Now an episode about UQF itself would be required. I do not expect hours of explanations but a short one could help.

Wait....stuff comes from stuff? Genius. I guess I'm an atheist now. Stuff come from stuff is the only justification I'll ever need.😂😅

But how do we know that the necessary thing isnt a breakfast taco?

The atheists in this arent really understanding the difference between science and philosophy. And they just treat it all like science (this is called Scientism). Around 30:00 an atheist is talking about how the worldview that has "evidence" is true. But the issue the concept atheists think of when they say this is actually "scientific evidence." And given worldview deal with philosophical categories that are specifically BEYOND the scope of scientific inquiry, that's just a category error fallacy. How would the atheist support his position for Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics over competing positions with his conception of "evidence." He can't. No philosophical position can be supported with scientific evidence.

I'm still not convinced that any particular non-theistic worldview is true. What convinced you of yours?

Remember that episode of the Simpsons where Homer gets really smart for a while and gives Flanders his proof that God doesn't exist? And Flanders looks at it skeptically and then frowns and says "Nope, it's air tight," then proceeds to burn the paper? This what was written on that paper.

The quantum field isn’t really a “being”, it’s more of a “thing”, but that doesn’t make it any less “necessary”.

No se debe ignorar la verdad o realidad. Si recuerdas y entiendes tarde o temprano saldrás del círculo. Dentro del círculo no estás protegido. Soy un psicólogo y ayudo a la gente a sobrevivir. Nueva información te puede ayudar a cambiar tu mente. Para entender tienes que estar dispuesto a aceptar nueva información. La realidad es eterna porque de la nada no puede ser creado algo. Siempre algo ha existido. ¿Sabías que la realidad es eterna?. Si no sabías que la realidad es eterna te han engañado manipulando la información para hacerte daño. ¿Quién no te enseñó la realidad es eterna? ¿Quién te esconde la más importante información?. Ahora ya sabes la realidad es eterna, ahora eres diferente, ahora sabes algo más, ahora entiendes mejor la realidad. La eternidad que asusta existe. Dios es realidad inteligente que creó el universo. ¿Existe Dios o no existe Dios? Si Dios existe la eternidad está garantizada. Si Dios existe todo cambia. Si Dios existe no se puede ser ateo como si Dios no existiese. ¿Puede ser toda la realidad creada? ¿Puede todo lo que existe tener un principio de existencia? ¿Puede el universo ser eterno? No estoy pidiendo que me creas, sino que pienses por ti mismo siendo honesto. Si entiendes es mejor para ti. Mi verdad es el ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente que el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. Spinoza tuvo razón y nadie le hizo caso. La verdad que te abrirá los ojos es la Segunda Guerra Mundial y el Holocausto nazi pasó después de que Spinoza descubriese la naturaleza de Dios. Dios es todo lo que existe. Dios es pasado, presente y futuro. La guerra puede acabar. Cada vida cuenta, cada momento cuenta. Un ejercicio para mejorar tu vida porque te enseñará otro concepto de Dios es leer a Spinoza. El ateo es un órgano que pide evidencias de que el cuerpo existe. Dios está siempre por todas partes y conoce su creación. ¡Emergencia! Gracias.

Howdy

Love it

Jimbob keeps using words. I don't think them words mean what he thinks they mean. 😅 But then again strawmanning for god, in his unrighteousness, and obnoxiousness, seems to be the only way he can roll.

Taking notes on this one because it's one of those fun topics for me. For reference I am of the opinion both Arians and Trinitarians are incorrect in their Christology and interpretation of the New Testament and would think them wrong even if Christianity were somehow true, but I have no superior option because I'm agnostic and don't think Christianity actually can be made to make coherent sense while still cashing all the big metaphysical checks it wants to write. 00:30 First thing to note is that depending on the stripe of Arian, it would not necessarily be a conflation to call them a Unitarian. There's a lot of overlap and not everyone who is an "Arian" believes in what the later Church would call Arianism as the later Church defined it. Of course I don't yet know what this guy thinks. 01:05 Important point implied here that will matter later: Is the Trinity a salvation issue for Christians? It's not clear that it is, and if it isn't, then it's odd that it's treated like it is by Trinitarians. If belief in the message and acts of Jesus are what are important, then believing in his metaphysical relationship to the Father seems a mostly irrelevant matter on which people can disagree. 03:00 Well-poisoning; that's not what Unitarian Christians say about the Bible. Unitarian Universalists maybe, but that seems to be a conflation meant to associate any Unitarian Christian with UUs. 03:30 Paul literally calls Christ "the firstborn of creation." Unitarians and Arians did not pluck this idea from thin air! 04:30 Interesting move to go on the attack against the Communicatio Idiomata rather than answer the scriptural question. This Arian's got moxie. 06:30 The Nicene Creed isn't even Trinitarian BTW. But also, who cares about creeds Trinitarians made up to enforce Trinitarianism, if Trinitarianism is wrong? 07:00 Guy tries to make a strong claim that Apostolic Succession is provable, realizes it isn't, walks it back with "probably." Sorry bro, "probably" ain't gonna cut it if you insist upon an unbroken chain of transmission. 07:50 I don't see how it's any easier to belive in Arianism, unless he means Trinitarianism sounds like nonsense and Arianism doesn't, in which case... uh, how is that helping the case against Arianism? 09:20 Good move to ask them what Nicaea actually taught. There is no Trinity in the 351 creed; the Holy Spirit gets literally a single sentence, and it's "And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit." Showing the Trinitarians don't know their own credal history is a strong blow to their credibility. 10:50 Nothing to add, he's correct about how the doctrine developed (though I think at one point he stopped himself from saying it was "invented," which is what I would say). 11:50 Augustine wasn't even born until 2 years after Nicaea, so if he did coin the term "Trinity," the creed written before he was born certainly didn't mention it. Only not a massive self-own by the Trinitarians because Augustine did not coin the term, and nobody claims he did. 12:50 If he's a heretic for quoting Tertullian, then was Tertullian a heretic? (To modern Trinitarians, most of the early Church Fathers would be.) 13:00 Of course the sect that won thinks they were guided by the Holy Spirit. The sect that didn't disputes that they actually were. This is not an argument, unless one can prove the guidance of the Holy Spirit somehow. Good luck with that. 13:35 Arianism isn't even close to the "biggest heresy ever." Maybe by number of adherents -- which is perhaps a hint there's something to it? -- but I'd think Manicheanism or certain Gnostic heresies would be bigger deviations from Christian thought. All Arians disagree on is the nature of Christ and his relationship to the Father. They still think the Father is Yahweh, that Jesus was his son, that he had a divine mission, that he died for sins, etc. 14:20 So the Arian thinks this isn't a salvation issue. That's very generous, though of course being in the minority, it's much easier to extend that olive branch. Who knows how Trinitarians would be treated today had Arian Christianity won out. 15:40 More Trinitarians not knowing their own doctrines. 16:30 I think there is a way around this question, but since these guys don't know their own doctrines, they can't catch on to what it is. It also doesn't matter, because Jesus says "the Son" doesn't know, which Trinitarians ought to be concluding applies to the divine nature. 17:40 "So he's half man-" and stops himself because even he knows that's wrong, LMAO. 17:50 "The man and the divinity." Depends; it may not actually be the case that Jesus is "a man" according to official formulations. But perhaps he means "the human nature." 18:00 Because he'd be lying, and God isn't supposed to lie? 19:40 Believing in Revelation? Big L for the Arian. Throw that drug-addled nonsense out. 20:30 I'm not convinced you NEED the Communicatio Idiomata to hold to a single person in Christ. Miaphysites and especially Monophysites don't need it. Monophysites are in the same boat as Arians in terms of being condemned as heretics, but even so. 21:30 Correct, the clear understanding of someone saying "I don't know" is that he doesn't know. We should presume this to be the correct interpretation unless compelling evidence rebuts it. 23:30 All the translations of Psalm 110 miss the distinction in Hebrew between the first and second uses of God/Lord. But obviously this is a psalm about the King of Israel, who was the Messiah (anointed one) and Son of God. Which doesn't help Trinitarians prove Jesus is God, since it implies the opposite, as those titles are applicable to a human. 26:00 Correct. It's one guy talking to another guy. You can't get the Trinity from that. 26:10 Also correct. Jesus is made Lord, given authority, etc.; this is all over the Gospels and Paul. 26:50 It's a royal psalm dedicated to the King of Israel and his special relationship with Yahweh, where is he getting that anybody is outside of time? 28:50 This is why Arianism isn't gonna work. The whole preexistence argument is goofy. But the Trinitarian can't really engage them on this honestly without compromising their own beliefs. 30:00 This guy is like a little kid who thinks nobody knows he's stolen a cookie. 31:45 "I'll shut up, I'll shut up" says man who never shuts up. 32:00 Not sure I buy this interpretation. It's simpler to just say that God can grant the titles to Jesus. He can make him Lord, why can't he make him the Alpha and Omega of the new creation, as the Father was Alpha and Omega of the old? 34:15 If the angel is speaking on behalf of God, then I suppose it's fine for him to say he's the Alpha and Omega. It at least matches scenarios that Christians accept from the Old Testament. Still don't buy it, but it's difficult for Trinitarians to refute it the same way a non-Christian can. 35:00 "Uh-oh, this guy differs in his interpretation of my knock-down verse and can support his reading! Time to just ignore it and cite a different one!" 36:15 Actually a pretty decent refutation for once. If the angel is stated to be the messenger of Jesus, wouldn't his claim apply to the one who sent him? 37:25 "All scholars say this is Jesus speaking." Oh, do they? Which ones? Are you sure none of them dispute that reading? Also even if it is a message from Jesus, he is most definitely not speaking, because the angel is speaking on his behalf. Because the angel is an agent, and angels are allowed to call themselves Yahweh when they speak for Yahweh or are conveying a message from Yahweh in the exact same way a messenger of a king can speak for the king to another king. The messenger does not become the king, they just have the authority to speak for him. 38:25 If Jesus is "the offspring of David," then he's not God, is he? God isn't the offspring of David. 40:00 "To give to everyone according to his works." Wait, so is Jesus a heretic for not believing in sola fide? 41:15 "Where the scholars say-" Can this guy name a single scholar? Just one. There are scholars who do say this, name one of them to show you have the slightest idea who even is considered a scholar of the New Testament. 42:10 Forty minutes in and somebody thinks to ask the guy what he actually believes, instead of calling him a Unitarian or Jehovah's Witness. Nice. 42:25 Calling him "the first creation" is Arian, so at least tacos's label appears to be accurate. 43:20 I don't think this guy was even trying to trap the Arian in polytheism, but that was clearly anticipated and sidestepped. Well played. 43:35 Man is also the image of God, but it isn't hard to separate Adam from God. Trinitarians always argue that it's rationality that makes one the image of God, since they want to deny that God has a body like the Old Testament clearly says he does. So the Logos, if it is rational, can freely be distinguishable from God while remaining God's image. This is not a difficult problem for an Arian. 43:50 Interesting argument though, that the image is distinct from the thing it represents. I think it's simpler to just point out that there are other non-God things that are God's image, but this is a fair point. Your reflection is not you, in the same sense a picture of a pipe is not a pipe. 45:00 The Gospels say Jesus began to exist in his mother's womb. Just throwin' that out there against both sides.

This seems to go the same rout I find fascist go in. ie, they distort and abuse language in order to sew confusion. For instance, they'll use the term "freedom" in a way that basically allows them the freedom to curtail the freedom of others. The same with liberty. They also like to project. They'll readily accuse others of doing what they're doing. I don't know if I'd be that shocked to find out he is a fascist.

This was like listening to Nathan oakley. Answer my question Ok, if you assume that.... STOP INTERRUPTING ME!!!!!

is the prerequisite to being Atheist being fat and mouth breathing? or is it really just to believe stuff comes from stuff LMAO.

My God open your eyes and lead you to the light.

My God bless you and show you the truth.

My God bless you and lead you to the light

The dissonant ability to talk oneself into a circle and claim it’s a straight line always makes me chuckle

Based go off.

Whining that "you're not answering my question," while interrupting the answer and refusing to acknowledge the answer when it IS provided, is pretty damn dishonest. But then, that's to be expected. Jimbob is a lying idiot and a fake intellectual.

Are you really still using that flawed, begging the question argument? As I’ve already pointed out to you, P1 is false. ENERGY doesn’t come from ‘pre-existing stuff’. So, NOT everything that exists comes from pre-existing stuff.

The more we discover about the universe the more we find that the regularities we observe at the human scale are actually mere heuristics. Also, if JimBob et al ever bitch, and whine; and moan that you're 'not letting me respond!' as they're trying to railroad you into some semantic nonsense, tell them 'Your presuppositional argument is formulaic and static. Really I have invited you to have this conversation as a courtesy to see if you can interact outside of the dialogue tree you're straight jacketed into by the nature of your argument. However, since that doesn't appear to be the case, I shall continue talking and addressing your formulaic argument rather than these semantic red herrings and rabbit trails you're now throwing up in an attempt to obfuscate, deflect, and distract from my argument due to your formula not containing the necessary functions and clauses to address my argument directly.'

What is meant by 'regularity of nature'?

Jim BAAAHHb is addicted to the meta and debate bro tactics over engaging

DimBob doing DimBob stuff. P.S. Why do all presuppers cry “why are you talking over me?”

I think we missed a lot of context.

Too much pointless Stuff. I don't think either of you won.

Jimbob doesn't know what gish galloping means.

Going into a room full of trinitarians as an Arian and absolutely refuting them one by one is pretty based. Nicaea may have won the day, but Arianism won the debate. Both historically and now

Hey taco, while you might've had a point, you sure did talk over him and not give him much chance to speak. It looks really emotional. Please let the other guy talk as well. Also, I have a doubt. Wouldn't the formation of the sun be a process? Why didn't you answer yes?

Breakfasttacos, if your interlocutor argues that you committed a specific fallacy (and you don't agree right away) that doesn't mean your interlocutor has committed a fallacy fallacy. That's not what a fallacy fallacy is. A fallacy fallacy is when someone conflates: 1. Invalidating an argument, with 2. Refuting the conclusion Whether or not the conclusion of any argument is true has nothing to do with whether someone used a fallacy to try to support it. Someone could use a fallacy to try to support a true OR false conclusion.

Christian Presups: Presup is teachable, not debatable. You're wasting your time / effort when you grant it as a debatable issue. It can only be taught to someone who is willing to / wants to learn it.

Post-stuff-presupp vs. Pre-stuff-postsupp ! hmm?

JimBob is intentionally dishonest and begins with insults, not a good start on his part. JimBob really needs to stop dancing around and actually attempt to interact with the argument. Good job exposing JimBob as a pretend "intellectual" His question of "Are the Laws of Physics a Phenomenon?" and then not accepting "Laws of Physics arises from the Stuff" demonstrates that he's not grasping the very most basic concepts and trying to play word games to pretend to have a valid argument. Laws of Physics are the human perspective based description of the Patterns that Stuff has. Stuff has Patterns, we call those Patterns the "Laws of Physics" but the Laws only have existence within our Descriptions of Reality, the Laws don't "exist" without the Stuff that makes up Reality. Either this conversation is over JimBob's head, or he's intentionally not engaging with the argument and just being insulting by trying to "simplify" the conversation.

Presuppositionalism means presupposing your opponent is dishonest, stupid, and incapable.

Taco, your arguments are good, but you need to be more patient, slow down and actually tear apart his questions. *SHOW* how's he off topic, *SHOW* how the stuff from stuff is fundamental. If you don't, you can come across (to those who don't already understand what you're talking about) as not really any better than Gregory, and that's not a great look. This was painful to listen to, you weren't engaging with him on the question he brought you from the jump. I'm not sure I could do better in the moment because JimBob an incessant interrupter after about three words of anyone's response, but you doing the same to him with a bit of vocal fry doesn't do anything positive. I'm sure you can take a more methodical approach to dealing with his nonsense, let him speak a bit more and hang him with his own words.

These presups never defend their position. They just asked questions until they find a gotcha. It’s a sad joke but they keep getting away with it.

I have to admit, for once it is funny to see the presup stitch against a presup.

Cant answer a simple question about your own view because it shows the contradiction, Bad faith comes natural to you

Good lord JB needs to stop fishing for a gotcha. The poster boy of the fallacy fallacy

stuff arising from stuff is a phenomenon. Each individual occurrence of stuff arising from stuff is a process.

If these clowns could just learn to be descriptivists, they’d jump right off the god bandwagon.

This doesnt look too good for you. I admire you for still posting the video. You're a good sport.

Taco, you have to let JBob talk, or he won’t say anything angrily disingenuous.

The laws of physics are an observed and unchanging set of behaviors. This combined set makes up the regularity of nature. We need to get the English language a protective order against JimBob.