Watching the Gnostic Informant/Jay Dyer debate. Holy fuck is this guy retarded.
nigga theyre both retarded
Jay Dyer is literally a clown
>>18351099He just doesn’t know how to properly debate. The overwhelming majority of people who do these internet debates don’t know how to debate. Dyer almost always mops the floor with these sorts of people.
>>18351099Yes, Dyer is retarded.>>18351328And yet Dyer lost. TAG presup is unironically trash. It never meets its burden of proofs and just endlessly burden shifts. It also has the audacity to say that it's "virtuously" circular, as a cope.
>>18351374You’re an idiot
>>18351384Keep coping that your debate daddy lost.
>>18351374Neal couldn't even grasp Jay's argument about the number 3 being many and one at the same time, something a self-described Platonist should have no problem understanding. He's a fucking moron.
>>18351423Three [objects] is many, but three by itself is one number which could be used to represent the cardinality of a set or just a position, either in a sequence or along a continuum. I assume this was somehow intended to be an analogy for the trinity but I'm not sure it works. Am I a moron too?
I think I'm too retarded to understand TAG and I've watched like 5 different Jay Dyer videos of him explaining itWhat philosophy do I need to understand Catholic and Orthodox epistemology?
>>18351490Three by itself is many ones.
>>18351496Three is the sum of three ones which I would say is different from it *being* many ones.
>>18351500How?
>>18351513Summation is a specific operation performed on the 1s to output 3. If you can say that therefore 3 *is* those 1s, then it seems like you could also say that 6 *is* 2 and 3 because when you apply the operation "multiplication" to 2 and 3 you get 6.
>>183515203=1+1+1. The equal sign is doing all the work here
>>18351099I don't know who this guy but Jay Dyer is really dumb. Christian apologists are next level retardation especially larping orthobros.
>>18351495Dyer's entire project consists of doing his best to make sure you won't understand his TAG while namedropping various philosophers to convince the audience that he knows what he's talking about.Here's a qrd:>individual beliefs ought to be supported by evidence>however, the way we interpret evidence and form beliefs depends on our worldview>(worldview = sort of a central package of beliefs)>unlike individual beliefs, a worldview can't be supported by evidence because it's the very thing that dictates how we deal with evidence>we can judge whether a worldview is better or worse than another one by looking at how many fundamental things it offers an internally consistent explanation for>there's a bunch of things that only orthodox christianity offers an internally consistent explanation for>therefore orthodox christianity is true and I don't have to provide any evidence for beliefs like the earth being 6000 years old (they're part of the correct worldview)
>>18351694Agreed, and the first 4 points are even correct. The last 3 are just a bunch of cope.>we can judge whether a worldview is better or worse than another oneThis can't be evaluated without a worldview.Internal consistency doesn't guarantee an accurate description of reality. You can invent a billion hypothetical internally consistent models, doesn't mean any of them are actually true. The age of the Bible or how long the church has been established doesn't add any credibility to its truthiness, it does add credence to things being dogmatic and serving primarily social glue and/or power structures.I'd love the opportunity to BTFO Jay Dyer. Somebody needs to do it.
>>18351174>>18351177>>18351374Dyer is correct on things like his books Esoteric Hollywood. I'm not sure why people follow him outside of that
>>18351099Jay dyer has to accept that Noah built an arc and put all the animals in it and that the world is six thousand years old.
>>18351694I wonder how retarded someone has to be to be convinced by Jay Dyers arguments but most other apologetic arguments aren't any better.
>>18352089Yeah? And? What's wrong with that?>muh no evidence.Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscene.You may now proceed to cope and seethe.
>>18352123The internet has really ruined a lot of people
I wonder what the last words of these pseudo-rabbinic e-celeb debate bros are going to be when a man with a sword ignores their pilpul as to why mono-transcendental supra-Kantic neo-arithmetism means that 3 = 1 and thus swords are a fallacy.
>>18351177> dude what’s your holistic argument bra
>>18352123>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absceneAbsence of evidence is evidence of absence in proportion to how much evidence you would expect on a given theory that is suspiciously missing. If you say it was raining heavily an hour ago, but I look outside and the ground is bone dry, that's evidence that it wasn't raining and you're mistaken for some reason. But for things like Noah's ark and 6000 year old earth, I think the problem is more contrary evidence than just absence of expected evidence, if geologists and biologists and how-practical-is-it-really-to-fit-that-many-animals-on-a-boat-ologists are right.
>>18351099Derek from MythVisionTV is another complete fucking retard. He's at least somewhat self aware though.
>>18352269Isn't he a drug addict?
>>18352269>another complete fucking retard.I don't know about Derek but Jay Dyer is a snake oil salesman and his fans are absolute retards.
All grifters
>>18351694>Dyer's entire project consists of doing his best to make sure you won't understand his TAG while namedropping various philosophers to convince the audience that he knows what he's talking about.I don’t watch Dyer’s content at all since I think he’s an obnoxious moron with nothing of value to say, but I have suspected the possibility that he has not understood the transcendental argument especially because he believes it could substantiate the claims of the Greek church, which is a gross misapplication. If your representation is accurate then my suspicions are correct, because this is not the transcendental argument. For instance the first line, “individual beliefs ought to be supported by evidence” is not correct, unless we define evidence to be evidence considered acceptable under the Christian worldview. The intent of the argument in part is to assault empiricism and evidentialism as contrary to the Christian worldview, and to deny that there are any principles which would be valid apart from the Christian worldview. The presuppositionalist’s objective is not to satisfy but reject the atheist’s demand for evidence as illegitimate and already satisfied. t. presup pro
>>18352406Presup is not an argument, it's a means of stunlocking people who don't pass the iq check into christianity.
>>18352406I can't believe this is real lmaoIt's like bragging about being retarded. No wonder you had to bribe and blackmail people into joining your religion once you had run out plebs and women to trick.
>>18352527Presup isn’t an argument, it’s an apologetic methodology>>18352571>No wonder you had to bribe and blackmail people into joining your religionMeds
>>18352629>send out letters to your agents about how to subvert local religions and sneak in yours>create a whole institution centering on murdering people who aren't interested in believing what you believe>create another one for internal use>start dozens of wars and internal purgesYou can just presup that this didn't happen. Easy. Simple. A smooth brain is a happy brain.
>>18352629>it’s an apologetic methodologyI.e. a means of stunlocking people who don't pass the iq check into christianity.
Does anyone know of any christian-pagan debate where both sides actually know how to argue a point without resorting to a heaping shitpile of fallacies or ad hominems? GI seems like a cool guy, but he doesn't know how to debate. Dyer's debate with that Apollonian Mark Brahmin guy from years ago was such a bloodbath that even the post-debate comments were eviscerating him. His debate with the asatru boglord guy went basically nowhere. I just want a proper debate between two people who know how to properly argue their positions. Intra-Christian and Christian-atheist debate is seemingly the only place you can find this. Maybe Christian-Muslim debate, but the way they bend logic and revise history almost disqualifies them from the get go imo. It's almost successionist baptist tier.
>>18352703All live debates by non-academics are lolcow shitflinging.
>>18352703Debating your out-group is retarded, anyone who does it is gay. The rabbis are right to forbid jews from debating us.There's nothing to talk about with people who want your people subjugated to foreigners. You can study your enemy by listening to him, but engaging him in a debate is retarded.
>>18352670You need to take your meds Anon
>>18352685>I am intellectually defeated, but spiritually I remain defiant
>>18352764Let's presuppose that I have. Now what?
>>18352773Yeah that's exactly what I'm talking about, low iqs don't understand the arguments against presup which is why it's such an effective stunlock in a certain iq range. This allows low iqs to feel like they have the upper hand intellectually.
>>18352798Your “argument” is calling it stunlock because you don’t and can’t refute it
>>18352823I literally never gave you an argument because I know you wouldn't understand it anyway due to being stunlocked and iq capped.That's why there's no point arguing with presups. Wouldn't you agree that arguing with something whose cerebral hardware lacks the processing power to work through the relevant argument would be utter insanity?
>>18352123How did Noah get all those animals on the boat though?
>>18352827>I literally never gave you an argumentYeah, I noticed>you wouldn't understand it anywayLol
>>18352829Hebrew pokeballs
>>18351423That would be a heresy anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfuC58kK6qo
>>18352703Actual pagans are extremely rare. Most of those people are atheists. Mark brahmind sicks jews invented all european gods to control the masses and elites were atheist themselves.
>>18352836>Yeah, I noticedYou didn't, you pretended here >>18352823 that I tried giving an argument. Typical Christian dishonesty.Btw you didn't answer my question. It wasn't rhetorical.
>>18352089>>18351694Eastern Orthos generally aren't YEC though, I don't recall the church has a position on that, either. That's almost exclusively an ass-blasted American thing.
>>18352837They could've written a whole saga about Noah traveling the world to catch all the animalmons.
>>18352888No I just correctly described the only “argument” you could be said to have. >Typical Christian dishonestyGod bless you.>It wasn't rhetorical.It was meaningless though.
>>18352897>No I just correctly described the only “argument” you could be said to have.There we go, you actually thought that I was trying to make an argument against presup. You can't stop being dishonest.>It was meaningless though.Yet you're still afraid to answer it. I know you won't do it in your next response either, or in the next one. Another point you're stunlocked on, lol.
>>18352895The ark is a big master ball which he used and captured all animalmons just by building it, it has a global range.
>>18352899>you actually thought that I was trying to make an argument against presupNo I didn’t, I knew you did not have an argument, which is why I put it in quotes. I can’t tell if you’re trying to troll me or if you’re genuinely a complete idiot. Why are you mad?>Yet you're still afraid to answer itHahahahahahaha
>>18352902>No I didn’tYes, you did, and now you're crashing out and trying to spin it somehow.>HahahahahahahaPrediction fulfilled. You will fulfill it again in the next reply.
Neil isn't actually a platonist, he pretended to be one for the purpose of this debate. He was mirroring Jay. It was a pretty funny troll.
>>18352905Ok, you’re trolling me. Good show fren!
>>18352909No, I'm actually being very honest with you. Genuinely try to think about the question I asked you.
>>18352123If there is no evidence for it then why should anyone believe in it?>>18352892>Eastern Orthos generally aren't YEC thoughDoesn't matter, he is, and there is a reason why EOcucks don't openly admit to being YEC's despite obviously having to be in order to be honest and consistent christians, and that's because they know sensible people will think they are retarded.According to the literal interpretation of the biblical narrative the world is flat and the sky is dense, there is no way for anyone to weasel his way out of this without disregarding the biblical narrative.
>>18351099Watching the Christing Cult clowning the Islamist pedofags for claiming Muhammad is in the Bible and guess what tomorrow these same Christing Cult fags are going to use Ancient Egyptian sources to cope for the existence of Israel in the archeological records. To sad this retard didn't believe Ammon the only one who can take down this cult he thought he could take them down with his curated christing cult Academia sources he believed were solid. He looked defeated kek.
You could tell Jay Dyer you went to CVS to buy a toothbrush yesterday and he would keep asking you to define what logic is and if you can't define logic how do you even know you went to CVS to buy a toothbrush
>>18352892Everyone in the Church believed those stories to be true until Darwin, and the Catholics at least dogmatically defined this to be so, idk about the East
>>18352938Yes, because the very concept of understanding is rooted in assumptions about the world that fedora tippers either don’t realize or refuse to acknowledge they’re making. Once you’ve learned how to debate you realize the debates always go back to a fundamental divergence in understanding or belief. There was a fork in the road somewhere back in the chain of reasoning where two people took different paths. Debate tends toward masturbation(or bread and circuses if streamed) unless the purpose is to dig down until both sides are willing to admit that there is a fundamental disagreement that has led to a cascade of further disagreements.
>>18352950Even animals are able to learn, observe and understand. My dog doesn't wait for me at the door just before I get home from work because he believes in the God of Israel. Everyone who ever lived for the thousands of years before Christianity was spread across the globe was not a retarded bumbling robot with no sense of reason until they were evangelized. The notion that we have to share the same worldview that has Noah's Ark in it to be able to understand anything at all doesn't add upNext presidential debate one candidate should ask the other what reason is instead of actually defending their beliefs
>>18352951>Everyone who ever lived for the thousands of years before Christianity was spread across the globe was not a retarded bumbling robot with no sense of reason until they were evangelized. Correct, and those people were actually religious rather than empiricist atheists merely pretending to be religious.>The notion that we have to share the same worldview that has Noah's Ark in it to be able to understand anything at all doesn't add upYou don’t have to share their worldview. You just need to have a worldview that isn’t founded upon some arbitrary a priori assertion. The reason people say these larpers are larpers is precisely because they choose to found their worldviews upon the arbitrary a priori assertions rather than something transcendent. The final appeal in any debate reveals what someone places highest in the ontological ladder.
>>18353004>those people were actually religious rather than empiricist atheists merely pretending to be religiousWith this dichotomy an ancient Norse pagan with a debilitating intellectual disability has a better grasp on reason, logic and a general understanding of reality than Emil Durkheim>arbitrary a priori assertionHow is believing in God not falling under this
>transcendental argument for god>argumentpremises and conclusions, please fucking clown
>>18353028>With this dichotomy an ancient Norse pagan with a debilitating intellectual disability has a better grasp on reason, logic and a general understanding of reality than Emil DurkheimNo, the pagan retard simply has a less fallacious ontology. You can be very intelligent and still rely upon fallacious reasoning. Atheistic empiricism’s basic assertions are simply circular and begging the question. The pagan retard is merely capable of escaping the circle. Being able to escape the circle is the norm. Being trapped in the circle is not. >How is believing in God not falling under thisAt the very least it is another appeal. More specifically, it’s an appeal to something objective beyond the natural world. You can critique whether or not that particular version of “something beyond” is the right version, but you can’t just say there is no “something beyond” at all by flatly asserting as such. Individual beliefs can still be arbitrary in this line of argumentation, but the reasoning isn’t any more arbitrary than any of the other appeals at the beginning of the debate.
>>18352895kek that would have been funnyI love that the Jews essentially read the Deucalion myth, went >oy vey that's not realistic we gotta factor in the animalsand then proceeded to write theirs.
>>18353155>Atheistic empiricism’s basic assertions are simply circular and begging the questionHow does asserting a guy with the superpower to do anything help with this?
>>18353389Strawman arguments aren’t arguments. This is why you lose debates.
>>18353390I'm being 100% seriousI've stopped being an atheist. I now believe in a flying Jew that caused this universe.How do I escape the circle?Walk me through it
Imaginary solutions for imaginary problems
It's *literally impossible* for me to be wrong about Orthodox Christianity-Man who previously said it was "literally impossible" for him to be wrong about Calvinism I don't know how to more clearly illustrate that presup does not get you to truth, it's just air
>>18352909NTA, the problem with presup, is that you already decided your conclusion, and then use it to defend your premises.It's the biggest circular argument, and there's no reason to engage with people who do it. At least you're up-front about it, which allows people to not have to deal with you.
>>18353391NTA, you'll never get an actual answer from a presup. It's impossible, they hold their position without evidence or explanation, and then knock all the pieces off the board by saying that you can't do what they can do.Don't waste your time engaging with anyone running TAG presup or presup of any sort. You're just wasting your time. There's a reason they've run to this, it's the only way that they can feel superior, after getting their checks clapped in every other avenue of debate. So they have to say that they can do things that philosophy hasn't solved, but they'll never give you an actual explanation for it.At best, they'll give you the same trash tier argument that Descartes gave 400 years ago, that didn't work then, and doesn't work now. About how their good god is the guarantor. But they'll never actually support or justify it.They don't know that they're backed into a corner, because they don't actually understand the scope of the field. Presup, and especially TAG presup is the death screams of their religion.
>>18354248Is there some problem with making circular arguments in your worldview?
>>18354649The problem with making circular arguments is that they’re basing their evidence upon their own assumptions. The only way a circular argument could even remotely make sense is if you take the epistemic ladder all the way back down to a time before existence. Empiricists refuse to go beyond the material, and that’s why they say anyone who uses a TAG argument isn’t making an argument. Their definition of an argument, per their philosophical assertion, is reliant upon sensory data. No sensory data exists to tell them that this line of argumentation is ontologically correct, but they assert it anyway. The position is self refuting.
>>18354783I should add this problem only fucks with people who don’t believe in a personal God. Deists will still get bogged down the issues of morality just as easily as the atheist will get bogged down in the issues of ontological intelligibility.
>>18354783>>18354825I'm not entirely sure what a God is, but I believe in a Jew with the superpower to do anything, that's probably good enough How does this improve my ontology?
>>18352406what books on EO theology have you read?
>>18354783I agree, though my point was that the attempt to swat TAG aside by calling it a circular argument is a demonstration the unbeliever has missed the point and failed to contest the argument. He has (as is so often the case) failed to appreciate that the debate is a contest of worldviews. He would be right that it is the circular reasoning fallacy if we were simply saying we’re presupposing Christianity and therefore it’s true, but he’s wrong because we’re saying we’re presupposing Christianity and so are you, therefore it’s true, and dismissing that as circular reasoning is a failure to contest the field (it itself is borrowing from the Christian worldview, thus actually reinforcing the argument).
>>18355317None, but I have spoken to a knowledgable member in the past.
>>18352941>the Catholics at least dogmatically defined this to be soSource?
>>18355322>we’re saying we’re presupposing Christianity and so are youHow would you feel if I hadn't presupposed Christianity this morning?
>>18355322It's not an argument
>>18355346Cope>>18355342I would say you are mistaken
>>18355351So in other words, you can't imagine not presupposing Christianity?
>>18355364Neither can you.
>>18355322What even is meant by "presupposing Christinaity", am I presupposing that a man walked on water 2000 years ago? This is just a whole lot of gibberish >we’re presupposing Christianity and so are youThis an empirical claim. How do I test it? Would I be aware that I was presupposing the truth of Christianity? Or is it more like a special kind of unfalsifiable claim, where there exist no method for me to figure out if I'm presupposing Christianity or not If it's the first. I have direct access to my own thoughts, I am very confident that I'm in fact not doing that.
>>18355351Premises and conclusion of the argument, please
>>18355367I just did. I have direct access to my own thoughts, and know this.Stop lying.
>>18355371>What even is meant by "presupposing Christinaity"It means you are adopting the presuppositions of the Christian worldview>How do I test it?By comparing our worldviews and seeing what the consequences of your professed philosophical system would be.>Would I be aware that I was presupposing the truth of Christianity?Evidently not, this is because you suppress the truth of God which you know in your heart, which is the substance and formal cause of all unbelief.>I have direct access to my own thoughtsBut do you have direct access to your whole heart and every aspect of your mind?>>18355374If knowledge is possible, then God exists. Knowledge is possible, therefore, God exists.
>>18355376You mistakenly evaluate your own thoughts.
>>18355384How could I possible be wrong about presupposing that a Jew flew 2000 years ago or not?
Are any other beliefs like this, where I think they are false but I actually think they are true? Seems like such gibberishBecause thinking a belief is false, just IS what it means to think it's falseI don't understand what you mean, when you say I think it's false but I'm mistaken about thinking it's false what exactly is the mental state supposed to be
>>18355380>If knowledge is possible, then God exists. Knowledge is possible, therefore, God exists.So I reject the premise, right? How is this supposed to get anywhere
If farts are possible, then God exist. Farts are possible, therefor, God exist.This is true, btw. It wouldn't be possible to fart without God.
>>18355396He is saying that you are lying about not believing and you know he's right because his book says so.
>>18351099Too stupid for this thread but I want to say when Christians say 6000 years it could be that Human Civilization as we know it is 6000 years which could be true. This isn't even the dynastic period in Egypt, literally everything was just starting such as writing but a lot of stuff wasn't even thought of like all the hieroglyphics. Even in China the first ever cities were formed. I mean there isn't a BIG difference between humanity has only existed as we know it 6000 years or the planet is 6000 years old. The Bible only concerns itself with humanity, with a couple of lines about nature and animal husbandry.
>>18355445>when Christians say 6000 years it could be that Human Civilization as we know it is 6000 years which could be true. This isn't even the dynastic period in Egypt, literally everything was just starting such as writing but a lot of stuff wasn'tThe big problem is that we're trying to fit all of human civilization to fit within that framework, instead of evaluating without assumptions. Egypt could be older, but the old view that it HAS to be younger than 5k years comes from Biblical demands. You could look at Vinca-Varna, or the continuum from mammoth tents to ancient temples between 15k to 5k BC in the Russian territories, and the historians traditionally just ignored it out of turn up until the 19th century so the precedent was already set.
>>18355367>can't imagine someone imagining not having had breakfast>t. vantablack negro
>modern jews are evil phariseesThe talmud criticises pharisees for similar reasons that the gospels criticise the..
>>18355407>It wouldn't be possible to fart without God.literally truebased God>>18355371>How do I test it?Use presup arguments when debating with people until someone finally gives you a coherent response that isn't relying upon the presupposition of pieces of your worldview to make their metaphysic make sense. You can do this same thing to undercut protestant epistemology. They all just assume to be operating off of a pre-existent canon of scripture, but if you refuse to allow them to just assert the legitimacy of the New Testament a priori then they flounder, because the legitimacy of the New Testament is a tradition they inherited. They did not legitimize it, and they lack the ecclesiological tools to legitimize it, and therefore any argument presupposing that they could legitimize it or allowing them to tacitly assume its legitimacy is an argument based upon an anachronism. If you don't check them on this, they'll base their entire line of argumentation on the Church's authority to give things legitimacy, which they openly reject. If you demand they substantiate their claims to the inherited tradition, their religious framework crumbles. These sorts of arguments enrage people because it takes away the presupposed "given" in a debate. It forces an interlocutor to either make sense of the world for themselves—without borrowing a tradition/worldview they claim to reject—or it forces an interlocutor to resort to relativism and subjectivism.
>>18354783>reliant upon sensory data.Either I trust my sensors (my senses) which would mean that the physical world is real and the laws of physics and biology must be at least partially true. This means that empiricism is the most likely thing to find reality. I could also distrust all my senses that would mean everything is an illusion. This also invalidates your religion, it invalidates christianity, islam etc. Why? Because the only way I know about these religions and their holy books is through the physical world. If the physical world is an illusion then these books, their priests and their claims they made are also untrue. For christianity to be true necessitates the physical world to be true. The physical world being true means that empiricism to be at least be partially true. Christianity contradicts a lot of things we found out with empiricism (like evolution, the age of the universe, archeology etc) therefore christianity is untrue.
>>18354825>Deists will still get bogged down the issues of moralityThere is no such thing as objective morality. Your christian apologetic arguments are really terrible.
>>18355551Empiricism doesn't merely assert that sensory data is valuable. Empiricism asserts that the ONLY thing that is valuable(or true) is sensory data. No sane person refuses to accept the importance of empirical evidence, but the assertion that empirical evidence is the only thing that matters is baseless per empiricism's own reasoning.
>>18355558>No sane person refuses to accept the importance of empirical evidence,Yet people like Jay Dyer reject evolution, reject quantum physics, reject a bunch of other stuff.Your claim is untrue.
>>18355549>relying upon the presupposition of pieces of your worldview to make their metaphysic make senseTherefore alchemy is true and astrology is true because astronomy and chemistry evolved out of this. You could use your same argument for judaism vs christianity that you use for protestantism. The christian world view relies on the jewish world view. It relies on jews preserving their own scripture therefore christianity is true because it contradicts the jewish world view.
>>18355565Rejecting some empirical evidence on the grounds that you believe said evidence to not actually be empirical is not the same thing as rejecting all empirical evidence. If Jay was really as retarded as you think he is then the rationale he would give for rejecting evolution and quantum physics would be rooted in fideism, but he rejects fideism and gives a reason for rejecting those things that is rooted in the basic assumption that empirical evidence is important.>>18355584>Therefore alchemy is true and astrology is true because astronomy and chemistry evolved out of this.both of these are more likely to be true than atheistic relativism kek>You could use your same argument for judaism vs christianity that you use for protestantism. The christian world view relies on the jewish world view. It relies on jews preserving their own scripture therefore christianity is true because it contradicts the jewish world view.Yeah when you go that far back you're forced to deal with the legitimacy of revelation. The jews will say Christian revelation is false and Christians will say the jewish preeminence was revoked by God within that revelation. The difference with protestantism is that they do not claim to have had any further revelation. It's a good argument, but a different argument.
>>18355592>If Jay was really as retarded as you think he is then the rationale he would give for rejecting evolution and quantum physics would be rooted in fideism, but he rejects fideism and gives a reason for rejecting those things that is rooted in the basic assumption that empirical evidence is important.The ironic thing is that within his worldview it makes no sense to present any additional reasons for rejecting evolution and quantum physics because he already rejected them apriori.
>>18355592>rationale he would give for rejecting evolution and quantum physics would be rooted in fideism, but he rejects fideism and gives a reason for rejecting those things that is rooted in the basic assumption that empirical evidence is important.He does that. He doesn't give any coherent answer why he rejects these things except that they contradict his world view and sometimes he gives the classical stupid creationist arguments that show that he has no idea about the theory of evolution. But you have exposed yourself as not arguing in good faith and instead use pilpul like mental gymnastics to justify your world view.>both of these are more likely to be true than atheistic relativism kekThe empirical data contradicts the bible. You realize this and then tries to argue arround the empirical data to somehow justify your holy book. It's just jewish chutzpah/pilpul like mental gymnastics, that's all what the TAG argument and presup.
>>18355618>you have exposed yourself as not arguing in good faithwhat is good faith when you aren't capable of believing in objective morality?
>>18355699>he said the thingkek
>>18355407Yes, but farts are Satanic. This is why Jesus refers to Peter as Satan and says he should "get behind" him. Because he was being fart.Pope Paul VI also, during his homily for the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul in 1972, said he had "the feeling that from some fissure the smoke (fart) of Satan has entered into the temple of God".Even in Islam, Satan farts as well, to avoid hearing the call to prayer.
>>18351099The problem is that he set out to attack with the usual criticisms of Protestant PSA and trinitarian doctrine when Dyer's Orthodox view specifically rejects that in favor of Theosis and monarchy of the Father.It just shows a lack of researching his foe and a lack of general preparation.
>>18356111>Theosis and monarchy of the FatherDid Dyer defend theosis and the monarchy of the father in his debate or did he debate psa and trinitarianism?
>>18356118An audience member at the end at least made note of the fact that Theosis massively differs from PSA during the audience questions section, but Dyer didn't have the time to get into it during the debate.Dyer did manage to slip in a bit of basic trinitology, though. Not a comprehensive overview of the monarchy of the Father specifically, as far as I remember.After all, the debate was mostly about TAG and GI's "Neal-Platonism".But it's clear GI's notion of both atonement and the trinity is, or at least was, the pop Protestant doctrines, and that attacking those is somehow a gotcha on all of Christianity.It honestly wasn't too fruitful due to GI basically attacking an entirely different worldview from that of his opponent the whole time. They should re-do after GI digs into the aforementioned a bit more.
>>18351099>still debating dyer in the big 26lol
>>18356232Wait, he converted to Judaism for a while?
>>18351099Oh crap, I had no idea this had its own thread on /his/ lelI watched the debate a few days ago, and part of GI’s reaction video. I generally think that although Jay can be sophistic and arrogant at times (he didn't need to be such a douche to notsoErudite), he has a general understanding of philosophy that many other YouTube apologists don’t, which I can appreciate. That said, it surprised me that GI seemed to be holding his own better than I expected, I would’ve thought he’d fold quickly, especially after seeing Jay’s first dust up with MythVision. After seeing Derek and Neal talk, and seeing them treat Jay’s points much more charitably than Jay would ever treat theirs, they seem like pretty cool guys, even if I don’t completely agree with them. One of Jay’s big mistakes was trying to shut down GI by saying no serious academic is a Neoplatonist anymore, that’s the very tactic he criticized TJump for when he tried to say the consensus of scholars thought theism was wrong. I am also slowly finding Jay’s argument for the Trinity a bit tenuous.
>>18356232Pretty sure he said he was a neoplatonist at one point too
I also want to make sure I understand part of Jay’s reasoning, I will try to rephrase it:The core of the reason that TAG applies to Orthodox Christianity instead of other theistic faiths is the essence-energy distinction. Since Catholicism and Islam assume that the emanations of God come directly from His essence (like in Neoplatonism), they adopt a foundationalist epistemology which modern philosophers (especially Hume) successfully refuted because it could not provide proper justification. This essence-energy distinction, combined with monarchical trinitarianism, explain that God creates beings with something other than His essence (the uncreated energies), which solves the problem of the one and the many. It also explains how God can be the personal god of the Bible instead of the impersonal god of Plato. In addition, the Orthodox worldview assumes the synodal structure of the church, which prevents a corrupt pope from degrading the entire institution as a whole by top-down fiat, as well as the web of scripture, tradition, and sayings of saints and church fathers, which provides a basis for tradition that sola scriptura cannot.Am I understanding Jay’s position correctly so far? If so, what are your thoughts about it, anons?
>>18356322I think Justification is a word humans use, I think there is no such thing as a proper justification™, I don't think Jay ever makes it clear why we need this or what it enables us to do essence, emanations , essence-energy distinction, monarchical relationships between supernatural persons, grounding, basically all of these are made-up words strung togetherIt doesn't let you do anything in the real world, except be a cult leader on discord, it only solves made-up problems it's not an explanation that enables you do anything you couldn't do before it was explained to you, etc I don't understand what the purpose of any of this is
I also think presups are way too unconcerned about their lack of persuasive successTheir continual failure to explain their project in a way that makes people change their mind, should set off massive warning bells If it was a successful argument, people with the mental and verbal training to understand the argument *should* accept it, or at the very least treat is seriouslyBut presup is not treated seriously, imo It just comes off as massively dishonest to not address these blatant issues with what is supposedly being sold This is a seriously problem. But presups just joke about everyone else being retards. Or turn flat-Earth tier, everyone else is just being satanic. That's not serious. This is because the scope of presup is far too ambitious, it can never deliver on what it promises
>>18356406> Jay ever makes it clear why we need this or what it enables us to do From what I understand him saying, everyone’s worldview comes from his own presuppositions, and if you make assertions about it that you can’t justify in a debate, then your opponent has no need to justify his assertions either, and no discursive work is done. And also, if you adopt a worldview you can’t ground through justification, then it can go off the rails as you build on its faulty presuppositions
>>18356406I commend your humility in ending on a confession like that. Today, philosophy has become explicitly useful as the thing that gives AI its power. The better the philosophy, the more "conscious" the system wielding it becomes.>>18356322Sounds right to me.>the uncreated energiesnot sure how this isn't passing the buck thoughit's just more god
>>18356441Okay, so there is something I can't doThat Jay can do. That's the gist.And he's trying to make feel embarrassed or something What does it look like when Jay grounds his justifications? Has he ever done it on stream?
Does getting my justifications grounded enable me to something I couldn't when they were ungrounded? (except getting Jay to stop making fun of them) Do I get to be more confident and certain about stuff? I'm starting to feel a bit insecure about my justifications.What's the quickest way to go about getting them grounded?
jay dyer's entire argument is relativism, except orthodoxy
Dyer said once that when you argue with an atheist then you use the tag argument, when you argue with muslim then you use the islamic dilema. I don't think he really believes in the tag argument himself but use it as a way to shut up atheists (and agnostic, maybe deists/pantheists) and make himself look smart in front of his audience. Once he had a debate with someone who used the hypothetical that God exists. He said something like" I accept the premise that God exists and is necessary for logic now you habe to explain me why God has to be your God". Dyer couldn't argue with his premise instead he continued arguing against atheism despite the other debater using the premise of a theist who wasn't convinced of God being the God of christianity, the God of orthodox christianity.
>>18356500Dyer argues against people like they’re atheists when those people make atheist presuppositions and argue like atheists. Also he has put out multiple videos explaining why he argues the way he does and why orthodoxy is his preferred version of Christianity. First link related is a longer defense of TAG that digs into orthodox specific stuff. Second link is a shorter vid mostly explaining the basics.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MZErPk3_MUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJmz8nafcoQ
>>18356431>Or turn flat-Earth tier, everyone else is just being satanic. That's not serious.That's literally their theology tho. Like for instance Dyer claims fossils are faked by a global masonic conspiracy.For all their babbling about "accounting for" things, their worldview can't account for a lot of actual data in the real world without presupposing a bunch of incredibly powerful deceivers. It's a fundamentally schizo-coded apologetic.
>>18356500>Dyer said once that when you argue with an atheist then you use the tag argument, when you argue with muslim then you use the islamic dilema.That's just how presup works.
>>18356267I know for certain that he says the Orthodox church is the direct continuation of Tanakhic Judaism/2nd Temple Judaism, so in that sense he at least considers himself a Judaist.
>>18356652>Dyer claims fossils are faked by a global masonic conspiracy.That's... wild. Link?
>>18357206He says something like this in this video where he claims that fossils are just different animals randomly put together by paloentologists:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcP2izr5o08He also makes fun of Tiktaalik and calls transitional fossils chimeras and monsters. It is part of a longer video but that one is over 5 hours long. I didn't watch the longer video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxnzODx8e5YSome guy debunks his claims and yeah https://youtu.be/UByCcW4y0HY?t=1248the lungfish and the mudskipper debunk his claim that the tiktaalik is ridiculous.Also ironic what Dyer said in the video>unfalsifiable systems are weak
I still want Jay to put his money where his mouth is, and ground his justifications on stream, to show what it looks like. Does he wave his hand and say a magic spell?Does he simply need to say certain words? Think a thought?
>>18357313Thanks.
>>18357313>>18357331There are also fish who crawl like crabs. the tiktaalik isn't anymore ridiculous than what is still there and living in the modern day. I also don't sea how dinosaurs are that ridiculous how some anti-dinosaur creationists say when we have giant "fish" called whales in the seas and giant mammals like elephants, hippos and rhinos living there on land in the modern day. There are also more than human sized lizards called komodo dragons and reptiles (crocodiles) which can have a lenght up to 7 meters. Giant lizards called the dinosaurs aren't that more ridiculous and the bible has more fantasticalc creatures called the leviathan and the behemoth and a dragon.
>>18357525Magic Jews are obviously way more believable than big lizards. Only anti-semitic pagan nazi bigot chuds disagree.
>>18357313It's interesting that all his YEC is really old school, almost like he watched a lot of Duane Gish back when he was still a lil baptist.
>can’t deal with TAG>pivot to r/atheism
>>18357525Man I finally get why Juni Ito made Gyo, this shit is terrifying.
I see that Cornelius van Til, one of the fathers of presuppositional apologetics, was a Calvinist, and I know that Jay was Calvinist when he was younger, then how did he transfer its ideas from a Calvinist (I’m presuming) to an Orthodox worldview?
>>18355402>So I reject the premise, right? How is this supposed to get anywhereYes Anon that’s how it works, you just say “nuh uh I don’t like that” and then it’s wrong>these are the people who are supposed to be hyper-rational
>>18357915nta but if the premise is retarded like jay's how do you inform the person that it's retarded without sounding like you just don't want to debate them because they're retarded?
>>18358022Not him, but you can’t. You end up making yourself sound like an idiot by explaining how the necessary prerequisites of reality merely exist for no reason to a bunch of people who operate upon empiricist assumptions that demand such things exist for a reason. You can only get around the problem by not mentioning it. Rejection of TAG is a rejection of basic shit like causality. No empiricist with a brain is going to accept a handwaive explanation as to why causality exists here but doesn’t exist over there.
>>18357745I don't grant the premises. There's nothing more to say.
>>18358087How exactly does a flying Jew fix this? I'm being 100% serious, please tell me>assumptions that demand such things exist for a reason.I was not a were that I had these assumptions. But if Jay says I do, I guess it must be so
Does anyone else notice how messy TAG isEven just in this thread it's been all over the place-knowledge-justification-assumptions-presuppositions -reason stuff exist Just figure out what the argument is supposed to be. It's impossible to engage with when it's just whatever is currently sticking to the wall
>>18358087I take empiricism to be something like >there's milk in my fridge!that's an empirical claim, means we can test itlet's go to the kitchen and open the fridge... Look, there's the milkI got no idea where you get this nonsense from things existing for some reason, or no reason. Or if that's even what you're alluding to Do I need to know the reason why there is something instead of nothing, in order to know if there's milk in my fridge? No.>Rejection of TAG is a rejection of basic shit like causalityRight....So the poster in this thread >>18355402 I was talking to told me that TAG was this>If knowledge is possible, then God exists. Knowledge is possible, therefore, God exists.I don't know why the topic changed. And we're talking about causality now Seems like I was just rejecting that "God" somehow is entailed by the existence of knowledge. Which is such a fucking retarded thing to say. Of course I reject it.Turns out the argument was something else this time
God has a superpower to do anything. Means he has the superpower to ground causality.Can Atheist explain how causality is grounded? Of course not.Can the Greek Orthodox Church church explain how causality is grounded? Easily, God did it.I'm not entirely sure what it means to "ground causality", or why that's important and something we want to do. But that's besides the point.
>>18358092Why is it like that? I can understand the cosmological argument and the ontological argument.No matter how many times I read TAG it still makes no sense to me and I feel like it's trying to prove itself by obfuscation. I'm not even an atheist it just seems weird to me.
>>18358087>necessary prerequisites of reality
The more I learn about both christkeks and gaytheists, the more I realize both are just gene pool filters to get rid of neurotic overthinkers.
>>18351694Inference to the best explanation is a valid argument though.It falls apart when Dyer tries to reason to EO. He's just another ex-protestant importing Proteseant ideas like presuppositionalism. They're innately Calvinist and even Medieval ideas.
Just caught up to it: holy shit Dyer got handled like a mop.
>>18358260Religious families have several times more children than average, cope
>>18355557Perfect! Time to murder you :D
>>18351694I don't get how presuppositionalism differs from foundationalism other than that presuppositionlists collapse everything into a circle whereas foundationalists just start with a set of axioms. It seems like two sides of the same coin just different in emphasis. I guess presuppositionlists are correct to a certain degree but I would just say every belief needs to be justified up to a certain degree when no more justification can be given. As I understand your description, presuppositionalists say that whichever system of thought is the most internally consistent should be taken as the most true. But I don't see how that follows at all. It looks like a confusion between internal consistency and actual soundness. But maybe I'm just too retarded to get Jay's position or I'm articulating it wrongly.
>>18358588How is this supposed to be an argument?People murder each other all the time. We exist in a world where people murder whenever they feel like it
there is a distinction between viscious circularity (fallacious) and virtuous circularity
>>18358576Not the ones that follow the bible, no.The ones who don't obey the genitally mutilated pharisaic rabbi mohel jew who tells them to avoid breeding, sure.But those are hardly christians regardless of what they "identify as".
>>18358854What's the difference?
>>18358112What would a Greek Orthodox say to a deist who thinks there was some creator at the beginning but that everything else about Christianity is superstition
>>18359142Probably piss and shit himself about the number three for a solid five minutes
>this thread
>>18358092You are mistaken, taking everything out of context in order to pretend you don’t know what the argument is does not mean the argument is defeated, it means you’re an intellectually dishonest buffoon acting in bad faith and the appropriate response is to insult you and move on.
>>18359229Reminder that Jesus called Gentiles dogs.
>>18359229>>18359238>can't defend his position
>>18359238No, I am EVIDENTLY correct. Read the thread.
>>18359246No, he called a semitic Canaanite woman a dog. While speaking Greek(God's own language).
>>18359654>NoYes. All non-Jews are Gentiles, regardless of whether they are Semites or not. Arabs, for example, are Gentiles.>While speaking GreekMidrashes speak the language of whoever they're written to convince.
>>18359654Historically, should we expect a semitic Canaanite woman to be able to speak Greek?
>>18359678Christians are the last jews. Neo-rabbinicalists are Canaanites who must be destroyed according to the OT.
>>18359723Uh oh looks like someone didn't read Romans 11
>>18351520To answer your previous question, yes, you are indeed a moron.
>>18351694I'd agree there's nothing about TAG that points to a Christian God, but the argument absolutely BTFOs empirical atheism.
>>18360169What's the argument?
>>18359723>illiterate gibberishshut the fuck up and read your jew book
>>18360245That you're incapable of justifying your ontology and epistemology without God, basically.
>>18359723Jews themselves were Canaanites before creating the Bible and the Jewish identity.Christians are not the last Jews. Christians are explicitly commanded not to boast against the branches.The only people who must be destroyed according to the OT are Gentiles and Jews who are being too Gentile.Why won't e-crusaders just read the word of their god?
>>18360169>>18360291Okay. And what's the argument for that?>GodWhy even is this word in your vocabulary if you are not a Christian/Jew, etc? I got no idea how you're supposed to argue yourself to a guy with the superpower to do anythingOr why you think this helps with "justifying ontology", or why that is something you think is important to doCould you do it, 'Justify you Ontology', right now, just so I know what it looks like and what's meant by it?
I justify my ontology every morning on the shitter.
>I can't justify my ontology, but, if you accept the existence of an all-powerful being, you have to admit that he could probably justify my ontology on my behalf since, y'know, he's all powerful. Checkmate.
SOMEONE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, JUST JUSTIFY THEIR ONTOLOGY ALREADYDO ITJUSTIFY IT NOW GROUND IT
>>18361004P1: Based things are grounded.P2: My ontology is based.C: My ontology is grounded.Thank you for your attention.
>>18361009Based. I'm with this guy.I also don't know what ontology means, nor do I care.
Ontology is about as useful to humans as ornithology is to birds.
>>18359246The word used is kynaria, meaning little dogs or household dogs (pets), not wild scavenger dogs.In Jewish culture at the time, “dogs” could be a derogatory term for Gentiles but Jesus uses the diminutive form, softening it.It’s part of a test or teaching moment. "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”Jesus then praises her faith and heals her daughter.He ends by commending her:“O woman, great is your faith!” (Matthew 15:28)"Dogs" have greater faith in God than jews?
Presup is the weakest approach to converting the unbelieving. Its merely a defensive maneuver.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L64MxbUl3o
>>18361275>but Jesus uses the diminutive form, softening itThat's very Christlike of him.
>>18361275>even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their mastersSo to be a good crosstranny to have to self degrade to your jewish masters like a lapdog? Sounds like a degrading self hating ritual
>>18361275>well ok yes but actually he called us lapdogs not wild dogs>this is somehow betterthanks for the chuckle, jew pet
Let’s keep this thread going, woot woot
>>18351099Dyer is a retard and the video was embarrassing to watch.And why do Christians argue just like their Jew massas? But always infinitely more retarded without any of the elegant hebraicisms and filled with clumsy gentile imitations of pilpul instead.
Still waiting for Jay to ground his justifications on camera
>>18360946>I can't justify my epistemology, but you should accept my world view that I have no way of accounting for because my brain interprets sense dataVery good. Excellent.
>>18360841If I say I derive both my ontology and epistemology from the Logos which is granted to us by God, and then you say>yeah, but God doesn't exist because he can't be (empirically) provenThis is the crux of the issue. A worldview that is entirely formed around empiricism and sense data as a way to determine what exists collapses in on itself. It's incoherent at a foundational level.I could say, for example, I ground my ontology and epistemology in a flying spaghetti monster that created the universe, and that would still be more coherent, although not necessarily true.The main point, in regards to TAG, isn't necessarily that any organized religion has it right, but that empirical atheism is just flat out wrong. The non-existence of God is an impossibility for transcendentals to exist. If you're a redditor and take issue with the term "God" substitute it with "unmoved mover", or whatever else you prefer, but I just don't understand how anyone remains an atheist after hearing TAG.
>>18362068>If you're a redditor and take issue with the term "God" substitute it with "unmoved mover", or whatever else you prefer, but I just don't understand how anyone remains an atheist after hearing TAG.This is what confuses me. If this whole discussion doesn't lead to any organized religion, what is the point of the conversation? There's no real effects or ramfiications. If a reddit atheist decides there was an unmoved mover at the beginning, it really doesn't change anything at all unless you can somehow convince them that unmoved mover is the God of Abraham, which is unlikely. It's ultimately sophistry, what is the point of these convos?I believe the arguments for an unmoved mover at the beginning of time and creation makes sense, but I'd still call myself an atheist because an creator being existing really has no impact or relevance at all on my life or the lives of others unless it is the God of Abraham
>>18362078>Switching your stance from a false belief to the true one doesn't matterReally don't know what to tell you brother.
>>18362079If the true belief has virtually zero impact on anything at all, yeah. It's like if you told me there are bacteria living on Venus. Ok. Why have all these hyped up YouTube debates over it, who cares?
>>18362083>You're right, but I don't find any utilitarian value from the truth, so like, it doesn't matter bro. I don't think I can say anything else to this other than I accept your concession.
>>18362084>utilitarian value from the truthThe thing is that people act as- if proving some generic creator being exists proves Christianity is true when it doesn't. That's why you have Christian content creators making these debates/videos. They think it has utilitarian value too but it doesn'tThe issue is people are blowing up this issue as if its some super existential topic when it has no effect on anything at all other than its ability to show off who is a better sophist and has better debate tactics
>>18362084>>it doesn't matter broWhy does it matter?
>>18362089Yeah but the TAG view still has more utilitarian value than the empirical view because the empirical view can't even justify utilitarianism.Even by the mere act of engaging in debate you're presupposing a whole lot of things that you can't justify if you reject TAG.>>18362092Because you wouldn't be able to ask that question otherwise.
>>18362068>A worldview that is entirely formed around empiricism and sense data as a way to determine what exists collapses in on itself. It's incoherent at a foundational level.Why?
>>18362099Because I don't see how you avoid extreme solipsism if the only things that are real are proven by how your brain interprets sense data.
>>18362093The TAG is an argument. To agree to the argument you need to use reasoning. Nobody was born out of the womb believing the TAG. That you need reasoning to agree to it in the first place implies reason exists without it. Before you believed god was necessary for reasoning, you used your reason to accept thatLmk if that makes sense. Part of why I hate this discussion is because its so abstract and intangible. If people want to prove God they should look at miracle cases and the historicity of x religion, not transcendental philosophy that your average person would turn their ears off too
>>18362068Transcendentals don't exist, lil bro.
>>18362107That's right, you need reasoning. Which those who reject TAG can't account for.Again, if you reject TAG you're putting yourself in the solipsism box. How do you know that reality is real, that reason and logic are valid?Only because they seem to work in the reality you're perceiving. But how DO you know that reality is real? Maybe you're actually in a coma and what you perceive as reality is a feverish dream, and the actual reality isn't dependent on anything you're presupposing.That's the problem with not being able to know whether anything exists outside your mind.Those who hold TAG don't have any of these issues. Reason was given to us by God, reality is real because He created it. From here you can ask what God is, but on the whole, it's way more coherent than the alternative.
>>18362112>Maybe you're actually in a coma and what you perceive as reality is a feverish dream, and the actual reality isn't dependent on anything you're presupposingHow does this not apply to your worldview?
>>18362112>How do you know that reality is real, that reason and logic are valid?Nta but you don't.
>>18362102How does your view solve solipsism?No waffling. Solve solipsism right now.
>>18362112>How do you know that reality is real, that reason and logic are validEven animals are able to come to conclusions based on senses and experiences. They don't need to believe in god to have understandings of things. Millions upon millions of pagans lived without monotheism for thousands of years and I doubt they were all senseless automatons
>>18362112>Which those who reject TAG can't account for.Wow, that's sounds super bad.Show us how much better you are. Account for reasoning. Right now.
>>18362120>>18362121>>18362124We are debating worldviews here. My worldview wins automatically because it can justify for things like logic, where as, your solipsistic cannot. You have to presuppose and justify logic to argue anything. If you accept solipsism, you can't argue for anything.
>>18362128>it can justify for things like logicThen fucking do it. (I don't think you can)"Justify logic" right here, in this thread, show us what justifying logic looks like
Gnostic Informant is based, no surprise he mogged this christcuck
>>18362128More waffling... Did not solve solipsism. TAG cannot do any of the things you said it can do.
>>18362128>You have to presuppose and justify logic to argue anythingYeah. You had to presuppose logic to argue for the TAG. We all do this, believing in god does not change this
>>18362126>>18362132TAG justifies logic, reasoning etc. my demolishing the opposite claim.Within TAG, it's conceivable that all the things we're presupposing exist.Within the opposite worldview it isn't.>>18362137If you're arguing for solipsism, that means I have no way of knowing whether you're real or a figment of my imagination.At that point I can just say I'm right, and assuming the worldview is correct, I would be.
>>18362138Yeah, but you can't justify the existence of logic. >>18362141*by
>>18362068>21. The CAUSA SUI is the best self-contradiction that has yet been conceived, it is a sort of logical violation and unnaturalness; but the extravagant pride of man has managed to entangle itself profoundly and frightfully with this very folly. The desire for "freedom of will" in the superlative, metaphysical sense, such as still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated, the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one's actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society therefrom, involves nothing less than to be precisely this CAUSA SUI, and, with more than Munchausen daring, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the slough of nothingness. If any one should find out in this manner the crass stupidity of the celebrated conception of "free will" and put it out of his head altogether, I beg of him to carry his "enlightenment" a step further, and also put out of his head the contrary of this monstrous conception of "free will": I mean "non-free will," which is tantamount to a misuse of cause and effect. One should not wrongly MATERIALISE "cause" and "effect," as the natural philosophers do (and whoever like them naturalize in thinking at present), according to the prevailing mechanical doltishness which makes the cause press and push until it "effects" its end; one should use "cause" and "effect" only as pure CONCEPTIONS, that is to say, as conventional fictions for the purpose of designation and mutual understanding,—NOT for explanation. In "being-in-itself" there is nothing of "casual-connection," of "necessity," or of "psychological non-freedom"; there the effect does NOT follow the cause, there "law" does not obtain.
Is proving that you're not a brain in a vat something an "atheist empiricist worldview" (whatever that's supposed to mean)claims to be able to do? Is this within the scope of empiricism? NoThen how is this at all is this "self-defeating"?Fucking shadowboxing retards from the same guys who are so prickly about being misrepresented But most importantly can the guys who are so worried about solipsism solve the problem of solipsism? Of course not! TAG-enjoyers are just breathing hot farts
>>18362068>>18362144>It is WE alone who have devised cause, sequence, reciprocity, relativity, constraint, number, law, freedom, motive, and purpose; and when we interpret and intermix this symbol-world, as "being-in-itself," with things, we act once more as we have always acted—MYTHOLOGICALLY. The "non-free will" is mythology; in real life it is only a question of STRONG and WEAK wills.—It is almost always a symptom of what is lacking in himself, when a thinker, in every "causal-connection" and "psychological necessity," manifests something of compulsion, indigence, obsequiousness, oppression, and non-freedom; it is suspicious to have such feelings—the person betrays himself. And in general, if I have observed correctly, the "non-freedom of the will" is regarded as a problem from two entirely opposite standpoints, but always in a profoundly PERSONAL manner: some will not give up their "responsibility," their belief in THEMSELVES, the personal right to THEIR merits, at any price (the vain races belong to this class); others on the contrary, do not wish to be answerable for anything, or blamed for anything, and owing to an inward self-contempt, seek to GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS, no matter how. The latter, when they write books, are in the habit at present of taking the side of criminals; a sort of socialistic sympathy is their favourite disguise. And as a matter of fact, the fatalism of the weak-willed embellishes itself surprisingly when it can pose as "la religion de la souffrance humaine"; that is ITS "good taste."
>>18362142>Yeah, but you can't justify the existence of logicEven if I were to justify the existence of logic, I would be using logic to formulate that justification. I was the anon who said this whole TAG debate is pointless earlier and this is why. Both sides are circular, the debate leads to nothing
>>18362141SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF SOLIPSISM RIGHT NOWDO IT
>>18362145>God isn't real because He can't be empirically proven>But the material reality is, even though I can't prove it, because I say it islmao bro>>18362150Okay. I'll assume solipsism is true. My brain disagrees with the idea because of TAG. Therefor it's false.
>>18362141>TAG justifies logic, reasoningDo you have comprehension issues?I'm not asking you about what TAG supposedly does.I'm asking you to DO it. Use TAG, "justify reasoning". Right now. Do the thing you say atheists cannot do.
>>18362154God gave us reason.
Just came up with the IAR (I am right argument). God told me I'm right about everything. If you disagree you're retarded and your brain is dysfunctional, you're no different than a rock
>>18362153retard
>>18362068>5 —Against this let us set the different manner in which we (—you observe that I am courteous enough to say “we”) conceive the problem of the error and deceptiveness of things. Formerly people regarded change and evolution in general as the proof of appearance, as a sign of the fact that something must be there that leads us astray. To-day, on the other hand, we realise that precisely as far as the rational bias forces us to postulate unity, identity, permanence, substance, cause, materiality and being, we are in a measure involved in error, driven necessarily to error; however certain we may feel, as the result of a strict examination of the matter, that the error lies here. It is just the same here as with the motion of the sun: In its case it was our eyes that were wrong; in the matter of the concepts above mentioned it is our language itself that pleads most constantly in their favour. In its origin language belongs to an age of the most rudimentary forms of psychology: if we try to conceive of the first conditions of the metaphysics of language, i.e. in plain English, of reason, we immediately find ourselves in the midst of a system of fetichism. For here, the doer and his deed are seen in all circumstances, will is believed in as a cause in general; the ego is taken for granted, the ego as Being, and as substance, and the faith in the ego as substance is projected into all things—in this way, alone, the concept “thing” is created. Being is thought into and insinuated into everything as cause; from the concept “ego,” alone, can the concept “Being” proceed.
>>18362156The funny thing is that the argument you're using in a mocking fashion is correct, you're just too stupid to get it.>>18362157Stop seething bro.
>>18362068>>18362158>At the beginning stands the tremendously fatal error of supposing the will to be something that actuates,—a faculty. Now we know that it is only a word. Very much later, in a world a thousand times more enlightened, the assurance, the subjective certitude, in the handling of the categories of reason came into the minds of philosophers as a surprise. They concluded that these categories could not be derived from experience,—on the contrary, the whole of experience rather contradicts them. Whence do they come therefore? In India, as in Greece, the same mistake was made: “we must already once have lived in a higher world (—instead of in a much lower one, which would have been the truth!), we must have been divine, for we possess reason!” ... Nothing indeed has exercised a more simple power of persuasion hitherto than the error of Being, as it was formulated by the Eleatics for instance: in its favour are every word and every sentence that we utter!—Even the opponents of the Eleatics succumbed to the seductive powers of their concept of Being. Among others there was Democritus in his discovery of the atom. “Reason” in language!—oh what a deceptive old witch it has been! I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar.
>>18362153>My brain disagrees with the idea because of TAG. Therefor it's false.This is exactly what a retarded brain in a jar would say.
>>18362160What's the point of engaging in this discussion if you're just gonna break character and be unserious when pressed on points this is just clowning
>>18362160>The funny thing is that the argument you're using in a mocking fashion is correct, you're just too stupid to get it.If it's correct you're retarded so why should I listen to you
>>18362163TAG Chads just keep on winning.>>18362166I keep giving you arguments, it's not my fault you're unable to argue against them.
>>18362167Because you can't justify your epistemology.
>>18362068>ansiency, and of change, they do not lie. But in declaring that Being was an empty illusion, Heraclitus will remain eternally right. The “apparent” world is the only world: the “true world” is no more than a false adjunct thereto.[Pg 19]3And what delicate instruments of observation we have in our senses! This human nose, for instance, of which no philosopher has yet spoken with reverence and gratitude, is, for the present, the most finely adjusted instrument at our disposal: it is able to register even such slight changes of movement as the spectroscope would be unable to record. Our scientific triumphs at the present day extend precisely so far as we have accepted the evidence of our senses,—as we have sharpened and armed them, and learned to follow them up to the end. What remains is abortive and not yet science—that is to say, metaphysics, theology, psychology, epistemology, or formal science, or a doctrine of symbols, like logic and its applied form mathematics. In all these things reality does not come into consideration at all, even as a problem; just as little as does the question concerning the general value of such a convention of symbols as logic.
>>18362171God told me your epistemology is retarded. Any other arguments?
>>18362173>God exists.Good boy. Say it again so the entire class can hear.
>>18362168You are not being serious
>>18362174God asked me to ask you what your particular religion is
>>18362175You still haven't made an argument lil' fella.>>18362176I ain't gotta tell you shit nigga.
>>18362177>I ain't gotta tell you shit nigga.God told me whatever your religion is, it's not the correct one
>>18362179You aren't making fun of me, or the argument, you're just proving how low IQ you are. By all means, continue to do so, I'm entertained.
>>18358112Why couldn't causality be just so?
>>18362180Genuinely if someone of another religion claimed by divine revelation that yours was wrong, how do you refute that?
>>18362182SPECIAL NUMBER 3
>>18362183What does that mean yn
>>18362180Corinthians 1:27"God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise;"
>>18362177honk honk
>>18362182At least bother to read the posts if you're going to chime in, I was never arguing for any single religion, only that TAG is true.Since someone who followed a different religion than me would ground their epistemology on the existence of God, they wouldn't make that argument.The argument is that the existence of transcendentals necessitates the existence of God, otherwise they can't be justified.
>>18362187But if someone claims through the same transcendental origin that your entire religious worldview is incorrect, how do you respond to that
>>18362171If you are asking for someone to "justify their epistemology"What exactly are you asking? Can you please give an example of what it would look like
>>18362187I worship rocks, can I ground my epistemology in a rock? If not, why not?
>>18362187Transcendentals are fake and gay, bucko.
>>18362190Do you know what the word transcendentals means?>>18362191Justifying epistemology is basically asking the question "how do you determine what is true and false, how do you know what you know?"I justify my epistemology through the logos which is given to us by God.>>18362193There are arguments for knowing the nature of God, but you niggas are already incessantly pestering me about TAG, so I won't get into that right now.As far as I'm concerned, to the extent of this discussion, go bonkers with the rock anon.
>>18362197Ok the same god you believe in told a prophet that nearly all your beliefs are wrong, what is your process for proving them wrong
>>18362197>transcendentalsReminder that Aquinas literally pulled that out of his ass.
>>18362198That literally doesn't argue against TAG in any way.I'll modify the argument you're trying to make in regards to TAG:>What would you say if a member of a different religion told you that logic and math don't exist, and that epistemology and ontology don't need God to be justifiedI'd say they were wrong.
Is it possible for God to be deceiving you? (for morally sufficient reasons)If no, why not?If yes, TAG in big troubles.
>>18362207>If yes, TAG in big troubles.Well no, because you're still affirming the existence of God.
>>18362206>That literally doesn't argue against TAG in any way.That's not what I'm trying to do at this moment but if we keep going down the line it will
>>18358087kek, there's an entire debate between Matt Dillahunty and Jay Dyer where Matt skirts around the issue by saying>I don't know>I'm not entirely convinced for 2 hours and 45 minutes.
>>18362206>logic and math don't existThey don't. Come back to the real world, anon. Come back to the world of senses. TAG is linguistic solipsism, mere mental masturbation. It's not God informing you of this discussion; it's your eyes.
>>18362210It is entirely possible for a God to exist. Yet TAG to be nonsense.
>>18362206If a member of another religion cited god's own direct divine revelation to prove almost every one of your beliefs were wrong, you could no longer appeal to god as your opponent is appealing to god too and this will get you nowhere. You would have to appeal to reason itself.
>>18362221They'd have to argue that they're grounding their epistemology on something other than God, whether that God is different from my God doesn't matter. In fact, I'm pretty sure they'd be arguing against their own revelation at that point.And if they did that they'd be in the same boat as empiricists. Your line of reasoning has nothing to do with TAG, read up on what TAG is then come back to us brother.>>18362219I don't see how. Are you arguing that logic exists cause God wants to trick us?
list of things than can justify epistemology>YHWH>a rock>God>any god >logos Any more? Still unclear on how "logos justifies epistemology", it's all very hand wavy I would like some more detail on what exactly the relationship between your epistemology and the logos is, and what the justification action looks like
Notice how the TAG proponent only replies to posts that accept his unjustified theory of transcendentals.
>>18362226>They'd have to argue that they're grounding their epistemology on something other than GodNo they wouldn't. If god directly told them your position on x is wrong, how is that built on anything other than god? It's built on nothing but god>Your line of reasoning has nothing to do with TAG, read up on what TAG is then come back to us brotherMy point is that you cannot appeal to god for logic when someone appeals to god to disprove you. At some point you need to move to something else, in this way we are all empiricists
>>18362229This is because TAG isn't an argument. It's a doctrine.And buddy here has been indoctrinated.
>>18362229Yeah, I'm sneaky like that.>>18362228I've already said it, several times. A TAG enjoyer doesn't reject empiricism in regards to the material. When I want coffee I go put the pot with the water on the oven until it boils.The distinction here is that empiricism, and reason itself, is grounded in God.Atheists have nothing to ground it on, so they can't justify it.>>18362232>Transcendentals exist>Their existence necessitates the existence of God>God comes out and says TAG is wrong>God still existsThe ultimate aim of TAG is to say that God exists, so, I don't know how you think this disproves it.>My point is that you cannot appeal to god for logic when someone appeals to god to disprove you. At some point you need to move to something else, in this way we are all empiricistsAtheists do a lot of appealing to God, do they? TAG is entirely an argument against atheism.
>>18362237It's insane to me how you're still incapable of coming up with an argument against it. Like not even proving it wrong, just coming up with something, ANYTHING, that has any amount of argumentative substances against it.If anything, I'd say you're the one who's indoctrinated, since you can't argue against something but still believe it's not true, for whatever reason.
>>18362238>The ultimate aim of TAG is to say that God exists, so, I don't know how you think this disproves itAnd the only real conclusion you can draw from this is that god gives us reason. In this way you're not much different from atheist empiricists who just presuppose it
>>18362238My coffee is pre-ground in God
>>18362240>In this way you're not much different from atheist empiricists who just presuppose it>God exists>God doesn't exist>Yeah it's basically the sameInsane work brother. I never said that TAG leads to nowhere, I just said that I'm not willing to argue that point cause you fuckers are annoying. We can infer things about God through TAG.
>>18362238>Atheists do a lot of appealing to God, do they? TAG is entirely an argument against atheism.The point of the hypothetical is not that atheists use it but that even if everyone is a theist, we must still rely on empiricism primarily before appeals to god
>>18362238>empiricism, and reason itself, is grounded in God.What does that even mean? How exactly does God ground empiricism, how does he do that, what does he do?Why should I be concerned about being able to ground stuff that isn't my PC cabinet?
>>18362244>Yeah it's basically the sameIt basically is the same. I think we can come to conclusions. You think we can come to conclusions, but with the extra step of because god gave us reason. This is ultimately the same but you decorate it in theology. TAG proponents are sophists, this entire debate leads to nowhere and exists only for the sake of dunking on r/atheist mods on YouTube debate shows
>>18362239Ooh, now you reply. Struck a nerve?>argumentative substancesBut TAG literally couldn't be more insubstantial, what's there to argue against when you're positing the philosophical equivalent of smoke and mirrors?
>>18362243Based. I knew there was a reason it tasted better since I became a theist.>>18362245That's simply not true. You're relying on logic before you rely on empiricism, and quite a lot of it too.>>18362246>What does it matter if logic makes sense? >I can just say a cat is a dog>Who cares?>I don't have to justify anything.That isn't how this works. Holy shit, TAG really did a number on atheists man.>>18362249Explain to me how this is an argument. What the fuck am I even supposed to write in response to this gibberish? Tell me how it's smoke and mirrors, midwit.
>>18362250>I can just say a cat is a dogMost theists in the west believe in god and think bread is actually the flesh of a man from antiquity
>>18362250>Explain to me how this is an argument. What the fuck am I even supposed to write in response to this gibberish? Tell me how it's smoke and mirrors, midwit.Kek, getting angry now? Try justifying your transcendentals first and maybe you'll have something to write in response.
>>18362250>>I can just say a cat is a dogevidently Is God supposed to prevent you from saying stuff like that?
>>18362250>You're relying on logic before you rely on empiricism, and quite a lot of it too.EXTACTLY! And you relied on logic to get to the TAG, to get to theism. You need to trust your own senses and thinking capabilities before you can come to any conclusions, including all those you hold
>>18362252That's not an argument against TAG, I'm sorry to say.>>18362253>I don't have an argumentOkay, I accept your concession bud.>>18362254No, logic is.>>18362255>Logic is a product of the brainMy brain says a cat is a dog. Argue against this.
TAG niggas all be gangsta til they born blind and deaf and God somehow can't give em no Logos n shiet
>>18362256>My brain says a cat is a dogThe terms cat and dog refer to different animals and these differences are grounded in biology. If you apply the biological traits of a cat to a dog you're mixing the two up
>>18362256>My brain says a cat is a dog.Logic and God not real. Too bad, so sad.
>>18362256>Okay, I accept your concession bud.Simply justify transcendentals, anon. I'm not going to argue against something if you can't even find an argument for its existence.
>>18362258>TAG niggas all be gangsta til they born blind and deaf and God somehow can't give em no Logos n shietHoly truth nuke lmao
>>18362258>Logic is dependent on the sensesOh my God... are you guys just trolling me?Listen here anons, I thought we were engaging with each other in good faith and with sincerity.Really, profoundly uncool guys.
>>18362264How would you even know logic without someone telling you about it through spoken word or text? You wouldn't do anything.
>>18362264>Logic is dependent on the sensesIs a literal braindead retard capable of logic, like someone who is medically braindead
>>18362197>I justify my epistemology through the logos which is given to us by God.So, like, you just say the sentence out loud? Or is a theory with zero detail I genuinely have no clue what you think is supposed to be going on here
retards think logic is "a thing" because we use a noun when we say the word in English language
>>18362274TAG in a nutshell yeah
>>18362259You're still not getting it. If the human mind is the only arbiter, you can't say that I'm wrong cause my brain interprets things differently. That's the entire point, for this to work an external factor is necessary.>>18362262You're literally presupposing logic, a transcendental, by engaging with me. The fuck do you want me to do? Prove the existence of a thing you're already presupposing?>>18362267>I'm incapable of thoughtThanks for lettings us know anon. I wouldn't brag about being an NPC, but hey, you do you.>>18362270>Sense data is the same thing as a functioning brainA mind is necessary for logic, yes. Are you saying blind people's minds don't work?Oh and, btw, for logic to exist, God's mind has to exist first, before anything else :P>>18362274>logic isn't a "thing"Btw guys, I'm doing a good bit of lmaoing at all of you. This is fucking unreal.
The pendulum has swung and now theists are acting like r/atheists of old.>We are truly rational, unlike everyone stuck in the dark age of the Enlightenment
>>18362282>You've merely adopted rationality. I was born in it, molded by it.It is funny how theists ended up being the rationalists, while atheists are now questioning the existence of logic.I love this timeline.
>>18362280>Are you saying blind people's minds don't workBlind people have other senses. If they lost all their senses though, yeah I'd say their minds don't work>God's mind has to exist firstAnd your mind had to exist before you first thought that. You presuppose reason to presuppose god to presuppose reason. Why not just presuppose reason?
>>18362286>It is funny how theists ended up being the rationalistsYeah and those old r/atheist rationalists were ridiculed rightfully so because they genuinely thought they had a full grasp on the world. It's possible to take some humility and admit you don't know how the universe was created without conceding that you're a braindead retarded automaton animal
if you are this worried about logicwhat would you say to an atheist that presupposed logic to be a feature of reality?why is that not a legitimate move to make the concern go away?
>>18362280>You're literally presupposing logic, a transcendental, by engaging with me. The fuck do you want me to do? Prove the existence of a thing you're already presupposing?Haha look it's the presup smuggling. When I reply to you I'm not presupposing logic is some ultimate "property of being" aka a "transcendental". No, my brain is reacting to patterns and trends that have been imprinted on it. Our logic is a linguistic convention acquired through perception, that's all there is to it. Everything else is semantic hocus pocus.
>>18362289You can be deaf, blind, mute, be incapable of touch sense, and still realize that logic exists.>And your mind had to exist before you first thought that. You presuppose reason to presuppose god to presuppose reason. Why not just presuppose reason?We've been over this. If you presuppose that reason is solely a product of your mind you can't avoid solipsism. At which point you can't justify the existence of anything other than your own mind.>>18362293I don't know how the universe was created, or the mind of God, but I do know that He has to exist for transcendentals to exist.>>18362297My brain says a cat is a dog. Is that logical?
I will now engage in TAG related psychological terrorism.Watch the following video, if you dare, pussies.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XcfUpr0Lag
>>18362299>At which point you can't justify the existence of anything other than your own mindYou came to believe in god and TAG through the processes of your own mind, how are you different>You can be deaf, blind, mute, be incapable of touch sense, and still realize that logic existsOnly if you had some of those senses before they were taken away. If you were born with no senses at all, no, your are incapable of logic
>>18362303The human mind is necessary to have epistemology. But God's mind is a prerequisite for the human mind to exist, otherwise solipsism. AN EXTERNAL FACTOR IS NECESARY
>>18362299>My brain says a cat is a dog. Is that logical?What cat? Is it a cat you're seeing right now or a "cat" you're imagining? Because the law of identity doesn't matter if it's a real cat. Your eyes could be deceiving you. Or the cat might've been bioengineered to possess dog DNA.
>>18362280>>logic isn't a "thing"Correct. It's a man. And his name is JESUS CHRIST
>>18362304Would the materials and broader material world that constitute the mind count as an external factor? Genuine question I'm not a philosophy student or anything
>>18362307Based. Preach brotha!>>18362305All of this applies to the atheist worldview, except, it applies even more so than if you adopt TAG. My brain might interpret sense data wrong, but it can't interpret a = b, b = c therefor a = c incorrectly. An atheist might agree, but then if I assumed his worldview, I can say my brain doesn't accept that a = c, and he couldn't argue against it. Since our brains are the only arbiters, right?>>18362309No. You need an external factor above the material.It's been fun guys, I mean that. I hope you accept the correct position eventually. I'm off to do herb runs.
>>18362314>No. You need an external factor above the materiaGuess this won't get answered if you head off, but how does an external cause at the beginning of creation demonstrate that there is an objective truth that exists outside of our own minds
This is so silly.Nobody is saying that Christians have some kind of superpower and can do things, like logic, that Atheists cannot. We live in the same world and can do the same things in respect to language and logic. This is not the disagreement. What is being claimed is that Atheists cannot give an explanation for things like logic, epistemology and knowledge, that is consistent with their worldview. While Christians can give a consistent explanation: "God did it".
>>18362317>God did itElaborate, what did God do
>>18362314>I can say my brain doesn't accept that a = c, and he couldn't argue against it.How does a Christian argue against this?
>>18362314>My brain might interpret sense data wrong, but it can't interpret a = b, b = c therefor a = c incorrectly.That's just language, which you still acquired through senses. Its prerequisite isn't God it's your brain having been introduced to the symbols "a" and "b" and "c" and "=" by physical means, any operation involving them is derived from and subject to sensory inputs. It's completely dependent on and quite literally cannot happen without the senses.
>>18362240>In this way you're not much different from atheist empiricists who just presuppose itYes. That’s the thrust of the argument. TAG points out that empiricist atheists are being inconsistent and arbitrary with respect to the empiricist worldview.
Are we entirely sure logic has to be grounded in order for reality to be the way it is?
>>18362326>That's just language, which you still acquired through sensesThe existence of the underlying precepts that allow for language to exist as humans understand it—some of those being identity, causality, meaning, spatiotemporality, differentiation, non-contradiction, etc.—cannot be explained by anything acquired through the senses. That’s the point of TAG. All of the metaphysics taken for granted so as to allow for empiricism to function within the natural world are incapable of being explained by empiricism, and that is a violation of the dogmatic empiricist worldview.
This individual doesn't even know Wittgenstein btfo'd solipsism without appealing to a Moabite smelter demon. TAG users are not serious people.
>>18362381>citing Wittgenstein>Serious personLMAOThat's a good one anon.
>>18362385>has never read Wittgenstein >dismisses his entire philosophical project based on 4chan shitpostsTypical TAG user, immediately demonstrating my claim to be correct.
>>18362396I'm actually familiar with Wittgenstein, whilst he did argue against solipsism, he still simply grants himself a whole bunch of stuff without ever justifying it, like the empiricists.For the purposes of TAG, Wittgenstein doesn't refute anything, plus he's a filthy Jewish retard.
>>18362351Good thing we don't take any of that for granted then, because newsflash: "=" doesn't exist in the natural world, so we don't need an "underlying precept" to justify and apply the law of identity. What we call principles of logic are a convenient formalization of evolutionary tools that help us navigate in the world, but we confuse cause and effect when we attribute the source of obtained knowledge, which is sensory input, to something that is merely symbolic, such as "=" or "God", and has no corresponding object or phenomenon in nature, being but mental byproducts of those sensory inputs. The theory of "transcendentals" is therefore a pointless attempt at materializing these byproducts and positing them as the causes themselves. Your cat can never be a dog not because that'd contradict the law of identity, but because "equality" doesn't exist and one thing is never equal to another. You know a cat is a cat because you perceive it shares certain traits with other cats that you've seen before. Without having ever seen a cat no amount of metaphysical assumptions would inform you of what a cat is, because the cat you imagine is ultimately but a visual impression replicating itself in your brain.
>>18362396He's underage, give him a few years and he'll grow out of the orthobro phase.
>>18362408>zero arguments
>>18362401>For the purposes of TAG, Wittgenstein doesn't refute anythingThat's only because the purpose of TAG is non-serious posturing.
>>18362409>tranime gifYou didn't have to confirm it lol
>>18362412>Still can't come up with an argumentlollmao even>>18362410Uh-huh, and yet, you can't refute it, dumb-dumb.
>>18362405The goal of a TAGgot is to convince an atheist to1) assert objectivity with zero justification2) spiral into nihilistic subjectivity3) search for a different worldviewIt’s verbal MAD with a third option. Choosing MAD is not the winning play for anyone who isn’t insane.
>>18362413Here's my argument: Global rule 2.
>>18362416You are, yet again, granting yourself shit without justifying it.I know you're buttmad cause you're an indoctrinated retard, that's okay. But you are an incredibly stupid piece of shit. Accept it, and move on.
>>18362413>Uh-huh, and yet, you can't refute it, dumb-dumb.More non-serious posturing. I'd be willing to make a long effort post on all the reasons I think TAG fails (and even specifically your formulation), but you keep doing this code-switching thing between seemingly serious mode and shitpost mode that makes it a complete waste of time. Like imagine I spend 20 minutes putting together a well structured post, making sure I address all that needs to be addressed, preempt objections etc. and then you throw me a glib one liner. Not interested in that.
>>18362414They're just kids who got played by an eloquent online grifter. You gotta drag them screaming back to their senses.>>18362418>indoctrinatedOof, this >>18362237 really hit too close to home, didn't it?I'm glad to see you're now aware that you've been indoctrinated, it's the first step toward unbrainwashing yourself.
>>18362419>I could give you my arguments>But I won'tI already said I accept your concession, there's no need to restate it.>>18362420>Holds a position he can't justify>Can't argue against the opposite position>Still thinks he's right, somehowRemember anon, every accusation is a projection, when it comes from dumb fucks like you.
>>18362423>more non-serious posturingYou're just using this as a defense mechanism that tells people not to seriously engage with you. If you were a serious person, you'd be capable of having a normal conversation (and then I'd debate your TAG).
>>18362425
>>18362427I'd actually really like to debate your TAG, but I'm not going to do it if you're not going to be serious about it.
>>18362430You're simply solidifying my position with every post. Thank you.
It's a shame blue nigger boards removed pbid, I want to gaze at my autism and be amazed.Easily 50+.
>>18362431I'm still waiting for you to get serious. That's the only condition that needs to be fulfilled for me to debate your TAG. And I mean that seriously.If you drop the posturing and give me your formulation of TAG, I can tell you which premises I disagree with and we can go from there.
>>18362435The removal of God from one's worldview removes the ability to justify ontology and epistemology which automatically leads to not only incoherence, but a worldview that collapses in on itself.
>>18362316Because if our own minds are the only arbiters of what is real, then there's no objective standard for reality.I can see colors, a colorblind person cannot. Are colors real? To me they are, to the colorblind they don't exist.
>>18362437Ok, fine. But keep in mind that I'll disengage the moment you drop the serious hat and put on the posturing hat.What you posted isn't really an argument, but I'll put it in the form of one. You can let me know if it's more or less what you have in mind or if I messed up somewhere.>P1: Any worldview without God cannot justify ontology and epistemology.>P2: Any worldview that can't justify ontology and epistemology is incoherent and collapses in on itself.>C: Any worldview without god is incoherent and collapses in on itself.Something like that? I think I disagree with both premises, but at this point I'm not yet completely sure what you mean by "justify" there. Are you talking about telling some sort of story involving a causal chain that ends with me being able to know things?
>>18362444Yeah, something like that. When I say justify I mean where do you derive it from, because you simply cannot exclusively base your ontology and epistemology on sense data and your own mind.
>>18362447Sorry, I'm still not clear on this. Are you asking for a story explaining why I can reason?
>>18362448How do you know what you know, nigger?I literally can't make it any clearer than that.
>>18362449There's going to be some sort of causal story involving my brain. If I had the power of Laplace's demon, I suppose I could run the clock back and get the full picture in the best possible resolution.Is that different on your worldview?
>>18362401>a filthy Jewish retardBut enough about Rabbi Yeshua.
>>18362456>Didn't answer the questionI know you can't argue against TAG nigga, it's okay.
>>18362457He didn't seem to be particularly filthy though.
>>18362458I told you there's going to be some causal story involving the brain. So is that different on your worldview?By the way, I don't know why you're getting bent out of shape over this. I'm just asking some preliminary questions to make sure I understand your formulation of the argument correctly. We've not even reached the discussion proper yet.
>>18362459
>>18362462Eww what the fuck Jesus.
>>18362461You derive your epistemology from a causal story involving the brain?Great, I derive God from a causal story involving my brain.What now?
>>18362465The Pharisees were the good guys all along.
>>18362473I mean I knew they were poor but that's fucking disgusting.
>>18362468You implied that "how do you derive your epistemology" is interchangeable with "how do you know what you know". If we were to similarly reformulate what you said now, it would be something like: "How do you know God? - There's some causal story involving my brain."That seems like the right approach to me, I don't see the issue. With that in mind, can we agree that P1 here >>18362444 is incorrect?
>>18362480Did you just agree to the existence of God?
>>18362484No. I agreed that as far as the mechanics involved in knowing God are concerned, there would be some causal story involving the brain. I don't think you actually know God, but the general approach seems fine.So are we done with P1?
>>18362488So, if I say God exists because of a casual story involving the brain, and you says He doesn't because of a casual story involving the brain, who's right?
>>18362492I think you misunderstood my point. I didn't say that "there is some causal story involving the brain" is an argument for the existence of God. I'm merely saying that it's a lol resolution description of how you (supposedly) came to know God exists.Is it too low resolution? Does P1 call for a more high resolution story?
>>18362499>lol*low
>>18362499>I use my brain to determine what is true>There is no GodOkay, I do the same thing and there is a God.Who's right?
>>18362506Philosophers aren't in agreement on that topic, but it is generally agreed upon that the best way to adjudicate it is through arguments in favour or against the proposition "God exists".
>>18362462>>18362473Jews are so weird. Across time and space, from the New Testament to Patton's war diaries, they are described as filthy and unwashed.Imagine needing religious commandments to wash yourself.
>>18362510I don't care if they're in agreement.If I say my brain says 2+2=5, and yours says it equals 4, and our brains are the only way we determine what is true, truth itself ceases to exist. You need an external factor to point to as a way to determine truth, otherwise you can't even argue anything.
>>18362516Do you want to amend the premises of the original argument? You're now making a different one.
>>18362521Fuck the premises nigga, if you have any issues with what I wrote in the previous post, let's hear it.
>>18362528So we are dropping the previous argument? That's fine by me. The problem is that now you're not even making an argument anymore, you're just presenting a claim. Do you want to amend your point and put it in the form of an argument?
>>18362530I want you to argue against the claim.
>>18362532I said I was interested in arguing against the transcendental argument for God, not against your favourite claim. I can't argue against the TAG when there is no argument.
>>18362535That is the crux of TAG in my view. I ain't interested in your faggy syllogisms, if you take issue with the claim argue against it or shut the fuck up.
>>18362537So you are not presenting the transcendental argument for God (TAG) but rather the transcendental claim for God (TCG)?I'm not interested in that. I said I was interested in debating the TAG. If you want to do that, we can return to the discussion we've been having so far about P1.
>>18362538And I'm not interested in your interests.Argue against the claim, otherwise I accept your concession.
>>18362539>stopped defending an argument>took off the serious hat>put on the posturing hatThanks for the conversation. As per >>18362444, bye.
>>18362542>Can't argue against the claimJust as I predicted.Bye.
>>18351099Gnostic informant is awesome, the whole Jews in elephantine is really telling about the history of Judaism.
>>18362381Solipsism doesn't make christianity or any other religions to be more believable. Solipsims makes these religions even more likely to be untrue.
>>18351694>>there's a bunch of things that only orthodox christianity offers an internally consistent explanation fornice individual view you have, mani dont share itfuck off
>>18362381How did Wittgenstein solve the problem of solipsism?
>>18362102If something does not become apparent in my direct experience, then why would I confidently say it's real? Especially if it's only something someone said some guy 2k years ago said was real.That's not solipsism, that's just how one goes through life. Solipsism makes confident statements about "reality". I wasn't.
I finally watched this debate. The fact that this Orthodox debatebro couldn't answer a simple question of whether Jesus is or isn't God is hilarious. He can't even defend the most basic tenet of Christianity>3 written down is both 3 and 1 at the same timeThis was peak retardation and honestly embarassing to watch. This is why Christcucks need to return to basics and be taught BASIC logic.It's not 3 and 1 at the same time. It's ONE digit that represents THREE. How dumb can one be? I thought Christians studied Aristotelian logic? But I guess it makes sense that a Christcuck who thinks the earth is 6000 years old and dinosaurs are fake isn't capable of grasping basic categorical logic. Aristotle said logic is the only way we can know anything, and if this Christcuck is a presuppositionalist then it makes sense that he is basically incapable of rudimentary logic
>>18352919>If there is no evidence for it then why should anyone believe in it?because there's no evidence against it, which is why you should believe in every single thing that hasn't been proven to be otherwise
>>18362950>This was peak retardation and honestly embarassing to watch.It was like watching a man piss himself to prove that he wasn't cold.
>>18362868That's why I don't understand Dyer's logic or the logic of his defenders. The modern scientific view is the way I perceive reality. If my perception of reality isn't true then how does it make your world view true? The only way I know about your world view, your perception of reality, your religion is through my own senses. I only know about christianity because I've read and heard about it and because I saw and was inside of churches and saw and listened to priests. I can't be 100% sure about what happened 2000 years ago, 3000, 4000 years ago, 6000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, 1 million years ago etc. I wasn't there and even if I was there memories aren't always that reliable especially the further away your memory of an event is. My knowledge about what happens in the past comes from historians, archeologists, paleontologists, biologists, astrophysicists and historical artifacts, fossils I've seen in the museum. You claaim that these astrophysicists, biologists, paleontologists, many archeologists and historians are wrong because they contradict your holy book and your church history. If they are all wrong then how can I be even sure that your religion even existed 2000 or 300 years ago? You claim that fossils are forgeries. How can I be sure that all the documents you have proving that your religion existed 1500, 2000 years ago aren't also forgeries? Maybe your religion was a conspiracy created 500 years ago and your entire church history is fake? I wasn't there 500 years ago I cana't be 100% sure that it isn't the case. It's no different from the ways you argue against our modern understanding of history. His world view makes something like Last Thursdayism a viable option.
>>18362317>What is being claimed is that Atheists cannot give an explanation for things like logic, epistemology and knowledge, that is consistent with their worldview.>While Christians can give a consistent explanation: "God did it".This is literally stealing Platonic metaphysics btw.In reality, a lot of what Christians claim about God, as well as the nature of God in the bible, is anti-logical. How can the Christian God explain 'logic' and 'knowledge' when the God of the Bible contradicts himself all the time or provides 'knowledge' like the Earth being flat which we know is demonstrably false? The Christian God cannot explain the existence of logic working. That's why science killed God. If we start talking about an impersonal clock-maker God, then that's Platonism.
Not sure how TAG isn't infinite regress>God must exist for logic to exist, therefore I believe in god>How did I come to this conclusion? Well, I used my logic before I believed in god even though my logic was completely unfounded then (allegedly)>Logic leads to TAG which leads to logic etcI don't see how it's any different than>My brain must exist for my logic to exist, therefore I believe my brain exists etcThe atheist and theist position on this are basically the same, atheists will appeal to the external factor of the universe and theists will appeal to the external factor of god. And because TAG doesn't prove any particular god, the universe and god might as well mean the same thing.
>>18363056This is what makes Dyer's approach bankrupt for me. If you think god must exist for logic to exist but your logic brings you to believe things which are just about as proven false as we can get, I don't understand what the point is.
It's pretty neat how you can watch the non-retarded responses to TAG in this thread slowly morph more and more into nihilism over time. >>18362414 is right.
I think when you're demanding an answer to some weird elaborate question, and the only thing that is able to answer the question is a guy with the superpower to do anything, handwaving the questing away (this is not a strawman, presup does not provide a detailed explanation of how God do things. It's not a theory. It is very much handwaving.) You should be worried that you're asking a dumb question
I still would like some input about how presups explain away their apparent lack of persuasive successes If the argument works. It should be able to get people to change their views. Right?Why is it not taken seriously by philosophers, by people looking to save souls, by people with the sufficient English language skills to understand the argument, by *anyone* except E-Christians? I don't think I'm being overly harsh here.this seems like such a solid litmus test, that there's something *off* with the argumentTAG doesn't leave room ambivalence, if it works - it works
>>18363086>even though my logic was completely unfounded then (allegedly)That's like saying that gravity didn't exist before Newton formulated it.The fact that you don't understand that your logic is grounded by God doesn't mean that you can't use that logic. It just means that you can't explain why it is grounded.Just like people didn't just fly before Newton. They didn't understand gravity, but were affected by it anyway.
>>18363334This analogy is so low IQ it's embarrassing to read
>>18363334>NewtonI really wonder what Dyer thinks about Newton. Newtwon was a protestant who was into alchemy and the occult. I've seen some conspiracy minded e-christians attacking Newton for that. According to Dyer's very conspiracy minded world view and how much he sees the enlightenment and the renaissaince as an evil satanic plot Newton and his ideas should be seen the same way as he sees Darwin and quantum physics. Would he reay go as far as rejecting Newton and newtonian physics?
>>18363334>It just means that you can't explain why it is grounded.The basic paradigm within which they insert themselves precludes any necessity to explain it, so the only anons in this thread who are adequately attempting to justify their paradigm are appealing to subjectivity and the illusory nature of the transcendentals. None of the concepts actually exist, but are rather illusions of the mind. The only thing that exists is the material, and that is true because the paradigm within which they insert themselves precludes otherwise. And that circularity is fine because objectivity is an illusion :^)
Well okay, how do you explain it?>GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODlmew
Besides, what's the problem with empirical evidence for God? Burning bushes, man walking on water, etc It's not like empiricism blocks off theism
>>18363436>Burning bushes, man walking on water, etcThey claim that God is almighty. I have no problems with their supernatural claims. If there is a supernatural God then he is capable of doing these things. My problems are with their claims of history and the state of nature and also many parts of the morality of their holy books (hell for unbelievers, gives the israelites justification for genocide, circumcision, God is angry and wants to kill Moses for not circumcising his son, people being punished for not doing a full genocide, children being killed for disobeying their parents, people being put to death for not following jewish law etc).
>>18363386>None of the concepts actually exist, but are rather illusions of the mind.>Logic is an illusion bro
>>18363477Nobody is disagreeing that the world is the way it isObviously a non-theist wouldn't grant that the thing presup mean when they use the word 'logic' exist, else they would be theists. It's baked into their definition of logic that it entails God
