Another Ontological Argument | Tonloc-TX | Talk Heathen 05.10

[@kenbee1957]

You know what WOULDN'T be necessary in a world where God exists? This entire conversation

[@zgs12212012]

It’s almost as if Derp Dawkins was feeding TonLoc the answers here.

[@bodricpriest8816]

"To give a definition of something isn't to talk it into existence...." Yeah Tonloc.. That's kind of their point mate...

[@puckerings]

And moreover, that's EXACTLY what a huge proportion of Christians who bring up an ontological argument are trying to do. They're not just talking about the idea of a god, they are arguing that it proves their god exists. So Tonloc needs to talk to those Christians, not the people on the show.

[@BaronVonQuiply]

Paraphrased, they say "I'm not defining it into existence, I'm telling you that the definition includes the fact that it exists!"

[@bdpickett]

The fact that he can't even admit the hypothetical scenario of a universe where a god doesn't exist tells you so much about how he has been brainwashed by his religion.

[@DiMadHatter]

@Bouregard Hipple stfu Neppy, you dont help your own cause, but the spread of atheism, with repeating the same nonsense you alwayd do

[@MichaelLee-cz5qt]

@Bouregard Hipple “try to learn” proceeds to give no evidence lol

[@matthewgagnon9426]

@Bouregard Hipple What would be the point for an infinite being to create something finite? Imagine creating something in the real world that lasts for a billionth of a billionth of a billionth billionth of a billionth of a billionth billionth of a billionth of a billionth billionth of a billionth of a billionth billionth of a billionth of a billionth billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a microsecond and that would still not even remotely get you close to how much the entirety of the universe compares to infinity. By the time you hit infinity, millions of quadrillions of years appears like absolutely nothing.

[@thegrouchization]

@Bouregard Hipple "God’s goal is to reap from mankind a “bride” to present to his son that will return his son’s love by their own free will in Heaven for eternity." OK, now Yahweh's whole arrangement is even *more* creepy than it was before. Honestly, I didn't think that was possible, so well done on that front, at least.

[@DiMadHatter]

@Bouregard Hipple thanks again for your contribution to the spread of atheism👍

[@jimscanoe]

Erik and Vi-so excellent in the way you communicate.

[@BaronVonQuiply]

13:39 "You're just gonna have to hang upon me" Credit to Tonloc for ending the scripted dance with perhaps the most honest statement ever uttered by a creationists after "We have no evidence".

[@callmeflexplays]

Some people spend so much time trying to look ahead of your argument that they skip right past answering the yes or no question. Like, say yes or no and then EXPLAIN your answer. If you refuse to answer the yes or no, you're not interested in honest interaction. You could at least say, out loud, "I don't think it's a yes or no question and here's why."

[@Robert44444444]

This is so true. It's true of those wishing to debate their theological views, and also true of those with strong partisan political views. If I had a "Show", the ground rule for ALL guests and callers to be given a platform to opine "on-air" would be that ALL sides (including show hosts) when presented with a YES or NO question MUST answer with a YES or NO, and follow-up if necessary with a qualifier or clarification… but you MUST begin your response with a YES or a NO. In addition to being rude, those who refuse to do this do so mainly because they fear the other side won't listen to anything that follows the YES or NO… people you want to be engaged in conversation with WILL listen beyond the single syllable response.

[@shawn4888]

@@Robert44444444 and if the question is loaded such that yes or no isnt an appropriate response?

[@Robert44444444]

@@shawn4888 - yes or no is always an appropriate response to a yes or no question IF allowed to immediately follow-up with a qualifier or clarification… as in "yes but…", or "no, however…" The one asking the question needs to provide that opportunity for the follow-up. The point is, taking a dodge on yes or no questions and using the precious "on air" time to ignore the question and read from your script and/or spread your propaganda has become the norm these days… and journalists (particularly TV journalists or "news commentators") routinely allow their guests to get away with this.

[@shawn4888]

@@Robert44444444 except that's obvious wrong since many questions framed as yes or no questions are loaded such that the appropriate response to to point out the mistaken implications or why it's otherwise loaded rather than answering with a yes or no, especially when yes and no are both factually incorrect due to the nature of the question.

[@shawn4888]

@@Robert44444444 don't get wrong, the questions matt asks are not of the type generally, but he is often asked such questions.

[@BaronVonQuiply]

Well, I don't know about you guys, but Tonloc'S flawless argument convinced me of a god. Praise Allah. (Tonloc: "NOT LIKE THAT!")

[@danhemming6624]

My wife claims that they are over thinking it hoping that they get validation of/for their beliefs. By defining it down to a microscopic level.

[@Altitudes]

Nah, presup is purely an attempt to put atheists on the back foot. Greg Bahnsen literally said your job is to "shut the mouths of the unbelievers". It's pure sophistry.

[@AussieNaturalist]

Tonloc, how to do you understand just how sad and pathetic it is that your worldview will not "allow" you to honestly answer a simple yes / no question...? If your worldview will not "allow" you to give an honest answer to a logical dichotomy, then it would seem to follow that your worldview is not logically consistent.

[@billskinner7670]

They seem to think, because they see the world through "rose" colored glasses, that you must be seeing the world through blue glasses. They cant seem to conceive of taking the glasses off, and just looking at the world as it is.

[@standance9044]

I am really starting to like Eric and the great work he has done. Vi La is really sharp cookie too. A great team.

[@DiMadHatter]

@Bouregard Hipple thanks for your contribution to the spread of atheism with your theistic nonsense, neppy. Now stfu

[@puckerings]

@Bouregard Hipple Atheism is a position on a single question. It does not seek to answer anything. You are surely aware of all this, it has been explained to you over and over again, and you continue to lie about it. Why are you so dishonest?

[@freddan6fly]

@Bouregard Hipple Your argument Neppy, is abbreviated to "I dunno therefore god". The fact that you lack any education at all does not prove existence of a god. Do you believe in the tooth fairy too?

[@DiMadHatter]

@Bouregard Hipple is really helpful to furthering the atheist cause, with its nonsense, it makes theists not wanting to associate with such idiocy, and they stop believing. Thank you Neppy for your contribution to the growth of atheism

[@DiMadHatter]

@Bouregard Hipple thanks to your nonsense, you're furthering the rise of atheism 👍

[@ZeroSum23]

It's pretty obvious that Tonloc (and also Robin) want you to softly grant their definition of god as necessary at the beginning of the conversation so that later they can fall back on the fact that you've already agreed that their god must be necessary and therefor you've already agreed that it exists.

[@grantwing4942]

Another DD fan boy. Wow he really has got these guys under his control.

[@pierreblignaut5859]

No-nonsense Eric is Epic!

[@TheRegularNobody]

If god existed we wouldn't need definitions or overreaching arguments

[@thegrouchization]

@Bouregard Hipple You're arguing that we can't point to an infinite by pointing to an infinite. Unless, of course, you mean to imply that god is a finite being?

[@shawn4888]

@Bouregard Hipple another fail.

[@TheRegularNobody]

@Bouregard Hipple which god, the one you grew up with, or Zeus? Zeus looks pretty cool with the grey beard and lightning.

[@TheRegularNobody]

@Bouregard Hipple even if a powerful god like being existed it still couldn't get me to anglo saxon christianity.

[@cecilbrisley5185]

@Bouregard Hipple Turning staffs into snakes. The flood. A 6000 year old earth. Walking on water. Talking animals. Hair that makes you stronger. Dragons. Unicorns. The dead walking the streets. The sun stopping in the sky. I mean really child!? Have you never read your book of fairy tales? Can't believe you were dumb enough to ask that question toots. Better go crawl into bed and crack that storybook open. Get mommy to help you with the big words kiddo.

[@thecriticalone1783]

Eric is starting to sound like Matt. Lol

[@TheGamingLegendsOfficial]

Eric is still _far_ less jaded than Matt is, though. I do think that he needs to be tough sometimes in order to get people to actually think sometimes; even if most callers are either trolling, scripted, or too stuck in their beliefs to see anything new.

[@AndyCampbellMusic]

These types of conversations are what I call intellectual narcissism. They are essentially pointless. They have abstract proof of and abstract concept. In other words nothing. An exercise in obfuscation. Reality, is that, which when you stop believing in it, DOESN'T go away.. Complexity, is very often, the first refuge of the charlatan and the last of the deluded.. This conversation, is a classic example of this I think.

[@starfishsystems]

But it's not even a proof. The only way it works is by (implicitly) declaring the existence of god to be axiomatic. Run it through some chain of inference and out it pops,eventually. But so what? You can do that just as easily with pink unicorns and it still doesn't prove anything. Formal systems are all grounded in a set of axioms, that's fine. We call them out as axioms to let each other know that we're not trying to smuggle anything in. But burying axioms in order to arrive at a later proof of them is not only circular but dishonest.

[@freddan6fly]

@Bouregard Hipple Saying you can prove creation and actually doing it is two different things neppy. Your argument can as usually be abbreviated to "i dunno therefore god". Try again.

[@DiMadHatter]

@Bouregard Hipple thanks for showing once more why theism is so bad, you help the atheist cause by making theists not want to associate with you and your nonsense, they then stop believing 👍

[@NeverTalkToCops1]

@Bouregard Hipple Circular Fail. HDDF Heavy Dhogg Dhoo Fallacy. You've proven NEITHER a creator OR a creation. Prove It! Prove It! Prove It! Round and round you go til the end of your miserable days, and then guess what? STILL no god thingy. Ha Ha ha ha...Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha...Ha Ha ha Ha Ha...

[@davids11131113]

If people are disagreeing about the definition of a thing, then clearly there’s a problem with the examinability of the THING! That’s why there are thousands of different god concepts, people think up gods and they’re different than other tribes gods they came up with, hell there’s thousands of different CHRISTIANS sects all thru the ages and around the world all wildly disagreeing about the god in 1 book and what he wants!

[@DiMadHatter]

@Bouregard Hipple stfu Neppy, you only help spread atheism with your theistic idiocy and lies

[@cy-one]

@Bouregard Hipple Please provide evidence the universe (nature: time/space/matter/energy) had a beginning.

[@shawn4888]

@Bouregard Hipple failed again.

[@cy-one]

@Bouregard Hipple You're so far off the rails there's no use talking to you. The fact you'll see this post as a confirmation of your position will be another sign of this.

[@blarglemantheskeptic]

@Bouregard Hipple prove that the universe was created. While your are at it, you might want to actually try to understand the Penrose-Hawking Singularity Theorem.

[@basildraws]

If your position is too weak to allow you to go off-script, why would you call in to discuss it? There must be a part of you in there that knows you’re wrong. “I believe in god because I believe in a universe where god must exist, therefor god exists.” Just wow.

[@budd2nd]

@Bouregard Hipple I have issues with the your use of the word “created”, as it smuggles in a creator. WHY does something that is finite require a creator? That is not a requirement of being infinite. In fact we know very little about what is required, as we have no examples (apart from energy) to study. I agree with you that everything seems to be finite as far as we can tell, apart from energy, that seems to be infinite. Energy it seems, is never created or destroyed. Also we have good explanations, that are supported by data, for how time, space and matter arose, without a creator. Just using the laws of physics. So I’m afraid your notion of an infinite creator is not supported by the data, or any data at all.

[@basildraws]

@Bouregard Hipple 1st, you have a very thin understanding of causality, so before you go making a fool of yourself it’s probably best that you educate yourself. More importantly your entire argument is a matter of personal incredulity and your “God” is merely a god of the gaps. “I can’t explain it, so god did it.” “I don’t understand it, so god did it.” “I don’t know, therefor god.” This is the absolute weakest of all the arguments for god. It is literally the cave man way. Don’t understand fire? God. Don’t understand lightning? God. What makes the wind blow? God. I don’t care that you believe in a god, just please don’t bother trying to justify it with these tired, old, easily breakable arguments. Much smarter people than you have tried and guess what? Still no evidence of god. Zero.

[@shawn4888]

@Bouregard Hipple yet you never prove creation and just make a fool of yourself showing your ignorance and bad reasoning skills

[@shawn4888]

@Bouregard Hipple still failing with the same fallacious and unsound arguments you always use.

[@shawn4888]

@Bouregard Hipple Why lie in such obvious ways?

[@cmarqz1]

Great way to handle presups

[@billskinner7670]

I can conceive of a world in which god doesn't exist. It looks like this one.

[@NeverTalkToCops1]

Yes. The universe looks EXACTLY what a universe would be with NO god thingy.

[@danemassie3750]

The conversation is a lot better and way more honest when people aren’t following a script because they don’t answer questions and they just keep asking instead of stating

[@vincentking2552]

what is it with people that are unable to answer a yes or no question with a yes or no?! Sure, after saying yes or no, you can explain it, for example, "Yes, and here's why....", or "No, because this fact exists...."

[@davids11131113]

He was ordered by his dipshit daddy Darth Dawkins ‘You better not ever give a yes or no answer...if asked a question say you’re being rudely interrupted and demand your question be answered’

[@jettythesunfish]

@@davids11131113 While at the same time only accepting "yes" or "no" to a question while cutting someone off when they try to add a follow up or explanation.

[@standance9044]

Brain washed.

[@udaybhanuchitrakar8812]

@Vincent King It is not always possible to answer a yes or no question with a yes or no. Below is an example: //When we say about something that it is spaceless and timeless, what we mean to say about it is that it is not within any space and time. But, whatever is there in the universe is within the space and time of the universe. Being already placed within the space and time of the universe, can anything naturally be spaceless and timeless, that is, not within any space and time?// Can you answer this question with a simple yes or no?

[@billskinner7670]

@@udaybhanuchitrakar8812 yes, I can. The answer is "no". There is no thing within space and time that is not within space and time.

[@nagranoth_]

11:00 and so the dishonest dodging truly begins... it's always the same....

[@starfishsystems]

Yep. The poor fool was trying to develop an argument for ontological existence by means of logical necessity, and when the definition of necessity is pointed out to him, goes to "Well, logic is only an abstraction." If so, then logical necessity is only an abstraction, and if he really wants to play by that rule, then at best he gets to argue that god exists only as an abstraction. He has not only failed to meet his burden of proof, he's insisted on arguing for the converse.

[@jns8393]

If demonstrating God's existence has to be this contrived and complicated, there is something fundamentally wrong.

[@NeverTalkToCops1]

There you go!

[@BaronVonQuiply]

I have a thing that is the rock-bottom basement level grounding or basis for my reality. I call it The Universe. I used to call it Steve, but that was confusing too many people.

[@terrybeaud9348]

Hi Eric ... (please help) I love your show and respect what you are doing. !! You and Vi ROCK !! As well as many of your other guests. I am a recovering catholic/christian... on and off the wagon for the past year or so. Can I ask one question. Looking for an answer or direction on where to get an answer. When and if I decide to separate myself from religion, I believe that I will receive a negative response from some of my family and friends. And I know, from listening to your show, that you had to deal with that. I just don't want to disappoint or hurt anyone. Do you have any suggestions or words of wisdom on how to go about telling people in a gentle way. Thanks Terry

[@starfishsystems]

It's a valid question, but you're not going to reach the hosts by asking it here in the comments. Send in an email or call the show, or find someone whose opinions you value. You could start by presenting exactly what you wrote here. It's clear and understandable.

[@terrybeaud9348]

@@starfishsystems lol, oops. Didn't consider that this wasn't getting to the hosts. :) Thank you for the advice.

[@rationallyruby]

I hope things got better for you!!!

[@scamchan]

Remember sticking your fingers in your ears is a good way to hear the sound of your own voice.

[@SecondQuantisation]

Has anyone ever granted Darth's "There must be a foundation that gives sense to logic/reality/experience/whatever"? Suppose I grant that there is something that makes logic work, reality consistent etc. Let's call it "The Bed Rock". I can give no properties/qualities/attributes to The Bed Rock beyond what I've states it is for, to give support/structure to logic, reality etc. Darth/Gary claims The Bed Rock is the Christian God. He still has ALL he work ahead of him to prove that even if you agree The Bed Rock "exists" (in whatever sense 'exists' makes sense here). So if I grant The Bed Rock exists and makes reasoning and logic viable (which Darth/Gary will agree with) I now have a stable ideological framework to live within BUT I still don't have a deity in it. All the emphasis is now on Darth (as it has always been but now he cannot weasel out of the burden of proof) to justify ANY additional attribute he gives to The Bed Rock. Intelligent? Moral? Cares about who I put my **** into? That The Bed Rock somehow means creationism is true? On second thoughts he'll probably say I'm being dishonest by granting the existence of The Bed Rock and then will continue down the "You have to ACTUALLY believe in it, not just grant it" line so he can avoid the all important step of him actually justifying all the positive assertions he makes. And I know he will answer "God has revealed it" but it's always nice for him to actually say that since it makes clear the totally vapid nature of his actual beliefs, especially if someone has been able to go an hour answering all his questions in far greater depth than he ever could.

[@88mphDrBrown]

Most people grant it unknowingly because he asks "what's your foundation.." and people just try to answer honestly without realizing how loaded the question is. What's at the root of Darth's "what is your singular noncontingent metaphysical ultimate that instantiates the universe and secures what is, what isn't, is possible, and impossible?" is that (let's just call it "Ultimate" for short) "Ultimate" is really God. It's God in a fake mustache or Clark Kent's glasses (pick your disguise). It's literally verbatim how he defines God, with the small exception of throwing "and is a mind" at the end when he's defining God. It's the same trick they're discussing in the video. By calling God another name ("Ultimate") and asserting that an "Ultimate" is necessary, he's essentially going into conversations with atheists and saying "God is necessary, where is God in your world view?". Literally nobody has ever given Darth an example of an "Ultimate" that he's accepted besides God. By granting his premise you're granting that God is necessary, or more specifically something exactly like God is necessary but it doesn't have to be a mind. The only right thing to do is reject his "Ultimate" premise and ask him to prove that it's necessary, usually he'll just freak out, scream, mute, kick, ban, and label you as a troll. In the rare instances he engages he'll ask how you can justify or account for "causation" or "the uniformity of nature". His script is like a Russian nesting doll of dishonest rhetorical devices.

[@G_Demolished]

“What is the goal of apologetics? Is it to persuade men to embrace Christianity, to out-reason unbelievers into the Kingdom? Bahnsen would suggest, on the contrary, that while conversion is the ultimate goal, that end is properly the work of the Holy Spirit; OUR TASK IS TO STOP THE MOUTHS OF UNBELIEVERS, to leave them without excuse, and let the Spirit work as he will in a heart whose self-deception has been uncovered. And make no mistake, the unbeliever is self-deceived. His problem is not that he's an unbiased, reasonable man who just doesn't have enough evidence for the existence of God; his problem is that he hates God and suppresses the truth, so that he can justify his pursuit of ungodliness. He claims that he wants to examine evidences for Christianity from a neutral platform; but if there's one thing we must know about apologetics, it's that he's not neutral, and we shouldn't be. To attempt to meet him on his terms, to enter his anti-God worldview in order to convince him of what he already knows but suppresses in ungodliness, is to lose the battle from the beginning; it's to justify him in his presuppositions, which are utterly opposed to the message we have to give him.” Greg Bahnsen wrote the Darth Dawkins script that Tonloc and Robin try to run. Never forget the goal is NOT to convince the atheists, but to shut them up. He even admits that to engage an atheist on logical grounds “is to lose the battle from the beginning”.

[@cristyhamm7564]

Darth Dawkins sycophant uggh

[@carlosbecerril3317]

Why is it so hard to understand? If you define something as necessary you are defining it as having to be present (exist), which makes your arguments circular. Literally "it exists because ""it exists"" is in the definition."

[@trapjaw6818]

He understands, he can't answer because it invalidates his entire line of argument coming after if he agrees.

[@DiMadHatter]

@Bouregard Hipple stfu Neppy, you only make more atheists with your nonsense.

[@charlzthehuman6550]

@Bouregard Hipple egg salad

[@cy-one]

@@charlzthehuman6550 want XD

[@carlosbecerril3317]

@Bouregard Hipple you literally proved nothing. Making a claim is not the same as proving it. You literally did nothing more than make claims and not support them.

[@brucewilliams4152]

When you can't answer a yes no question.

[@scottc1857]

Robin and tonloc are both Darth minions. Tom rabbit shows their discord conversation play by play of these calls.

[@kevinfancher3512]

Am I correct in equating this attempt to invalidate with gaslighting?

[@kasperg5634]

Then I saw her face, now I'm a Viliever

[@stephenland9361]

Another ontological argument?? What was wrong with the last one?

[@PBAmygdala2021]

Lolol!!!

[@FourDeuce01]

"If my definition of god is different from yours..." Other people's definition of god doesn't matter when you can't prove ANY god exists.

[@ElectricAlien577]

Unless you define the universe as god, or something similar.

[@FourDeuce01]

@@ElectricAlien577 Then you commit the Persuasive Definition Fallacy, another logical failure.😏

[@ElectricAlien577]

@@FourDeuce01 Not necessarily. I wouldnt use that definition of god, because its useless when you can just say universe. But I can see the reason one who isnt necessarily a "theist" in the normal sense of the word, would refer to the universe as god. As in more of a title than an argument. But in most cases, yes, its an incredibly fallacious argument. Dont mind me, i just like to argue.

[@phrozenwun]

If you accept the foundation of logic. The definition of necessary is inherent therein. If you deny logic, then you are by definition unreasonable. If you persist, then until you can reliably demonstrate superior real predictive utility of any alternative method of thought, you are wasting the time of reasonable people - plain and simple.

[@nagranoth_]

Sigh... tonloc. They didn't say it was defining god in existence because of it being defined in some form. They're saying that it's defining god into existence because the definition _IS_ that it must exist. You don't get to describe something as having to exist, then say "so it exists".

[@DiMadHatter]

@Bouregard Hipple thanks again neppy for making theists not want to associate themselves with you and your idiotic nonsense, they stop believing and become atheists 👍

[@blarglemantheskeptic]

@Bouregard Hipple you going to spam that same shit on every comment? Reported for spam.

[@visforvegan8]

Not Hungry Hungry Hippos, more like Whacka Moles.

[@carter358]

What did any of this conversation have to do with whether or not a supernatural being created this universe?

[@grahamwhelan9804]

Tonloc and jrobin are all part of the same presupp crew as darth dawkins

[@cmack17]

By the way... After all of Tonloc's blabbering, his answer is no.

[@freegenerate]

What was going to follow "is it conceivable for God to not exist in any possible reality?" and why was the presup so scared of answering it? Obviously his answer would have to be no, is it because that proves his definition of God includes necessary existence and it's all circular?

[@starfishsystems]

He could have answered yes, but that would be an admission that he treats the existence of god as axiomatic for all possible universes. Why wouldn't he be willing to do that? It seems like just one more assumption to be making on faith. Maybe it's because he doesn't want to admit that he has no good reason, or that he finds it inconceivable that a god could not exist. That would be only a tiny admission of incompetence or inability, but perhaps even that is too high a price. Some faith, if that's all it takes.

[@Altitudes]

@@starfishsystems It's because Tonloc is really bad at the presup argument and what he's doing is trying to control the line of questioning. Presup is not about answering, it's about relentlessly badgering your opponent. He's supposed to say "God exists in all possible worlds. We can talk about non-God worlds hypotheticall but they're impossible". And when asked to justify that, the presup script is to ask back a series of infuriating questions like "how could you ground the laws of logic without God?" or "what is your absolute that provides for possibility and impossibility?", but Tonloc is just barely self-aware enough to realise he's losing control of who's asking the questions, and so he's desperately fumbling around to regain it.

[@locutusdborg126]

He was a afraid that you were going to trap him into accepting that a god may not exist.

[@PBAmygdala2021]

Well said!

[@starfishsystems]

And he knew it, hence the very active dodging and deflection. I'll grant that he may not know it CONSCIOUSLY. That's an interesting conjecture. It's the same cognitive mechanism as denial, and it involves the unconscious mind operating to selectively (or comprehensively!) disable conscious awareness. This works best in individuals whose ability to introspect is limited or distorted to begin with, so that they can defend the inner narrative without knowing that they're doing so, much less calling their beliefs into question.

[@PBAmygdala2021]

If I were guest co-host for a day, I would try something different: I'd let the caller finish their whole script. I'd like to see their "grande ta-da". I'd like to see what happens when they run out of material. And, once they felt like they had won and could thus relax, I'd like to see what else they have to say, to find out who they really are underneath, and get down to something genuine. Then we could start the real conversation. I'd like to give it a try, just to mix it up and do something different, to see if we can get new and different results.

[@88mphDrBrown]

The end of their script is the end of the conversation. Tonloc isn't saying anything he understands or really believes, he's vomiting a script handed to him by one of the most dishonest apologists on the internet that Tonloc, Jrobin, Concrete, etc. basically treat like their cult leader.

[@skippermatt7939]

I think this caller needs another Funky Cold Medina

[@rickbriggs8228]

How can you agree on the characteristics of something when on one side of the argument you don't even believe that something actually exists?

[@billskinner7670]

You can agree with what a unicorn "is" without believing that they exist, can't you?

[@BrokeMyCrayon]

Tahn Lock

[@charlesvandenburgh5295]

I cannot conceive of a world in which I don't exist since I must necessarily exist in order to conceive it. Does that mean I am God?

[@bpdmf2798]

Frosty the Snowman exists!

[@Valicroix]

I define "God" as "a being that exists and created everything." See how easy that was? ;-)

[@a1612]

You can tell when a theist runs out of ideas. They usually start to deflect to another topic and leave the question they couldn't answer behind or just word salad

[@FourDeuce01]

Theists try to sneak in their claim that "god is necessary" so they don't need to prove it. Another logical failure.

[@sparki9085]

Is defining god into existence just a fancier version of "because i said so!"?

[@gadfly149]

I keep hearing the concept of synthetic a priori knowledge, but that is so often a combination of things already known a posteriori. Could I have a fictional apple without the already known, a posteriori, components which are used to construct the fiction? That said, fiction and imagination are wonderful and powerful, but the ability to construct a fiction is not evidence of existence.

[@Fernando-ek8jp]

The guy almost literally short circuited.

[@PatBrownfield-TheRainmaker]

I think I might puke if I hear another presup dodge about worldviews

[@dreamcatcher1072]

Did that guy really call in with no evidence or reasoning for God at all, just word games? What's the point?

[@brucewilliams4152]

So humans create god, therefore, so what. I can imagine a five headed, below spotted,multiwinged pain dimensional unicorn. It doesn't mean it exists

[@andrewreiter5664]

This might sound weird, but... If a god is the origin of logic and such has point of creation, then what ever logic requires a god to create existence is pointless sense there was a point where logic didn't exist. Illogical occurrences like something coming out of nothing are sound in a time before logic. I don't believe in this, mind you. I think the existence of anything requires a preexisting logic to it. But I don't really know.

[@TheTruthKiwi]

I see what you mean but the problem is that logic is a thought process and the existence of things, in universal terms, is material. They are two different things and there is no evidence of a mind creating the universe. It is most likely that it originated naturally.

[@andrewreiter5664]

@@TheTruthKiwi I agree with you on that's no reason to think a mind created things or can exist without brain of some sort. But logic isn't a thought process. It's the how of things. 2+2=4 kind of things where a mind isn't necessary for that to be true, but is so to be comprehended. Logic was discovered, it wasn't invented. Ergo (because I'm pretentious like that 😋) we can reason that natural occurrence happened for the universe to come into being to the more logical than supernatural occurrence. Since we don't have a reason for the supernatural to exist.

[@starfishsystems]

Logic is a formalism, like math. It has provable internal consistency. However, it only circumstantially describes physical reality. We apply it to the physical world where it seems to work, but we must confirm this empirically. There are two philosophical systems which are related to this. Philisophical Idealism is the view that formalism is somehow more fundamental than physical reality, and therefore in some sense reality is built out of the formal abstractions. The other system is Philosophical Materialism, which has the construction the other way around. Reality is made out of fundamental material, and our abstract formalisms are our attempt to model the properties of that material. Please carry on with your debate. I just wanted to bring some useful terminology to it.

[@andrewreiter5664]

@@starfishsystems Thank you. Interesting stuff. I'll enjoy looking more into this.

[@wunnell]

People like the caller like to claim that their god is the basis for logic but that would imply that their god is not itself subject to logic. They might try to wriggle out of that by claiming that logic is part of their god's nature but then we can just ask why can't logic be part of the nature of the universe or whatever greater cosmos the universe is part of. It all boils down to special pleading, as these arguments pretty much always do. They can all pretty much be reduced to everything that is requires a god, except a god.

[@starfishsystems]

What a tap dancer this caller turned out to be! It's a simple question, just answer it. Is there any conceivable universe in which god does not exist? If that's too scary to contemplate, start with something small. Consider the Boolean variable P. It can take on exactly one of two possible values: TRUE and FALSE. Is there any conceivable universe in which P can take on some other value? The answer is no. Therefore we can correctly say that P necessarily either has the value TRUE or it has the value FALSE. (This seems trivially obvious, even tautological, but it demonstrates the requirement for something to be "necessary.") Now take some definition of god and apply the same process. Do we arrive at "god necessarily exists"? It's not hard. If we begin by declaring that by definition god exists in all conceivable universes, then we can say that god necessarily exists in any one universe. That's perfectly fine, as far as it goes. But it does mean that we've taken the existence of god to be axiomatic, and some people may point out that it's possible to conceive of that axiom not having been stated. In a universe where that axiom has not been stated, does god necessarily exist? Following the same process as above, the answer is no. So we can't formally make the inference that "god necessarily exists" without first declaring AS AXIOMATIC (that is, as an assumption rather than something to be inferred) that god exists. This is the problem, not because of flawed logic but flawed presentation. Something has been made to look like an inference, but in fact it's an axiom. It's not wrong, it's just bad style.

[@DiMadHatter]

@Bouregard Hipple thanks for contributing to further spread atheism with your idiocy that no theists want to be associated with, they then stop believing such nonsense 👍

[@NeverTalkToCops1]

@Bouregard Hipple Here let me repeat what you said, tell me if I heard you correctly. You're saying, "Spoompf twaggle Gack! GAck! Is that right?

[@blarglemantheskeptic]

@Bouregard Hipple "Moist Rock" - demonstrably real. "Creator God" - not so much.

[@torontocitizen6802]

Instead of arguments, why don’t theists just provide some actual evidence for the existence of their god?!?!

[@tucarreanusea5464]

Why can't he answer the question. Like LOGICALLY, what is it that somehow in somewhat way could in anyway stop from answering. I'll wait. " worldviews" all come wrapped in some LOGICAL WAYS so all worldviews have LOGIC dammit. Ok I guess I answered me own question.

[@marshalkagami]

Hobbit holes are actually real. Just visit New Zealand

[@jonathanleslie9100]

when will people learn when the question asked end with "... yes or no" the next word out out your mouth better be "yes", "no", or "I don't know" or your a dishonest debater. Period.

[@Fluffykeith]

More sub Darth Dawkins nonsense. Presups don't want to have an honest discussion. They just want to say they're right and everyone already knows it because their God says so. It's a total waste of time trying to get an honest response out of them.

[@Fluffykeith]

@Bouregard Hipple Fuck off back under your bridge, Troll. You're fundamentally dishonest and I won't waste time on you.

[@NeverTalkToCops1]

@Bouregard Hipple Well, enjoy your trip to Sweden to pick up your Nobel Prize for proving your god thingy. What's that, you've been collecting that prize every year for how long, now? Ha Ha Ha Ha...Ha Ha Ha Ha...Ha ha Ha Ha Ha.

[@DiMadHatter]

@Bouregard Hipple thanks for furthering the advance of atheism with your lies and dishonesty that no one wants to associate with, so they turn to atheism 👍

[@johnkoenig326]

Fool disclosure

[@Stuartharrod1]

He’s just not that intelligent

[@jojoe3193]

1st

[@Julian0101]

Congrats

[@davids11131113]

Funky cold Medina.

[@tTtt-ho3tq]

This guy sounds better than Robin, though. At least he's trying to reason it out in his own head. Let me venture out to guess what's his logic. I'm only guessing here. I'm not him. First the 6 days of creation of everything, every living things, the whole universe is in his head subconsciously or something. And that's not a presupposition. That is a presumption. So let Presuppose if there's a world ... A world is a creation ... of and by a creator, thus the creator existence necessarily once his creation is here in existence. There's nothing but a creator in the beginning. Also causes & effects don't really matter because the whole universe including our Earth and birds, fishes, mamslss and us were created in 6 days as the way we are today. There's no evolution. And that's a pressumption, not a presupposition (if). There's no causes & effects of evolution. No need. Every living things were created as they are today. That's my guess that what they mean with what they're not saying but maybe try to reason with presuppositions.

[@vernonhannula5312]

Why don't you discuss the necessity of life's origin? Just saying we're here and things are the way they are because we say so doesn't cut it. Information isn't visable, without mass, and nonmaterial yet you guys acknowledge it by it's effect on energy and matter. Discribes God doesn't it? Gospel of John described God as The Word. What are words other than information? John 1:1-3

[@DiMadHatter]

Nope sorry, it doesn't

[@jettythesunfish]

Because the origin of life is still an unknown. Defining the origin as a god because you want to doesn't give us the knowledge we need. You might not like the reality of such an unknown, but honestly, that's too bad. Making up answers don't lead you to truth.

[@vernonhannula5312]

@@jettythesunfish Your denial in defending your presuppositions dispite the empirical evidences research displays that the chemical elements assembling themselves into a living organism simply are not possible in a perfectly inanimate, dumb as a rock, primordial soup.

[@rimbusjift7575]

You ever ask yourself why you try so hard?

[@jettythesunfish]

@@vernonhannula5312 I never presented a presupposition. Humans are ignorant. That's a fact and will always be. There are things we won't know about the universe, let alone the very planet we live on. Fabricating a god as the answer to rectify said ignorance only leads you further into ignorance. That's my entire point.