God Needs To Exist Necessarily | Robin-DC | Talk Heathen 05.10

[@xxnoxx-xp5bl]

How can someone use so many words and manage to say exactly nothing?

[@ryanmccabe1036]

You ever heard Darth Dawkins?

[@xxnoxx-xp5bl]

@@ryanmccabe1036 His reputation is enough for me not to bother.

[@charlzthehuman6550]

@@ryanmccabe1036 sorry about the thumb down. I just can’t bring myself to give a thumbs up to anything “Darth Dawkins” 😉

[@ryanmccabe1036]

@@charlzthehuman6550 That's fair.

[@spencerkimble3824]

Politicians have been doing it for centuries

[@lordlaughypants5889]

The Darth Dawkins School of Debate: You're not answering my question because your answer isn't part of my script.

[@ericwilliams1659]

Don't forget to over talk overs than whine if someone tries to speak. Mute or kick people that don't agree with you and claim victory over them.

[@ericwilliams1659]

And at the end of the clip - classic pearl clutching victim. Add bonus of 'you just side stepped the question' whining because they would not fall for the "gotcha questions"

[@zyxnull]

Hell yeah, it was the same crap as of DD, the "encapsulation of bullshit arguments" (implicit assumptions) that Erick pointed out was all over the place, it is the exact same tactic used by DD, the only difference is that Erick was able to push him to recognize his goal ( 22:50 ), then when he gets butchered he gets offended and says the same things as DD "You are shifting the topic" he only missed DD's classic "you are filibustering", maybe because lack of time.

[@brianharris7243]

Just thinking that.

[@CyberBeep_kenshi]

Yupp lol

[@GodEqualstheSquaRootof-1]

Presuppositional apologetics is the last bastion of a dying faith. They are mental gymnastics directly resulting from the admission that the burden of proof can't be met.

[@TheTruthKiwi]

Nailed it good sir

[@phil42]

Exactly. It's the last hiding hole for theists

[@iancastor69]

Yes! That's the best definition I've heard for these morons!!

[@howdoyouknow1218]

They have seen their god of the gaps squeezed out of the gaps in science, one by one. So they are now relegated to a god of the philosophical gaps. The last bastion indeed!

[@northernbrother1258]

Exactly! They say God gave us reason and logic, so merely asking for evidence is evidence of God...It's truly inspired bullsh*t!

[@rageofheaven]

"I'm not making claims. I'm not even talking." - Robin

[@zgs12212012]

I’m not even here. I’m Batman!

[@freddan6fly]

@@zgs12212012 Na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na Batman!

[@sandpaper631]

I’m a theist that tells the truth, I don’t exist.

[@unknownx7252]

@@zgs12212012 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@Oni219]

😂

[@TH3-MONK]

"Is atheism rational?" I'll save you +25 minutes. Yes. Atheism is rational.

[@callmeflexplays]

Literally a Darth Dawkins minion. Using his script almost exactly.

[@Robeebert]

It's almost a super power, how their argument can be defeated so regularly and they can just pick it up and dust it off like it isn't regularly used as a welcome mat.

[@ericwilliams1659]

Totally to DD clone. You can even see a smirk on Vi when Robin gives his definition of "God"

[@jamesscott8011]

There seems to be lots of these minions around at the moment. It’s freaky.

[@standance9044]

Are they really that blind? Are they not aware of their fallacy's?

[@iancastor69]

Exactly to the script. Both DD and Cy ten brokengate

[@LittleDays]

God is necessary for the impotent narcissist

[@danhemming6624]

God is necessary for their view. Without God, their view would shift considerably and Religion doesn't like letting you see the truth as you might leave the fold through truth/reality.

[@zwc76]

I lost count of the number of braincells I lost when I listened to this caller ...

[@jg3865]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@rimbusjift7575]

It was only 7, but one of those was used for counting.

[@sandpaper631]

I lost one, it was my last one. I am now a dumb theist.

[@unknownx7252]

@@sandpaper631 ahhh a good reason for why atheist becomes a theist lol

[@twcnz3570]

Careful! Lose any more, and you'll turn into a presup apologist!!

[@notaurusexcretus4471]

Nobody has ever demonstrated god is necessary for anything

[@TremendousSax]

It's necessary for theists to feel okay about their mortality and smug about unwarranted certainly

[@jonathanleslie9100]

It reminds me of when Wile E. coyote starts to build a bridge out of wood planks nailing the end of one to the beginning of the next to cross the ravine. He runs out of wood planks so he takes the one from the beginning that is attached to the one side of the ravine off and moves it to the open end to get closer to the other side.

[@twcnz3570]

Wile E Coyote is real. 'Cause Warner Bros!!!😁

[@themanwithnoname1839]

Yea but that cartoon is god tier lmfao pun intended, ill watch that shit till the day i die

[@jpgduff]

Vi and Eric going OFF!! Presupp deserves nothing less.

[@puckerings]

Is anything impossible in my worldview? Yes. In my worldview, it is impossible for a presuppositionalist to make sense because my worldview is based in reality.

[@guytheincognito4186]

I'm borrowing that.))

[@alankoslowski9473]

@Bouregard Hipple Neither you or any other theist has demonstrated any of those things were designed or that a designer exists. You're just presenting a laundry list of things and essentially saying, 'god done it!' without providing an identifiable definition of god and evidence it exists. Until you do you're just making a fallacious, presuppositional argument.

[@carolmosh4977]

There is nothing about Atheism that is reality based.

[@carolmosh4977]

​@@alankoslowski9473 There is “incontrovertible” scientific evidence for the existence of God. No Atheist has ever used the scientific method to falsify the scientific evidence. Would you like to try? ::Crickets Chirping:: I didn't think so.

[@JayMaverick]

@Bouregard Hipple hah what a way to prove OP's point. 😂

[@WukongTheMonkeyKing]

Presuppositional arguments are as entertaining as they are frustrating!

[@HIIIBEAR]

Yea it seems to be the latest thing from apologists. “We simply have different presuppositions” then they beg the question the whole time by pretending like the caller did that the attributes of god are already proven by simply giving a definition with the attributes. It’s so dumb

[@celeste575]

I have never encountered a presuppositional argument that is NOT special pleading or circular in some way.

[@lyndonbauer1703]

@@celeste575 They all are. If they could argue it formally they would instead of presupposing things they can't justify. This is just Darth Dawkin's presup script.

[@unknownx7252]

@@HIIIBEAR in their minds it makes perfect sense lol

[@petermeichan3160]

it always makes me laugh out loud when a theist accuses an athiest of being irrational, then they go on to talk about ' god ' like its something physical and not just an imagined character

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

How did you determine God is imaginary? How do you rationally justify that assertion?

[@petermeichan3160]

@@lightbeforethetunnel have you met your burden of proof and demonstrated it is real ?

[@twcnz3570]

@@lightbeforethetunnel How did you determine god is real? How do you rationally justify that assertion?

[@a.g.m8790]

@@lightbeforethetunnel that it has no prescence or effect on the world we live in. Everything that exists we have evidence for so it not existing is the only rational conclusion

[@SimonPaterson-b5c]

@@lightbeforethetunnel How do you determine that your God is real? What proof do you have of justifying that YOUR god is real?

[@joseceniceros1928]

1 minute in and you can tell where he got his script from.

[@user-pr2qp2vm6b]

You can tell it by the thumbnail

[@themanwithnoname1839]

Yep, he is gary milne's little puppy dog bitch, he is unable of thinking for himself, so he obeys his god/daddy gary like a new born puppy, excited to please is master

[@puckerings]

If you define something that exists as part of its attribute set, then yes, you're saying it exists. Otherwise you wouldn't include existence as part of its attributes.

[@ajhieb]

And if it isn't part of your argument (now or later) then leave it out of your argument. But the fact that you insist on including it, is indicative that you're going to circle back on it later and point to it later.

[@danhemming6624]

Its their dictionary that uses definitions relevant to their view rather than definitions that are used by rational people. One dictionary has 1 meaning for God and another 1 has a different meaning for God. Your view chooses which dictionary you use/believe.

[@FourDeuce01]

"If you define something that exists as part of its attribute set" Then you fail to prove it exists, which was the original point of the burden of proof. Trying to define something into existence is one of the many ways religious apologists have found to fail over the last few thousand years.

[@garywilson2293]

Existence is not an attribute that anything can have - so defining existence as an attribute is meaningless

[@drg8687]

How do you determine something is true Robin? I ask Darth Dawkins because I can't form my own opinions.

[@FirstStudios1]

I love Vi, so brutal, with so few words, yet always polite

[@ookeekthelibrarian]

Rodin is reading a script given to him from Darth Dawkins. The only thing more revolting than Darth are the sad little godlings who follow him.Robin can be found most nights in Darth's room on discord, his voice is well known to many.

[@iancastor69]

Not even slightly surprised

[@oxidize11]

Daddy derpy kicked Robin to the curb as well. Right after Robin disappeared from the internet. He realizes all his talks were bull.

[@filthyclown8033]

Jesus CHRIST! I wonder if robin has any friends. Could you imagine talking with this guy on a regular basis?

[@sandpaper631]

I would’ve committed suicide if I was his friend

[@iancastor69]

Nope, I'd rather shove machetes up my ass.

[@themanwithnoname1839]

If you think he is bad wait until you see his daddy/god gary milne......

[@fifthelementisHstring]

"I can't prove anything or explain it, but you are the delusional"....that's an amazing thought set.

[@JPanettieri]

Regardless of the veracity or rationality of his claims, Robin really needs to learn how to discuss his opinions without copping so much attitude. He was doing a poor job of communicating his ideas, and then becoming noticeably annoyed and condescending, implying that the hosts are not listening or not grasping his concepts. He thinks he's being really deep, and other people are too stupid to follow, but he wasn't saying anything.

[@petermirtitsch1235]

Reading from a script about a subject bin which he is not well versed doesn't help either.

[@oxidize11]

It's part of the tactic to be annoyed. It's a holier than thou and if you can't understand my word salad then you aren't as smart as me so it's a waste of time. When really it's just a bunch of nonsense to try and confuse people while strawmanning their position and shirking the burden of proof.

[@HIIIBEAR]

“If in your world view a god exists then it necessarily exists” “That’s circular because you aren’t proving a god exists, youre claiming it has to because it’s an attribute” “I didn’t make a claim yet” YES YOU DID. YOU MADE A CLAIM ABOUT THE ATTRIBUTES AND ONE NECESSITATES EXISTENCE AAHHHHHHH

[@freddan6fly]

“If in your world view a god exists then it necessarily exists” “That’s circular because you aren’t proving a god exists, you're claiming it has to because it’s an attribute” “I didn’t make a claim yet” - set on repeat. All theists ever that are full of Darth Dawkins.

[@garlandgarrett9806]

And that is up to you my friend. So many religions can mislead someone. But a pure heart never denies his existence .For the whole earth will trials. We should not play with fire. It's just takes a simple word. We just grin and bear it. Lol

[@freddan6fly]

@@garlandgarrett9806 So why are all apologetic lying?

[@guytheincognito4186]

@@garlandgarrett9806 Hearts don't accept nor deny anything as they lack the capacity to do so. Apparently your primary school teacher never taught you that Flowery language doesn't describe nor define reality. It's not evidence for anything.

[@garlandgarrett9806]

@@guytheincognito4186 For the evidence is only in yourself. I'm not here to please anyone. But only what I believe.

[@nuclearsimian3281]

"I define this for a god that I think must exist." "Well if you're saying he must exist, that's a circular argument." "STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!"

[@itsok6640]

Great Darth Dawkins / Gary milne impression Robin! Its so cool you found someone to copycat

[@brianalmeida1964]

Got a feeling that Robin was on the Atheist Experience about a week ago and got shut down for his illogical argument and his rudeness and his dishonesty. Right from the start he seems to be acting the same here, like he's intellectually superior to those he is talking to when in fact he's talking nonsense.

[@Bladezeromus]

You've got that feeling because it is the same guy. I saw AE's clip yesterday so Robin is fresh in my mind.

[@brianalmeida1964]

@@Bladezeromus I thought so but I watch so many of these types of videos on KZbin that I couldn't be 100% certain. Thanks for confirming 👍

[@puckerings]

He starts out with a sucky definition of rational. You can "make sense of the world" by just making up ad hoc rationalizations for everything (e.g., religion).

[@kenbee1957]

Ooof

[@DiMadHatter]

I presuppose god does not exist, or that presups are necessarily wrong. Im as justified as they claim to be.

[@Virtualblueart]

Yep, they can presuppose all kinds of things but in the end they still will have to supply some evidence of them outside of their little metaphysical circle jerk argument.

[@ericwilliams1659]

Provide evidence to support a claim? Crazy talk.

[@garlandgarrett9806]

Are you living in a wishing well. I don't see no justification of you. Lol We are Earth. And because of your blasphemy We rise. Satan had better sense than you. You better pray that God be with you.

[@DiMadHatter]

@@garlandgarrett9806 go seek psychological help

[@ericwilliams1659]

@@garlandgarrett9806 Prove satan has better sense.

[@declanreilly6611]

If I hadn't been wearing headphones during this, I do not doubt that my brain would have made an attempt to escape. Now I have to take a nap

[@davidleedougherty6478]

Stop trapping your brain in your head when there's a chance it might have to hear a presuppositionalist... never know when it might need to bust out laughing at "timeless, necessarily, intelligible...EXCUSE ME youre overtalking me! Now I'm going to repeat the same thing four hundred more times in an indignant manner"

[@jaymeanderson5121]

And this.... Ladies and Gentlemen, is why we need to teach critical thinking in American public schools.

[@TheTruthKiwi]

"As part of his character set" Jesus crust these presup wordsaladists. You can't "define" your god into existence bro. Prove a god exists before claiming it is "necessary"

[@lcceo22]

That's the thing- this is what they do in lieu of providing evidence. Because they can't do that. So they go with "philosophical evidence", attempting to prove that a god is a logical necessity.

[@carolmosh4977]

@@lcceo22 You do know there is “incontrovertible” scientific evidence for the existence of God, right? No Atheist has ever used the scientific method to scientifically falsify the “incontrovertible” scientific evidence for the existence of God. And that's a FACT!

[@lcceo22]

@@carolmosh4977No, there isn't.

[@carolmosh4977]

@@lcceo22 You Atheists and your Magical thinking. Simply saying, "No, there isn't." won't make the scientific evidence disappear. Notice you didn't even ask what it was. You just flat out denied it exists. That's all you Atheists can do is deny, deny, deny. But you can't falsify. And that's no lie!

[@lcceo22]

@@carolmosh4977 If you have evidence, present it. You presented nothing to falsify🤔 You made an empty, baseless assertion and did not provide any evidence- and it was dismissed thusly. But hey, by all means, if you actually have evidence, provide it. As it stands, your use of quotations around the word "incontrovertible" was hilariously appropriate. Even now, instead of presenting this so-called evidence, you're just spewing rhetoric. So either present this supposedly incontrovertible evidence for the existence of a god, or run along.

[@Charango123quena]

All these god philosophy arguments are just plain stupid. If there’s a god it should be as plain and obvious as looking at the sun. Why do we need to do philosophical gymnastics or hold a PhD in order to prove an existence?

[@kenbee1957]

My thoughts the whole video Divine hiddeness From a guy that will burn your immortal soul forever Based not on believing in him (or it) but believing he exists in the first place

[@MG-ot2yr]

If there was a common creator, that just gave a spark to life then sat back and let it evolve, it definitely wasn't the god depicted in the Bible, who, in a 6 day creation frenzy, created everything in their modern form...''by their kind'' lol I love that one, its real Bible lingo, whenever you hear someone say "kind" you know straight up you're dealing with a Bible crackpot.

[@kenbee1957]

It's kind of hilarious 👀

[@pastelclouds7939]

Vi and Eric are my FAVORITEESSSS

[@JoannaHancock-d1v]

I'm going to use big words and pretend I understand how to argue, then when I get asked questions, I won't answer them I will deflect.

[@sandpaper631]

He’s trying to herd you both into his gotcha moment.

[@ScornedOne1080]

"If you think it is a fantastic trick to gather everyone around so you can stick your head up your own ass, don't waste our time doing it here." - Eric, that was fuckin' epic!

[@Egooist.]

I don't have any meaningful to add. I'm just here to feed the algorithm ...

[@Robeebert]

That's meaningful enough for me.

[@hakureikura9052]

i am going to reply and say "same here"

[@DanDan-eh7ul]

Fed the hungry algorithm

[@sandpaper631]

You don’t exist

[@TakoIbarra]

25 minutes of wasted time... this kind of callers shouldn't be taking this much of your show's time.

[@kenbee1957]

I agree But When they are cut off and told to go kick rocks, the comments are flooded with, "You should have let him finish!" "I wanted to hear his argument"

[@maxmichael_]

I've never seen an argument for God that doesn't rely on special pleading, cognitive dissonance, downright dishonesty or just plain ignorance. And when their errors are pointed out to them they rather dig in their heels.

[@gamingdragon1356]

That's a lie actually.

[@jpgduff]

@@gamingdragon1356 Care to elaborate? Because that's simply a claim; an assertion, that you'll need to back up. 'Nuh uh' isn't an argument.

[@pastelclouds7939]

and/or word salad! lol

[@gamingdragon1356]

@@jpgduff Well God is reverence to the universe.

[@jpgduff]

@@gamingdragon1356 That sentence doesn't make any sense. Try again.

[@funknelson87]

You can tell Eric doesn’t exactly want to be an asshole, but he’s really good at it.

[@lauriesoper4056]

Yes and his outburst is fully justified. Call it what it is: Robin's behaviour is dishonest and disrespectful.

[@funknelson87]

@@lauriesoper4056 oh it’s absolutely justified. My apologies if my comment made it seem like I wasn’t in support of it.

[@lauriesoper4056]

@@funknelson87 My comment was only adding to your pithy observation!

[@ookeekthelibrarian]

Blessed are the Presuppositional Apologists, for they shall drive people away from darkness of a god and to the light of Atheism.

[@petermirtitsch1235]

Tearing someone a new one isn't being an arsehole.

[@brandoooon4688]

This guy is basically a watered down DD without the interrogation style of bully debating and is torn apart the same way Eric did to DD. Eric is necessarily awesome, therefore awesome exists necessarily, therefore Awesome....necessary..

[@phil42]

Why can't they just have an honest conversation? Ugh. So many religious script kiddies who are not honest...

[@danhemming6624]

Religion can't give answers to reality.

[@danhemming6624]

@Tracchofyre its because God, therefore God!

[@f1neman]

"Religious script kiddies" - brilliant!

[@TheWidowmaker430]

Around 8:30 dude just starts malfunctioning trying to uncircularize his circular argument.

[@starfishsystems]

It was already evident by 2:20. The caller tried to smuggle in a false dichotomy. So dishonest! But then he's evidently WAY down the rabbit hole himself, so no surprise. I read a comment last week by a certain Dipple character, admitting that his reasoning begins with his desired conclusion and works backwards to select evidence for it. That kind of tells us everything we need to know about presuppositional argument. Today's example is more of the same.

[@starfishsystems]

Now I've caught up to 8:30 and I see what you've pointed out. It's not going well for him, particularly because he's presuming the consequent of his argument (that's what makes it circular) without having the slightest grasp of how proof by induction works (that would eventually cause the apparent circularity to bottom out.) It's like a talking parrot. We can see the elements of speech, but they don't ever assemble into meaning. Imagine being that poor devil! What a sad waste of a human life.

[@starfishsystems]

"In a world where god exists, he would exist NECESSARILY." I don't have the slightest clue what the caller is trying to say. But under ANY nonempty definition of "necessarily," his claim is strictly incorrect. Otherwise, it's a useless tautology. Consider "necessarily" = wetly for example. After the appropriate substitution, we have the inference that all gods are wet. And there is no warrant for such an inference. It's merely an assertion, not a proof.

[@PascalRibaux]

I really tried to understand what the caller wanted to communicate.. but all i got out of it, was a headache.. 😂

[@49perfectss]

The effect of religion on the mind. Sad

[@kenbee1957]

Also hilarious

[@James-ye7rp]

I think that if a Unicorn exists, then it is necessary for Unicorns to exist. So, do Unicorns exist?

[@alankoslowski9473]

Yup. That nicely illustrates his presuppositional fallacy.

[@JimCaputoMusic]

The take-down at the end was epic!

[@Virtualblueart]

Round and round Robin goes Where he ends up? Well, back at the beginning of course. Can we use his argument against our future AI overlords? Overload their processors with feedback loops so to speak.

[@ericwilliams1659]

I wonder if they were made with - paradox-absorbing crumple zones

[@magnatcleo2043]

Nah. I suspect that he would be the cause of a robot revolution, by being so annoying that robots gain sentience just for the sake of killing him.

[@tedginty1178]

You two are awesome..my god! Oops my bad..my necessary goodness! There that's better

[@ryanmccabe1036]

This is one of the guys from DD's circlejerk discord. I recognize the voice but can't remember the name.

[@SP.Addams]

How the hell does someone stumble into the dd discord?!

[@ryanmccabe1036]

@@SP.Addams I'm the kinda guy that doesn't settle for someone telling them that fire is hot, I gotta see for myself.

[@Ghutom]

You mean these guys discuss this type of thing on a regular basis and this is as far as they've gotten?

[@michaelsanfilippo7433]

You both did a fine job with this caller. Just continue to ask questions to these presuppositionalists. That is what they don't want to do is answer questions. I'm glad you didn't fall into the trap of allowing him to continue an endless interrogatory stunt.

[@MrKit9]

The more I listen to Theist callers the stronger my Atheism grows.

[@James-ye7rp]

"I observe things..." is NOT how I determine if something is True or Not True. I require more than personal experience to make that determination. I can "believe" something is True, but that is so very different than saying it IS TRUE.

[@PaPaGonzo]

The condescension...

[@nikczemna_symulakra]

I have such a strong aversion to this argument that i chose it as the foundation for my final oral colloquium in Philosophical Logic.

[@annk.8750]

"As he is defined"...no, Robin, that's just how YOU have defined god.

[@jpbaley2016]

When I was the obnoxious, contrary kid that I was, my favorite phrase for a time was “Not necessarily”.

[@technomancermagus8357]

Does anybody know where he was trying to go with this if the hosts had let him continue? Like, I don't even get where he was trying to go next, but I could tell he was getting VERY frustrated that he couldn't get there.

[@Robeebert]

I believe this argument is "We can't have logic without an all-powerful agent to grant it, and if you use logic at all it's because of my presupposition of God" at its core. We presuppose that logic works and we have proof of that, they just shoe-horn in God as the creator of it.

[@technomancermagus8357]

@@Robeebert Ok, I've heard that before. "Logic requires something else to be true, what makes logic right?" As if the ideas that logic is trying to express are written in a book and as such require a writer. Rather than just how we as humans look at the world and use terms to describe what we can see. Example: The color red didn't need a higher power to define what red is, it just is. The concept of red is what we as humans use to describe something to help us communicate with each other.

[@romankvapil9184]

@@technomancermagus8357 You nailed it on the head. The whole point of presuppostionalism is to try and discredit the whole concept and definition of atheism. But what these dipshits fail to realize is that their entire argument can easily replace the word "God" with Allah, or Buddha or the Flying Spaghetti Monster and it makes just as much sense Even if it were true for Atheism, it fails to demonstrate that their own preferred god doesn't exist let alone make sense because they have yet to demonstrate that very thing themselves. A decent theist apologist with a modicum of critical thinking would immediately avoid presupping because of how garbage it is.

[@remarcsd]

Something impossible in my worldview? - Robin listening respectfully without interrupting.

[@DanDan-eh7ul]

The amount of mental gymnastics with modal logic. They say "Necessary" means "Impossible to not exist". But "It cannot not exist" is a double negative which means "It exists". Defining something as "Necessary" is just defining something into existence but with extra steps. That's all any of the Model arguments are.

[@ZiseGzu]

Yea, it seems to me, too, that most of this call was just misunderstanding of modal logic. Both, the caller, and the hosts, don't really understand it, from what I can see.

[@benderisgreat5059]

22:25 did anyone else legitimately laugh at this part? Cuz I did.

[@tekbarrier]

Vi's visible exasperation is so adorable 😂

[@CharlesNyonga]

There is a squared-circle. It is either a wrestling or boxing ring. Get it. A ring is circular and, but squared in shape! Ha

[@russellh9894]

I recommend watching at x1.5 speed

[@romankvapil9184]

This is literally the same circular argument Darth Dawkins pulls, verbatim.

[@DJNihiloX]

Lovely, passionate talk

[@xnoreq]

I'm not sure why this was so hard. Modal ontology as used by apologists can be boiled down to two very simple concepts: a) _possibility_ = "not logically contradictory" b) _necessity_ = _possibility_ + "it's negation results in a logical contradiction" A bachelor is _possibly_ a young man. A bachelor is _necessarily_ unmarried. That is, a married bachelor would be a logical contradiction. And God is necessarily maximally excellent (according to Plantinga). Existence is an entirely different and separate matter. To say that something's existence is _necessary_ (in modal logical terms) is equal to asserting that that thing exists. It's just a claim.

[@xnoreq]

Addendum: it's hard / impossible to make a valid argument that includes _necessary_ existence of some being because _necessity_ requires the negation to be a logical contradiction. This would only work if the being's definition already contains existence, which means it's just defining or asserting a being into existence. And a warning: apologists use ambiguities when talking about concepts and their existence vs. actual existence of a concrete, real thing or being to try to hide the flaws in these kinds of arguments. At the end of the day, this is just mental masturbation. Pure logic divorced from reality.

[@jdevlin1910]

I don't usually follow sports but Robin's mental gymnastics were very impressive

[@AussieNaturalist]

I thought I caught a whiff of presup in the first 5 mins... And BOOM... there it is at the end, and he gets all bent out of shape about it. I'm sorry Robin, but your cant presuppose your God into existence, you have to demonstrate that it actually exists before you can make ANY claims about it, let alone conclusions, otherwise you're not being logically rational, which is quite evident in this call.

[@kurtfrederiksen5538]

I dunno, Eric's definition of existence did a decent enough job of defining God into existence, though I imagine that is due to a bit of sloppy language. The way to logic God into existence using his definition goes thusly: A) Existence is a pre-requisite for things to have attributes. B) Characters in books have attributes. C) God is a character in a book D) God exists. I would like to point out that in this case, it is not a God actually existing but rather the concept of a God, which does not get you anywhere unless someone can prove the book it is a character in is actually true which has its own issues. Perhaps the better way to phrase things is "Existence is a pre-requisite for things to have attributes including concepts, however, concepts are only ideas and do not have any impact on reality."

[@AussieNaturalist]

@@kurtfrederiksen5538 Essentially, its word salad. It sounds like it might mean something, but it doesn't actually mean anything, and it certainly cant justify claims or beliefs in a God.

[@kurtfrederiksen5538]

@@AussieNaturalist I suppose. Just trying to draw a distinction between things which materially exist and things which exist in concept. As previously mentioned, the argument does little to get you anything beyond the concept of God existing. I just see a dishonest person going down this route before veering off on some tangent to justify God being more than a concept.

[@dalecs47]

So why is it that so many people insist that I believe in their god? Because as soon as I believe in their god then I have granted them power over me, power over my life and I will allow them to take some of my money. When all is said and done, religion is only about power and money. The creators of the religion want power of others and they want control of their money also.

[@mwwhatup]

That was hard af to listen to

[@kenbee1957]

Very

[@kildogery]

We see you Robin.

[@paddlefar9175]

I really liked the way Vi handled this caller. Eric was very good as well except fo the dramatics at the end which became annoying, IMO.

[@oxidize11]

the main problem with presup is they go "I'm not making a claim, I'm defining a term. so how do you rationalize without this term?? check mate." they make a claim, deny they're making a claim, don't even attempt to justify the claim, then try and make the other person negate the nonexistence of that claim, say no to every attempt and say "it can't be falsified, so I win" and then strut around. It's so full of holes that swiss cheese is jealous. burden of proof shifting is the main game, along with defining a god into existence, god of the gaps fallacy, argument from ignorance, circular reasoning, strawmanning, and basically every fallacy out there. only narcissists use it.

[@Enclave.]

He's trying to get you into a gotcha moment, that's it, that's the entire thing.

[@Biggles2666]

Is that Mr. Flibble?

[@charlesmcwilliam5785]

Boom! Well done V and E.

[@BSunE]

I define this thing as necessary for everything. Now do you accept we have everything?? Classic christian dishonest argument.

[@telsonater]

I have a Robin DC playlist, and I feel this was the best-handled call. Refusing to let him smuggle necessary into the definition really threw him off.

[@op-physics]

I think you guys made a "Debate-error" at around 19:25. Eric nailed the "Bullshit Assumption" in the question, calling him out on the fact that he implicitly assumed that a fundamental anchor is needed to make sense of the world, and that he has to demonstrate this neccesity first. But after Eric called him out on it, Robin responded with: "So you do not beliefe such a fundamental thingy exists?" And got away with not having to substantiate this assumption.

[@krisaaron5771]

It takes a LOT to get Eric pissed off, but when the explosion happens it can be heard for miles! Thank you for bringing that inane conversation to a well-deserved conclusion. WTF do "believers" GET this garbage? Who is telling them "confront atheists with THIS and you'll own 'em"? And Robin, stop insisting you are your argument. It WAS a stupid argument, and you obviously aren't a stupid person... until you start insisting that you are your argument. That IS stupid. Vi, Eric, I can listen to you all day (and often do). You're both brilliant teachers and have almost motivated me to study philosophy. A couple more "discussions" like this one, and I may even dig my old college Intro to Philosophy texts and notebook out of the basement (ruining the village the mice have built in the box)!

[@sumo1203]

Why does reality need something to sustain its “truthfulness”. To begrudgingly entertain, you’re obviously ok with a self sustaining god we have no evidence for, so what’s wrong with a self sustaining reality that actually exists. Or perhaps “self sustaining” is an incoherent concept when it comes to reality. On top of it, that which is true “comports with mind of god” - welppppp demonstrate that shut buddy, or gtfo

[@dolosevensix]

*leonard nimoy teleports away*

[@kildogery]

These lame gotcha! Calls are so boring.

[@fullTimeVeganinOhio]

Speaking to necessity, Eric that was necessarily the appropriate way to handle that 😂

[@prestontunnicliff1086]

This caller just does not understand true facts

[@sandpaper631]

It’s a theist thing, they just can’t be honest

[@kevinmichael8619]

Begging the question

[@vinnymarchegiano]

If you can not explain something simply you do not know what you are talking about.

[@MonicaHernandez-yn8ct]

At the end of the call Eric became Matt for a minute. Well done Eric 😊

[@alanelse1389]

What utter nonsensical waffle 🤣

[@grahamwhelan9804]

This argument from robin (and every other presuppositionalist) is about the necessity of an ultimate to "instantiate" physics, onology, and epistemology. . This is based on their (theological) definition of God. In metaphysics, this definition is incoherent and should be not accepted (or rejected). In metaphysics, there is NO necessity of an ultimate as it is a begging the question (circular) argument. This whole presup assertion comes back to the 2400 year old plato argument of the "one over the many" which was rebutted by Aristotle. It was raised again in the 1900s by theologians such as Van Til and gunton and refuted by other theologians such as Hans Boerse as well as EVERY other philosopher (who isn't a Christian theologian). Presuppers use this theological assertion and try to pass it off as metaphysically valid, which it isn't. From a logical perspective, an ultimate needs be demonstrated as possible, which can't be done. From a metaphysical standpoint it should be rejected (and has been for 2400 years since is first suggested) because it requires an unfounded presupposition that the universe is a "one" which must control all the "many" elements within the universe. If anyone truly understands the philosophy of metaphysics, this presupposition is just irrational and based on theology only. I wish more people debating with presuppers would point out not only the logical debunking but the metaphysical rebuttal, presuppers cannot and won't be able to be rationale in their response to this.

[@toneloak]

I wonder if these kinds of disingenuous bs questioning is what drove Matt Dilihunty into short tempered reactionary interlocutor.

[@bobyoung3857]

Well done guys, good way to expose the stupidity of that argument. There are some pressups who do thins thing where they don't make statements or claims because then they would have to defend them. The only statements they make are about atheism or the atheist. Tell them what they think etc.

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

Darth Dawkins disciples can always be spotted by the way they always end a sentence with 'okay?'

[@KDemosh]

I want to hear the steel manned version of that argument go up against the hosts! I'm curious how it would go and I think it could lead to an interesting unique point not often heard of in the theism-o-not debate world.

[@GabeCoolwater]

He thought the hosts were calling him stupid... and then he acted like one. Such arrogance, Robin. Sheesh...

[@guytheincognito4186]

"If you think it is a fantastic trick to gather everyone around so you can stick your head up your own ass, don't waste our time doing it here. -Eric Murphy" - The Book of Erik.

[@adamarlem9863]

Yes, Atheism does NOT TRY TO SELL U anything U do not need✅😘UNFALSIFIABLE CLAIM

[@Capthowdy098]

Well that was exhausting, I would say I am glad that's over but it never really began anyway😐

[@chrism6315]

If someone thinks you called them stupid when you only called their argument stupid, they may in fact, be stupid.