monkeyboy's Program Back on Air! Coming Up Next: Apologetics Puppet Hour!

[@elefth]

LOL that first presupper started tweaking when he saw you went off of his flowchart😭🤣🤣🤣

[@gitstanfield2863]

Bro the first caller didn't understand or could differentiate different logical systems. He thought classical logical is the only way philosophers can articulate.

[@dmitryalexandersamoilov]

@@gitstanfield2863 classical logic is the most fundamental type of logic. All other logics use classical logic to structure their metalanguage. Classical logic defines the invariance of concepts. Without that, you have nothing. So... While logical pluralism is 100% an awesome position to hold, all those logical are held together by the laws of thought. a=a, as the metalingusitic definition of definition

[@gitstanfield2863]

@ i hear you, but that doesnt mean the first caller was acknowledging this. Monkeyboy contested logic “existing” in your mind. He didnt acknowledge the different logical possibilities if that makes sense, or logical systems. Classical logic isnt useful here

[@dmitryalexandersamoilov]

@ true but what do you think? I would love to hammer this topic out with you. I feel like monkeyboy just said "I don't know", and the other guy was just frustrated by that. Do you feel mentally equipped (intellectually and emotionally) to debate this here and now? Specifically the point about logic "existing".

[@gitstanfield2863]

@@dmitryalexandersamoilov Yes. I wish I could Upload videos tbh but I'm willing to engage with you on logic and the existence of god. I have a few hours.

[@northernbrother1258]

I love granting them all the "historical accuracy" in the Bible including Noah's flood...you can tell it totally throws them off!

[@FlencerMcflensington]

I have to say this is *very* entertaining

[@ronalddepesa6221]

1. Have the presup' define mind 2. Never let them ask questions

[@FlencerMcflensington]

I swear the next woman will make sense. I believe in my female brethren

[@darth_mb]

@@FlencerMcflensington 😂

[@Detson404]

I listen to Jack now vs a few years ago and he’s really gotten good at this. Much more patient.

[@AsixA6]

I think that first guy Jack was talking to might have been Stuart Kneckle.

[@darth_mb]

@@AsixA6 second person to say this, but that's highly unlikely.

[@AsixA6]

@ I wouldn’t put it past him.

[@darth_mb]

@@AsixA6 i guess

[@igbo925]

Its not stuart, just sounds a bit like him

[@CoderOfBugs]

First dude crashed out hard. Damn. 😂

[@cpt.kimintuitiondemon]

Was that stuart????? Wow that is hilarious! It sounds exactly like him, his voice, what he says and his ignorance matches perfectly.

[@General_Idea]

Transcendental argument for god amateur apologist eaten alive by Jack because of the impossibility of the contrary.

[@seawolf7649]

Halfway through and this one is dope.

[@FlencerMcflensington]

Ooh! God is the most logical thing

[@A-L0neDrow]

@51:00 or thereabouts, she makes the braindead claim that if the earth was A FEW FEET CLOSER to the sun we wouldn't exist. I understand you guys specialize more in philosophy, but that kind of misinformation should be pushed back on. The earth moves closer and farther from the sun by millions of miles during the orbit. Love your content. Makes my workday go by faster by listening to you all debate these people

[@displacegamer1379]

25:42 Is this Stuart Knechtle. It sounds just like him. If it is, he is know for how bad he is at philosophy.

[@darth_mb]

@@displacegamer1379 doubt it's him though

[@JedisfuneralTM]

The first theist caught me off guard

[@ajhieb]

I'm a logical realist so you have to be a logical realist too.

[@darth_mb]

@@ajhieb to be fair ppl like him use realist language without having those concepts, it's quite a common phenomenon.

[@ajhieb]

@@darth_mb Oh I don't have a problem with him not really fully grasping the concepts. The comedy comes in from his totally condescending, and uncharitable attitude wherein he seems to believe he knows far more about the subject than you. That said, when posed with that or a similar question, I usually first tackle what they mean when they say "laws of logic" because most theists seem to have an entirely different concept of what those laws are compared to me. They seem to think the laws of logic are some rules imposed on the universe that make the universe behave in a logical fashion. I (unsurprisingly) reject that concept. In my worldview the laws of logic are an axiomatic system used to evaluate propositions. Since most (many) of the propositions we encounter in day to day life deal with things that exist, it makes sense that we base our axioms for evaluating these propositions on our concept of existence. That is to say, when we say "X exists" we mean that There is an X that is itself, it isn't something else, and it can't exist and not exist at the same time in the same way. That covers what the axioms are and why we use them. To tackle the inevitable follow-up question about why the universe behaves in a logical fashion, I simply say that I offer a similar but more parsimonious explanation. Just like the theist I offer a brute, unjustified fact (this behavior is simply the nature of existence, as opposed to the theists appeal to "God's nature") I just don't include a tri-omni entity that offers zero additional explanatory power.

[@darth_mb]

@ajhieb yeah it's funny how they think laws of logic rather than merely being some formula in a logic they think it's some type of regulation about reality.

[@dmitryalexandersamoilov]

Monkeyboy: I'm a logical anti-realist so you have to be a logical anti-realist too.

[@darth_mb]

@@dmitryalexandersamoilov i never said nor acted like that, but in any case I could defend antirealism and this guy obviously couldn't defend realism.

[@zgs12212012]

The miracle conversation was so frustrating because he kept saying that the Jesus character fulfilled 300 prophecies. This means this guy hasn’t read his Bible as Jesus didn’t fulfill a single prophecy.

[@Mxxx-ii9bu]

Deconstruction Zone regularly "cooks" theists over this. The topic of Messianic prophecies is one that all theists should avoid.

[@zgs12212012]

@ Got to love Justin!

[@LiveLXStudios]

Its an interesting approach To grant them stuff and force them to actually make the full logical chain of arguments to their god Because obviously what they're doing is starting with the idea there is a god, then looking for gaps in their understanding to place that god concept (on the basis of magic so anything is possible). Forcing them to actually lay out the logical entailments that get them from their gap in knowledge to a god being the only or best conclusion. Obviously they haven't. Haven't watched all of this yet but I'll be interested if you confront them with what they're doing

[@cliveadams7629]

Concept of logic exists in the pages of a book. We use logic in our minds.

[@Purkinje90]

Jack has such a Joker laugh

[@darth_mb]

@@Purkinje90 and lives in Gotham

[@pavld335]

If people have no gain in a story, it's true. But only for Christianity, nothing else. So smart!

[@outpost4047]

Hey Monkey, merry Christmas! Could you please provide epistemic justification for your metaphysics? Hope you have a good holiday

[@RahjaStooli]

"Laws of logic exist". Here we go confusing the fact contradictions do not obtain with his claim that these logical formulas exist. Like people should stop using this ontological loaded language it's awful.

[@Carlos-ql8sh]

Where do I go to listen to these live? Is this streamed here on KZbin?

[@darth_mb]

@@Carlos-ql8sh no they are only posted after. You can find them on my TikTok page, same name and pfp. I go live regularly.

[@Carlos-ql8sh]

Cheers - you may have presented the only good reason I’ve ever heard to join TikTok!

[@Carlos-ql8sh]

Spoke too soon. Just joined TikTok and tried to follow and it won’t let me follow anyone. Hey ho, guess I’ll wait for the KZbin vids. Have joined your patreon instead - thanks for entertaining and informative content, and warm regards to the gang…

[@darth_mb]

@Carlos-ql8sh No problem, and thanks for Patreon sub!

[@Petticca]

@25:00 Apologists and conspiracy brained people alike utterly fail to grasp that asserting shit, and asking 'well what about this?' and 'how do you explain this thing I'm asserting is a thing that needs to be explained?' is _not_ a way of being able to debunk something you're arguing against, nor is it a demonstration of evidence supporting something you assert.

[@sible2184]

The first one was a bit disappointing because i feel as though permissing contradictions left potential room for the second guy to say "oh yes prophets can exist even without a god". As for the second one, really satisfying watch. Ive been taking mental notes from your videos and the techniques are helping fill the gaps in knowledge I have. I realise i no longer have to try and become an intermediate cosmologist, I can just watch them crumble as they try to prove God without appealing to false consensus or the Bible.

[@frederickfairlieesq5316]

That first guy’s rant was 🤌🏻.

[@Petticca]

@1:16:05 If you're arguing that there is an _actual_ infinity, and that it is somehow possible to count to 0 from infinity through all negative numbers, you're gonna have a hard time. You can't demonstrate an actual infinity by invoking an indefinitely continuing series of finite steps starting at 0 and counting backwards, pointing out that because every step of the series as counted is a finite number of steps from 0, logically you're only ever a finite number of steps from 0, thus you can reach 0 from the actual infinity 'before' it. Unless you can demonstrate how one would go about counting it from the 'other end', towards 0, this obviously fails. You can't count to an actual infinity. The way around this is apparently, according to people way smarter than myself, to say that there is no first member of the set, being an actual infinity .. and try as I might, I don't understand how this is not just a rescue device, that doesn't actually do anything to explain how the claim that you can somehow reach 0, isn't then relying on the infinite series of finite steps that are not an actual infinity, but my with a handwaved away need to acknowledge that. I've tried over and again to understand, but I fail.

[@davec-1378]

Crazy these theists that believe they have a grasp on philosophy have never heard of the anti realism position

[@grizzleknowsbest]

If you're a person who thinks they can't learn something from literally anyone.. you're not a smart person

[@darth_mb]

@@grizzleknowsbest well it's true someone may be unable to teach someone anything in some field, but ofc there's a trival sense you can learn from a person. Learn about one new member in the sample of humanities psychology that can influence our generalizations about psychology is one. And there's many other obvious ways. But in context it is fair to say things like I can't learn anything from someone.

[@grizzleknowsbest]

Who said anything about a field? I'm speaking of the general attitude the opponent had.. my position is that you should be able to learn "something" from anyone.. however trivial,

[@darth_mb]

@@grizzleknowsbest than yeah I agree with you and in a trivial way the opponent was wrong

[@grizzleknowsbest]

Oh sorry, little high

[@Boxcar808]

What if all you can learn from them is that they’re stupid?

[@СергейМакеев-ж2н]

Science assumes nature to NOT be uniform, until shown otherwise. Uniformity is the exception, not the rule. Uniform things are rare. That's why "laws of nature" are such a big deal.

[@KEvronista]

to claim that time was created - intelligently, divinely, naturally, randomly or otherwise - is incoherent. the use of the past tense describes a temporal event: what does it mean to say "there was a time in the past when time was created?" and to stuff this up the kalam: if time cannot have been created, then it also cannot have been caused, thus it can have no beginning. it has no beginning and always exists?! i give you "time, eternal!" KEvron

[@USNFTW]

gang you gotta stop letting Jack Aura Mog you😆🔥

[@darth_mb]

@@USNFTW lol 😆

[@huntertobey6965]

With respect to the first guy wasn’t that just a simple semantic dispute? Like when he asks you “can a married bachelor exist” doesn’t it just depend what he means by “can” there? Like with respect to classical logic, no they can’t, but with respect to other logics, yes they can

[@darth_mb]

@@huntertobey6965 yeah when he was saying something like "can there be contradictions" well trivially not under classical logics, but the thing was he'd think if I said yes that means they exist which obviously doesn't follow so I opted to response counterpossibly so when he ask it'd be more clear it's relative to classical logic that there aren't contradiction to which it's unclear why I'd think those classical axioms are true in a none trivial way.

[@RahjaStooli]

Why couldn't he just say yes what he means by exist in the mind is that it's a concept, unless he wasn't then idk what he's saying i guess.

[@hardwork8395]

Regarding the first guy: I think you needed to ask him if he was making some ontological claim about logic. That would have clarified what he was really getting at, so that you could interrogate his position on the matter.

[@darth_mb]

@@hardwork8395 thing was he obviously was saying logic exists but I'm 1000% sure he doesn't have this concept of logical realism so I wanted to avoid that all together by not entertaining the existence of logic. I dont think he would of been able to work with me to understand nor would I think if he did it'd be fruitful. As you see he wouldn't work with me as he ended up sperging and was already someone who prior had an attitude that wasn't far off him acting like that, but he's clearly extremely stupid and uninformed and wouldn't humble himself to understand and learn such that I can explain antirealist-realist language.

[@hardwork8395]

@@darth_mbthat’s fair.

[@ezbody]

While I understand the need to stick to strictly philosophical arguments, but theists using the "grounding of morality" argument need to be called out on the fact that the Christian morality is not uniform, it is very fluid and ever-changing. They don't even have what they claim the grounding for, they never had it.

[@frederickfairlieesq5316]

They also say they have objective morality because God is the source of good, without God we wouldn’t know what good is, God is our standard for the good. I take that to mean that emulating God will lead to a morally virtuous life. God commanded the killing of babies, condones slavery, and does not step in to stop evil when and where he can. So it just naturally follows that those things are not immoral. However, Christians don’t believe killing babies and condoning slavery and ignoring harm done to others is good. If that’s the case then God can do things we cannot. That means it’s trivially true that God is not our standard of what is good and moral. They try to circumvent this problem by saying God can do what he wants and still be our moral standard. At the bottom of it all, their claim of objective morality is a special pleading fallacy.

[@igbo925]

​@@frederickfairlieesq5316Whenever a christian does the "God can do what he wants", just ask them if God can lie or decieve his creation.

[@ghostpacas7600]

It says prove god exists but theist call in shift the burden of proof and you just allow them too.