you've not answered my questions," d) always reverting to the "God has revealed himself through special and natural revelation," e) never explaining how all of his claims and word games prove the existence of a god.
Funny how India and China had governments and culture without the so-called god of the bible. Need I bring up the other cultures thought-out the world before that so-called god was made up.
nah, this wouldn't work. the theist would say it was still the god of the bible who made those civilizations possible, despite their rejection of him. KEvron
*"many attacks I would make"* if they're anything like the first, you can expect your interlocutor to have ready a response which is consistent with his world view. i gave you an example of the response you may expect; what's your counter to it? KEvron
That part at the end with WLC supporting premise 1 of the kalam with inductive reasoning... it doesn't make sense to show that as some sort of refutation of Darth. Darth is a presupper who says evidentiary apologetics (like the kalam) are not good because they're based on inductive, probabilistic reasoning and it encourages people to begin with autonomous reasoning, something Darth is against.
1:55 Darth says "you cannot appeal to an ultimate authority by appealing to another ultimate authority. That would be incoherent." Then on the screen it says "by that seem reasoning, if the atheist took the laws of logic as an ultimate authority, it would be 'logically incoherent' for DD to ask for a different ultimate authority to justify that." No, it is just false to claim the laws of logic are your ultimate authority because you need something metaphysical/ontological & concrete which grounds your epistemology... otherwise there will be nothing ontological grounding it and your epistemology will be meaningless. The laws of logic cannot serve this role because they're abstract.
can something be itself and not itself at the same time? if no, then the laws of logic aren't abstract, they're valid. If no, then that means something can be itself and not itself, so it can be true and false at the same time. god already has to adhere to it, so he couldn't have created it. That sounds pretty concrete and immovable. vs god being able to change the laws of logic at a whim, which would make it abstract. Just like you can't claim anything is objective if it comes FROM THE MIND of god, because objective means not from a mind. you lose.
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DIR7_X-ahy4/mqdefault.jpg)
His whole argument is special pleading.
I love this....and hate myself for loving it. I am a bad bad person for getting so much enjoyment out of watching DD make a complete asshat of himself.
I see this comment in the "community" tab in creator studio, but for some reason it's not showing up when I click the actual video. weird...
Shrug. Demons....must be demons.
Don't beat yourself up to much Steve if it helps I for one find very few things more entertaining and satisfying as watching a pompous jackass like DD inevitably "walk himself face first into a buzzsaw" by stating something idiotic, and when he does it specifically as a result of the situations/conditions he himself created with his claims of "magic" it is just the cherry on top of the "asshat Sunday. ;~).
Steve... You are NOT alone in this.
I just found this, I'm quite enjoying myself 😁
It's fascinating to observe his mental disorder. It's the same fascination as the aftermath of an accident.
I was Pro Life until I heard DD speak.
Yes ,and free speech becomes a problem,my ears are aching.
Your comment deserves a trophy.
Retroactive abortion time!
“The revelation of God is demonstrated by the revelation of God” 😂😂😂😂
The Late Bloomer that would lead to infinite regress lol
Yep it’s called bollocks.
"The laws of logic are demonstrated by the laws of logic" 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@lightbeforethetunnelflerf😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@porkyboy4226 Damn right I'm a Flat Earther! Of course I am. Proud of it, too.
Apparently Darth Dawkins (or whatever he calls himself this week) is called Gary Milne, apparently he has a reputation for being physically abusive.
'I'd just like a chance to respond sometime here'
Darth- Rages out 🙄
"God could make 1+1=3" What a lunatic
Godless Physical relativity can make 1 + 1 = 3 (no magic required).
You are cute. Wanna talk sometime?
Yea god could make a unicorn shit Skittles too.....Darwins is a whole ass.
Remember Darth said there's such thing as spiritual math where 1=3 is coherent.
We need to stop giving Darth air time. All of us. He is an irrelevant word salad, providing proof of absolutely nothing. Going to the extent of ignoring his own logic to believe in the God of the Bible. He needs to go away and end his 15 minutes of semi-fame.
I watched a couple of videos today featuring this guy (had never heard of him before) and now RUclips is dishing up loads of videos featuring this presuppositional nitwit, all of which end up turning into absolute dumpster fire. It's the same thing over and over again. What an incredibly dim and rude asshole.
DDs has a serious mental disorder, maybe mental illness. The diagnostic giveaway to delusional premises is that the individual presents with incorrigibility. When it is coupled with imaginary external agencies it's schizotypal.
He's entertaining. He obviously convinces no one, and he also may be instructive as a way of learning how to pick apart bad arguments, and deal with people whose "philosophical arguments" are just masking a need to prove the validity of their own fears.
infamy
It is pretty clear that everyone is giving DD exactly what he wants: your time.
So DD rejects all inductive reasoning? Everyone uses induction everyday. He is committing the fallacy of uncertainty.The informal fallacy of arguing from uncertainty occurs when one attempts to use the tentative nature of inductive claims as a reason, in of itself, to reject an inductive claim. Inductive claims are accepted or rejected on a probabilistic basis, as per their evidence. We do not say that a good inductive argument is "valid"; rather we say it is "cogent". No one claims that induction is deductively valid since it is a different from of reasoning just like abduction is.
Yep, not to mention DD has unwittingly "determined" that any of the evidence, conclusions, discoveries. etc.... derived from the fields of statistics and analytics (at least, I think it could be argued many more field of study as well) are not only meaningless but "illogical".
i think his position is that the atheist has no justification for inductive reasoning without god as his foundation. god reveals that the universe is constant, so inductive inference is justifiable. if only he'd have specified which inferences....
derwood's also been on this kick about inductive reasoning being circular. alex malpass tried to set him straight, but it didn't stick.
KEvron
That is a common argument with Presuppositionalists. They simply bring up Hume's problem with induction and then ask you to solve it. My response is that the reliability of induction is one of the presuppositions of my worldview. If the nature of the universe is stable in such a way where regularities exist, then I can use induction. If you ask me for a further account for why that is the way nature is then this is an external criticism, not an internal one, and thus you would be begging the question since you are relying on your own presuppositions about what is needed for me to account for my own.
All the presupper is saying in response to the problem of induction is "God is uniform, stable, predictable, will not change his mind", which is to say the presupper merely posits what a naturalist materialist posits: that reality isn't about to change on him. It is still a faith claim. How does he know anything about their god? The Bible? How does he know the Bible will not change tomorrow? Because inductively it says it won't? That is question begging.
Also, the Christian worldview cannot justify the use of induction because of their god's suspension of natural law during miracles. When a doctor finds a new cure for cancer, how can he know that is it based on the natural laws of the universe or a miracle of god? If it is from the latter, then we cannot justify that the cure will work on patients in the future. If a building remains standing in an earthquake while other structures around it collapsed, we cannot study that building because it could have remained standing by a miracle from their god. It is actually a bigger problem for them.
+ Floyd Fp
Yet, they bring the induction problem to the atheist, but ignore it completely for the Christians, when they claim revelation or experience of God..... funny, no?
*"suspension of natural law during miracles."*
this is a dead end; they hold that miracles are consistent with natural laws. i think your stronger argument is their use of inductive reasoning to then justify inductive reasoning.
KEvron
Dunning Kruger effect, anyone?
Nothing DD says is demonstrable. In other words, everything he says is worthless dribble. Don't buy a pencil from his cup either.
James Tinsley Claims of revelation are immediately discounted but Weasel Craig doesn’t seem to know that. He thinks he gets to sit at the adult table with his bankrupt metaphysics.
"Not violate, but supersede!"
What blazing hot garbage!
DD: going off the cliff, again.
Man this guy is a joke. It's really quite funny how serious he takes hiimself.
I saw the video where Godless goes to task on him. It's hard to believe he's not just laughed at on these servers.
I think most people keep letting him talk with them is to make these videos.....It's hilarious
that he doesn't realize most of his supporters are trolling him.
Darth said our math doesn't apply to god. For god it's called spiritual math where 1= 3 is coherent. LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. Dawkins is SO pedantic, and I think that his "philosophical" argumentativeness is his chance to play the role of pedant. I think he's frustrated, unsatisfied, and henpecked in real life, but here he gets to talk down to people. He's also SO unconvincing on his points (when he even gets to them). His argument is like his highly authoritarian view of "cosmology" (or what little of it he's aware of)- people must simply believe, conform, and obey, or they're automatically wrong.
If there is a heaven, it can't possibly admit people like DD and Sye Ten Bruggencate. I'd rather go to hell.
I'm stupider for having listened to this.
Why show a picture of Richard Dawkins which has absolutely nothing to do with this?
Because the real Dawkins cast the deepest wounds to his delusion .
'I 'verbalized' and uttered this to you'.....lol I'd just tell him to go play out in the traffic.
The ignorant speak with such certainty .
Dearth Dumbkins gets so upset when you don't answer his word salad questions and pour ranch all over them...
It’s Dicky Dunkin or Dark Dingleberry or Enthused Fellator (Gary Milne).
God.... could make.... 1+1=3....
The Realistic Nihilist
I was surprised to hear him say that. Is that the 1st time you've heard DD say it ?
that's a pretty surprising blunder. he's abandoning a constant universe with it.
KEvron
Yea but could god make a shoe smell?
There is no difference between god “supersedes the laws of physics” and god breaking them. DD is just making up that silly distinction. Anyone who encounters that argument during one of his debates should reject it as such.
This guy sits on the stair to heaven and it's trying to tell us how to get up there come on people why can't we figure this out lol!!!
So, when a believer claims that he believes in God because he had special revelation from God or had a personal experience with God, this should be invalid (or unsound) because revelation or experience is a form of induction, right? RIGHT?? Or DD is claiming that revelation is not a form of Induction (so is a Deduction then?)? DAFUQ?!? Can someone solve that one for me?
Schrödinger's Cat I’m trying but all I can do is laugh and laugh some more. But I’m working on it.
I don’t talk to my dad as he was a delusional abusive narcissist and watching these videos are like micro dosing to prevent relapse.
"On what basis do you assert that there are indeed causal connections"
What basis??? It's a presupposition or rather your properly basic belief/ultimate standard. That's like asking what's the foundation of your foundation. Such an incoherent question.
Very nice! Sent here by NEGATION of P. Subbed. :)
fsm is my ultimate authority. he informs naturally and with inate noodle knowledge.
Thank you so much for posting this. I would love to mirror it to my channel, if you would be ok with that?
go for it.
Thanks man, LOVE your stuff!!!
Hey man here is the link to the mirror just in case you wanted it (feel free to delete this comment if it is something you don't want in this section) Thanks again!
ruclips.net/video/TVJ9kUxIjcs/видео.html
Absolute classic
I reject darths claim that all of us know it innately. He would need to prove that I know that instead of just asserting it. But obviously he cant so he just speaks it into being. :S
14:21 “not a debatable point” is Darth’s Hail Mary
This DD is *so* tiresome ;O)
Convince me that a God has *ever* revealed anything then we'd have some basis for discussion. Regarding his "supposed" revelation, the Bible..you'd have *zero* chance of convincing me. I've read it and no amount of re-reading it is going to brainwash me into believing it and all its absurdities, or worship the monster within.
Defending the Bible and touting it as "God's Word" is a non starter with me, therefore any amount of "word games" won't get me past that point and any God who needs this sort of jiggery-pokery to demonstrate his existence when he could just show up, doesn't have humanities best interests at heart, IMO>
Dear Presuppositionalist Arguer...What epistemological methods are you using to determine that your so-called divine revelations are divine? And what methods are you using to determine whether they are actual revelations as opposed to your imagination, wishful thinking, a delusion, a mental disorder called schizophrenia, or a hallucination? How and what method are you using to determine that it's not a combination of any of these? And if you can rationally conquer all of these steps, then what method have you employed to determine these so-called divine revelations are not by a deceitful entity wishing to trick you?
You're having to use your own reason and presuppositions to do that. Same thing we have to do with the logical absolutes. Checkmate. Game Over ....Thanks for playing.... Insert a quarter to try again.
presups have to be dumbest "world view" in that the entire thing is just special pleading, defining god into existence, god of the gaps, argument from ignorance, and basically every fallacy on earth.
Darth Dawkins needs about tree fiddy.
I've only recently discovered the wit and wisdom of DD. It seems like he a) can't deviate from his script, b) immediately tries to set word and semantic traps for his opponents, c) tries to keep them on the defensive by constantly saying "you've not answered my questions," d) always reverting to the "God has revealed himself through special and natural revelation," e) never explaining how all of his claims and word games prove the existence of a god.
Dd is intellectually dishonest
the speed of light in a vacuum is ABSOLUTE and it is the maximum speed of CAUSALITY.
He is also just plain wrong
Funny how India and China had governments and culture without the so-called god of the bible. Need I bring up the other cultures thought-out the world before that so-called god was made up.
nah, this wouldn't work. the theist would say it was still the god of the bible who made those civilizations possible, despite their rejection of him.
KEvron
That would only be one of many attacks I would make on his little understanding of the universe.
*"many attacks I would make"*
if they're anything like the first, you can expect your interlocutor to have ready a response which is consistent with his world view. i gave you an example of the response you may expect; what's your counter to it?
KEvron
First, one is not talking to him and his 6 thousand year old world, one is talking to the audience.
DD has a talent for raising people's blood pressure.
That part at the end with WLC supporting premise 1 of the kalam with inductive reasoning... it doesn't make sense to show that as some sort of refutation of Darth. Darth is a presupper who says evidentiary apologetics (like the kalam) are not good because they're based on inductive, probabilistic reasoning and it encourages people to begin with autonomous reasoning, something Darth is against.
Inductive reasoning is fallacious?
...nearly at 1,000 subscribers
Any plans or ideas to celebrate the landmark?
Cheers and respect from
the South Coast of England
nope
Good shit fam
If gods listening please smite dd or send locusts to his bed flood his bathroom anything,l,ll go off and pray.
1:55 Darth says "you cannot appeal to an ultimate authority by appealing to another ultimate authority. That would be incoherent."
Then on the screen it says "by that seem reasoning, if the atheist took the laws of logic as an ultimate authority, it would be 'logically incoherent' for DD to ask for a different ultimate authority to justify that."
No, it is just false to claim the laws of logic are your ultimate authority because you need something metaphysical/ontological & concrete which grounds your epistemology... otherwise there will be nothing ontological grounding it and your epistemology will be meaningless. The laws of logic cannot serve this role because they're abstract.
can something be itself and not itself at the same time? if no, then the laws of logic aren't abstract, they're valid. If no, then that means something can be itself and not itself, so it can be true and false at the same time. god already has to adhere to it, so he couldn't have created it. That sounds pretty concrete and immovable. vs god being able to change the laws of logic at a whim, which would make it abstract. Just like you can't claim anything is objective if it comes FROM THE MIND of god, because objective means not from a mind.
you lose.
@@oxidize11 I wear my dad's dirty socks.
@@lightbeforethetunnel that's kind of a weird thing to admit, but alright. Whatever works for you.
Now diddy did you go to super special school ?
Oooohhhh 👀🤪 🦢
ThereIsNoAuthorityButYourself
Barney Barney Barney Barney Barney Barney Barney Barney Barney Barney Barney Barney Barney Barney Barney Barney Barney Barney Barney Barney Barney Barney Barney Barney