Talking to 'Dawkins Deity', aka 'Darth Dawkins', aka 'Evolution False'.

[@anitkythera4125]

Hahahaha! My favorite line from Alex, "...if everything is complete chance then that could happen. Or are you saying there's some law that forbids that in a world of pure chance?" Darth is so incredibly conceited.

[@leslieviljoen]

Talking to DD is like conversing with a tennis ball machine.

[@zombian8222]

Someone give Alex an award. That was the most frustrating conversation I've ever heard

[@davids11131113]

It was crazy, but informative to listen to if you have to deal with narcissistic sociopathic people in your own life.

[@andrewballard2783]

It was pretty fun to watch the simple view darth has be contested. He doesn't really understand what kind of requirement necessity puts on his claims. ​@@davids11131113

[@brik74]

Alex Malpass is an intellectual heavyweight, sparring with a 12-year old here.

[@j.gairns]

Holy shit, Dawkins Deity is insane.

[@VolrinSeth]

In all seriousness, that's an insult to 12 year olds.

[@markbishopiii1577]

If you don't answer DD's questions in a way that follows his script, he'll try one or both of two things: 1. Complain that you're not answering his question. Or ..... 2. Ask other loosely related questions that eventually circle back to giving him the opportunity to twist your responses into the answer his script called for to begin with. He doesn't care about a productive conversation and exchange of ideas. He only cares about winning an argument. He must find a way to protect his irrational beliefs.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

He expects COHERENT answers to his questions. Logical fallacies are not coherent answers

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@lightbeforethetunnel darth just sets out to win, he doesn't give a monkeys what you want, or what he wants even, as long as he gets his rocks off by feeling he won something. hhe wins hot air. whatever anyone says if you want me to follow god's rules you have to produce god, or at least demonstrate god, anyone who does anything other than that is delusional, they win hot air.

[@twcnz3570]

@@lightbeforethetunnel then your husband should ask coherent questions, aaand actually listen to an answer once in a while.

[@13shadowwolf]

@@lightbeforethetunnel Derpy-Dawk doesn't know what is coherent. He's simply not capable of making that differentiation. His entire argument for his god is nothing but an empty faith statement, it's just an asserted definition. His statements just exposes that Derpy-Dawk doesn't have the ability to grasp that he's too limited to understand any answer outside the script he has. "What is an Absolute?" Derpy-Dawk needs to be able to articulate what an absolute is beyond the gibberish statement "Something that cannot be otherwise" Derpy-Dawk is just stringing terminology together, and it shows that he doesn't understand most of the words that he is attempting to use. In the later interaction between Alex, Ozzy, and Matt D; Alex mentioned that Derpy-Dawk doesn't understand the terminology very explicitly. Derpy-Dawk is a fraud and nothing more.

[@oxidize11]

@@lightbeforethetunnel darthy boy only has incoherent questions and vague slippery terms. you can't give clear answers to questions that aren't clear. darthy boy's script is designed that way on purpose, it's intellectually dishonest at best and a sh*tshow at worst.

[@armadyl1212]

Alex, Alex, Alex, please, Alex, please don't interrupt me Alex.. Alex Alex, please, Alex.

[@Tenthplanetjj86]

Alex, please don't interrupt me, Alex.

[@imademonistthingy]

Alex, you're not answering my question.

[@a.j8307]

Alex, you know what I mean, Alex! Come on, dude! Now, Alex, if everything is the product of chance, aren't there some logically absolute truth statements that cannot rationally be violated by the law of non-contradiction? Right, Alex?

[@YouTubeperson1337]

I can't decide if Darth using someone's name like that, or batman with his "sir" is more condescending

[@troelsvestergaard6644]

@@KZbinperson1337 If there is doubt, there's no doubt.

[@Robert.Deeeee]

Add Alex Malpass to the list of nice people DD has pissed off. People like Alex & Ozy are really charitable with DD, considering their superior knowledge of philosophy. They don't try and use DD's ignorance to score points, and are happy to calmly walk DD through an idea, like you would an adult with learning disabilities. On the other hand, DD wouldn't have a 2nd thought about trying to humiliate any novice he comes across. Heck, he even tried his nonsense with some random 13yr olds he happened to find on paltalk. Darwin's Greatest Hits has a video of the encounter on his excellent channel.

[@davids11131113]

Kid told him to eat raw spaghetti.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

Justify the assertion that Alex and Ozy "have superior knowledge of philosophy" than DD.

[@Robert.Deeeee]

@@lightbeforethetunnel this has been demonstrated in multiple hangouts over the last several years. Ozy had some formal education in philosophy and Alex has a PhD. I know you fundie types give no value to formal education, but in the real world, it means you know your shit.

[@twcnz3570]

​@@lightbeforethetunnelJustify the assertion that christiangod is ultimate. Justify the assertion the Earth is flat. Justify the inference gary milne actually knows a thing at all.

[@BroJo333]

Dodging Dawkins - He won`t admit his only proof is the Bible which is circular.

[@ktrigg2]

Well it doesn't even go that far with him. Alex pointed out that even if we concede that god is necessary for the continuity of nature, he (DD) is still forced to use the same method of induction in order to make sense of the world. Proclaiming god reveals everything to us does nothing for us to determine what these truths are apparently.

[@psyseraphim]

Dodging Dickhead more like 😉

[@prestigephilosophy6695]

then he will say he doesnt reject all circularity. He accepts epistemic circularity.

[@kevrontoo1928]

actually, derwood holds that all epistemologies are, ultimately, circular. he argues that his circularity is virtuous, while the atheist's is vicious. revelation from god is what provides his circularity its virtuousness. the problem for him is that he has no justification for believing revelation is an actual thing, because he can't explain the mechanism and he can't demonstrate it, so he has no justification for believing it's an actual thing that god can actually do. he can define god as "able to do anything," but he has no justification for his belief that revelation is a thing. KEvron

[@twcnz3570]

Listen! Listen!!! You're not FOCUSING!!!!

[@AStoicMaster]

Asking you too not interrupt him @ 34:00 after violating his standard multiple times prior clearly demonstrates a gross lack of empathy. I'd argue DD's lack of empathy makes for a facile & vapid dialectic.

[@oxidize11]

derp's main tactic is to interrupt as often as possible. even during his "friendly" talks with his sycophants he uses it as a power play. I'm positive his terrible dad did it to him.

[@cmpc724]

@@oxidize11 his terrible dad? who, god?

[@oxidize11]

@@cmpc724 as in biological

[@cmpc724]

@@oxidize11 I know, I was joking

[@andrewinfosec]

Dawkins Deity seems to always finish his questions with "Alex" which comes across as very passive aggressive and condescending. It makes him very unlikable.

[@ktrigg2]

*more unlikable.

[@drew2fast489]

Andrew Stewart nitpicking much?

[@andrewinfosec]

Fair enough. It can be both nitpicking and true.

[@drew2fast489]

Andrew Stewart Are you watching this video right this moment?

[@le_med]

Its a defense mechanism that he may even be doing unconsciously.

[@armadyl1212]

Why is that with presupp people, when you ask for proof of their claim, their response is "Well let me ask you this, .....". Why can't they just give the proof without asking a question? I'll tell you why, because all presuppositionalism boils down to is 1 big bold ass assertion and repeating the assertion over and over.

[@berndpodhradsky9484]

Late answer, I know, but you're absolutely right. I'll never understand how they can think that they "win" a debate by doing that. All they're doing is pointing out that the other guy doesn't have absolute certainty (which they admit right at the beginning anyway). They, however, never provide proof why they shouldn't be in the same boat. DDs justification for him to believe that the law of non-contradiction is universally true is "God is the lord of non-contradiction"... how impressive :).

[@porkyboy4226]

​@@berndpodhradsky9484fake it till ya make it !!!!😂

[@julianjanssen5499]

Notice that when Dr. Malpass asked whether DD said "could be" as in logically possible and DD evaded. It seems to me DD is trying to avoid being pinned down on what he even means because he is using ambiguity and equivocations to "attack" Dr. Malpass' worldview.

[@markbishopiii1577]

"Alex, please don't interrupt my interruptions."

[@AtheistJr]

Darth: "There cannot be independent verification ultimately of ANYTHING unless we have an ultimate verifier, such as the Christian God." Alex: "Well, PROVE IT!" *Game, set, match.* 46:40

[@davids11131113]

Right, bottom line Darths whole schtick is just a bunch of assertions.

[@parsivalshorse]

I love Darth's seamless self confidence and condescension as he is being utterly outclassed and obliterated by Alex. Hilarious.

[@piecrumbs9951]

Nothing infuriates me more than watching a dick getting stomped on and somehow staying erect

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

Can you tell me in your own words how Alex refuted the actual argumentation of Presup? I'd be very interested because I've been asking for a non-fallacious rebuttal to the actual argumentation of Presup for over a year now & haven't heard one yet.

[@parsivalshorse]

@@lightbeforethetunnel Well that's so easy it's trivial. All you need to do to defeat presupp is not accept the presupposition. Or for that matter any of his self serving and deeply optimistic definitions.

[@davids11131113]

@@lightbeforethetunnel ‘the argumentation of presup’ …what’s that? You presuppose something, and say other people have to rebut it? Big deal.

[@MartTLS]

@@davids11131113 Absolutely. Presuming something is right because someone says so and assumes god exists is a non sequitur . Presuppers can never back up their empty claims but still think they have an argument.

[@davids11131113]

Alex demonstrates Darth is wrong on all points, Darth just doubles down with abusive behavior like saying ‘Alex’ 7 times in each sentence like he’s now a psychiatrist with a small child with ADD....Darth is just awful.

[@AlexGordonMusic]

Malpass asked darth to prove something 5 minutes in An hour later, and all darth has done is ask questions.

[@blackfeathercrafts]

Darth just makes me want to slap him......... ......with a chair.

[@twcnz3570]

A large chair. And heavy. With nails sticking out.

[@plasticvision6355]

Alex’s problem here is that he is not used to talking to people who are incapable of reasoning logically. The irony is painful. Darth is simply unaware of how far above him Alex is. Darth’s stupidity is breathtaking.

[@Robert.Deeeee]

The video with DD and Mike Fahl may give us an insight into the motivation of DD. DD hasn't had any personal supernatural experiences of God, unlike most of his Christian brethren. This probably keeps DD awake at night, confused why Yawhew hasn't contacted him directly. His behaviour is to convince himself God exists, rather than convince anyone else.

[@LeXXeL50]

"If everything is random, how would you know anything?" "Uh...randomly"

[@ktrigg2]

These presups get so emotional and condescending when you start going outside of their script.

[@hempracer]

DD is an AI or BOT imo.

[@YouTubeperson1337]

Ktrigg. I am asking you a question. And you're evading my question. Ktrigg. Ktrigg. Listen

[@gorgulax]

John Jack - by 3:00 in, I am wincing every time DD says “Alex”.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

It's because they're showing you why your worldview that you're arguing from is so incorrect that you can't even justify your ability to engage in debate if it was actually true.

[@LuciferAlmighty]

@@lightbeforethetunnel false

[@TheSpaceInvaderer]

Yessss, a second video today. Thoroughly enjoy these discussion alex. Hope you continue to do them

[@tiberiusvetus9113]

Alex brought to my attention a useful point: people don't base all of their beliefs on deductive inference. Presuppositionalists refuse to acknowledge that they use inductive reasoning.

[@ktrigg2]

Tiberius Vetus exactly, Alex easily exposed that DD has to rely on the exact same methods to discern some level of truth no matter how many times he declares his god makes it that way.

[@davids11131113]

Right, they have to....no way I'd believe any religious person just goes thru their whole day doing everything and making every decision upon 'This is what I will do Christian god has just told me my reasoning is justified' it's just complete horse shit.

[@BigDrozJoe]

Ecactly, man. Free will is the ultimate defeater for his argument. It doesn't matter if you have a foundation for rationality, if you can never rationally get to it. He has no rationality for particulars based on his own definitions.

[@bouncycastle955]

Somewhere, in a dark basement, there's a man dressed in leather who's having his balls walked on by a woman in stilettos, he's blushing at the level of masochism in this video. How did you last for almost an hour!? Genuinely impressive.

[@twcnz3570]

Er, is dearth the man in leather?😏

[@piecrumbs9951]

This is the funniest KZbin comment I think I've ever seen, I'm barely containing my laughter as I type this

[@BrianTylerComposer]

DD’s tedious presup script is so fucking boring it’s ridiculous.

[@purgatoriprytania5382]

Did DD really try to launch into a slightly less stupid-sounding version of Slick/Sye's Mountain Dew script?

[@Whatsisface4]

The problem with using reason, is that it's lost on those who don't know how it works

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

You can't even justify reason in your worldview

[@Whatsisface4]

@@lightbeforethetunnel Yes I can. Now what?

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@Whatsisface4 How? Because you say so?

[@Whatsisface4]

@@lightbeforethetunnel No. I can justify the laws of logic without reference to God, if that's what you'd like.

[@twcnz3570]

Me too. Reason, logic, facts, reality etc need no long obsolete, otherwise obscure Cannanite deity.

[@hiroprotagonist7318]

44:46 - 46:59 The entire argument in two minutes.

[@alcaponescpa]

@joe smith You don't even understand what you are arguing against.

[@gregorsamsa1364]

Wow. Darthissist obviously felt intimidated from the start. He's so used to speaking at 14 year olds on discord. Never heard him so reserved and relatively respectful

[@oxidize11]

you can almost feel the desperation in darthssssss voice grow the entire video. he just repeats the same vague claims in hopes to win, but never can.

[@Zoulz666]

DD's whole argument is just sophistry and no substance.

[@RonnieD1970]

It's based on the presup ability to keep asking questions till the IL comes to "I don't know". Typical endless regress cop out. Bahnsen inspired attack their world view while not addressing their own.

[@alexmalpass]

If you enjoy my content, please check out my other channel. It's me talking to professional philosophers about their work: kzbin.info/door/wbA80IQy8pfbil09XiBKfwvideos

[@tylerwest719]

alex malpass Thank you for your videos. You are really helping me and others like me to understand how logic can cut through a fallacy and get to the heart of the matter. You may wonder if you are making a difference in the world. You are.

[@ajhieb]

_"It's me talking to professional philosophers about their work:"_ Wait, are you implying that The Great And Powerful Darth Dawkins is just an amatuer?

[@Enigmatic_philosopher]

Here is a symbolic logic breakdown of how Darth Dawkins' arguments for God's existence fail at each point: 1. Knowledge (K) requires uniformity of nature (U) 1. U requires God (G) 1. Therefore, G Formalization: 1. ∀x (Kx → Ux) 1. ∀x (Ux → G) 1. ∴ ∃x G Problems: - The first premise is unsupported. Why can't knowledge exist without absolute uniformity? This is not proved. - The second premise makes a questionable leap. Even granting uniformity, there are other potential sources like abstract objects. - The argument commits the existential fallacy, deducing existence from a universal premise. 1. Logic (L) requires universality (U) 1. U requires G 1. Therefore, G Formalization: 1. ∀x (Lx → Ux) 1. ∀x (Ux → G) 1. ∴ ∃x G Problems: - Same existential fallacy as above - The first premise is also unjustified. Why can't logic exist without universality? In summary, the symbolic logic analysis shows the arguments fail to prove their key premises and commit quantifier fallacies. The case for God's existence is not made successfully.

[@soccerplayer922]

are laws of logic not abstract objects? How can we be sure they are always true, and not just true for the distribution we check?

[@stupidluvdisc4019]

DD is just obnoxious

[@jwamscience5657]

This is Bizarre. I had the exact same "discussion" with Darth Dawkins. Not only does he REPEAT the same irrelevant question (can chance produce this very universe / is there rationality in that universe). After "yes it can, and if we are in that universe, should we continue this discussion?", he is unable to drop it, but asserts that my rationality is not based on anything.

[@swimrski]

I'm pretty sure that every time DD says someone's name with that tone he touches himself.

[@IONAPINKMOXIE]

Jordan Peterson school of word salad vomit. Alex should win an award and get a congratulatory massage.

[@twcnz3570]

What has Peterson to do with this?

[@srp01983]

Who the hell is this Darth guy? I don’t think I’ve heard anyone make so many ridiculous unfounded claims and dodge the issue of whether they are valid or not, or talk in such a condescending and rude way to someone who is clearly streets ahead intellectually. I listened to the whole thing, and his position just boiled down to ‘god exists so I’m right and I don’t have to offer any proof of that because god exists so I’m right’.

[@twcnz3570]

Gary milne. An exemplar of human failure.

[@camspiers]

Whatever the degree of uniformity of nature that exists, that we can even say such things and consider uniformity is evidence the degree of uniformity that thus far has existed is sufficient to consider and evaluate the hypothesis. So the hypotheses being evaluated aren’t uniformity vs. complete randomness. Being able to historically consider and evaluate uniformity is actually predicted by a variety of uniformity and non-uniformity hypotheses, and thus our being able to consider and evaluate such hypotheses isn’t evidence either way. A side point here is that the problem as presented is actually reducible to the problem of induction, so it isn’t as if there is anything novel or interesting in DD’s presentation. In fact analysis of the problem of induction via bayesian methods generally resolves the prior epistemic concerns (in particular dissolving the obsession for unattainable absolute certainty). But even so, the counterfactual reasoning from DD here is fallacious, as Malpass points out, it assumes a hypothesis about uniformity than neither interlocutor holds and isn’t even compatible with prior evidence, only with hypotheses of future non-uniformity or very subtle inconsequential non-uniformity historically, and thus presents a false dichotomy. The idea here is that there are multiple hypotheses about to world that a) imply uniformity (e.g. almost all of our physical theories) and b) imply non-uniformity but with sufficient uniformity to provided a basis for reasoning thus far. Regarding the uniformity of nature, the position we are left in is of course (as with induction) is one of lack of absolute certainty, but despite this, my epistemological framework which **doesn’t assume** the uniformity of nature still rationally justifies my expectation of continued uniformity. For anyone interested in the way we even get evidence of uniformity, this is actually very specific and well defined. In physics, analysis of uniformity actually goes by the nomenclature of symmetries. Noether’s Theorem tells us that for any symmetry (of a particular kind) there is an associated conservation implied, and in the case of time translation/symmetry it is conservation of energy that is implied. Thus evidence of energy conservation is (via plausible reasoning, or more specifically bayesian reasoning) evidence of time symmetry in the absence of better predictors (non-uniformity isn’t a better predictor).

[@ktrigg2]

So is this really just pointing out that we cannot get past solipsism and then give no alternative solution and declare superiority?

[@ktrigg2]

Haha, so another way of saying no alternative solution basically. I just can't understand how someone can't see the cheap game that is being played. If you're going to claim to completely undermine reality you're going to have to do better than "god dunnit" as your explanation.

[@Robert.Deeeee]

But DD can "account" for the laws of logic. In other words he's got an unprovable hypothesis, that because he's really really sure he's correct, then of course he must be. He says God has endowed us with rational and reason, but you would think an omnipotent being could do a better job. He's done it in such a way, that it gives the impression that we still have primitive urges motivating us under the surface. It's almost like we've only just evolved and still bear the indelible stamp of our lowly origin. But of course evolution didn't happen, because the Bible says so.

[@ktrigg2]

Robbie Desiato it is quite telling that whenever Alex or someone starts into the details of this apologetic, the apologist immediately retreats to "how do you KNOW that?" They are happy to discuss details and debate until they get trapped and they pull the emergency handle. It becomes painfully obvious that it isn't about truth or discussion, it's about controlling the narrative.

[@julianjanssen5499]

Isn't the entire position of Dark Dawkins an affirming the consequent fallacy? I mean his implicit argument seems to be: (1) god -> rationality, (2) rationality, (3) therefore, god.

[@hempracer]

Well, at least we can say that DD knows Alex's name and that is about it.

[@richardb7495]

Darth’s entire argument boils down to: you as a non believer have no ability to reason. Yes we do. No you don’t and that’s because I say so!

[@trevorlunn8442]

An average person can intuit that DD is making a silly argument, even if that is no more than the feeling that what they are hearing him say doesn't make sense. But it is so much more informative to hear the clarity of analysis which you bring to the argument Alex. Thank you for the free education.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

Appeal to personal incredulity fallacy is when someone concludes an argument is false or invalid just because they don't understand it (or it "doesn't make sense" to them subjectively)

[@simonpaterson9648]

@@lightbeforethetunnel ''Nothing can be proven, unless it's the case your Christian Garrd exists''??? what is your proof and evidence of that? From your favorite Cut Lunch Philosopher Darth Dawkins??????

[@simonpaterson9648]

@@lightbeforethetunnel Yes Dawkins is a philosopher on the scale of Socrates, yeah? answering a Question with a Question, shouting over people like a pig. Is there any video where you are not???

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@simonpaterson9648 No idea what you're talking about dude. You just quoted something no one said in this thread in an attempt to divert with a red herring.

[@SimonPaterson-b5c]

@@lightbeforethetunnel I don't care for your fundamentalist word salad script. I am more concerned of a human's character. You actually spruik that your hero is a master Philosopher. How is shouting over the top of someone, and being his usual bombastic self, qualify him to be a master at Philosophy??

[@shockthemonkey7046]

That was painful to listen to - you have great patience dealing with this level of patronizing dis-honesty

[@DeusEx_Machina]

He's not *saying* anything... all he does is ask the same questions to lead you down a path. Everything has to be phrased as a 'yes' or 'no' to DD

[@DeusEx_Machina]

@@BadPanda777 yeah no

[@jamesvwest2511]

Ok whoever that guy is questioning Alex in the first bit of this recording is absolutely dishonest. Even the tone of his voice is condescending. He's not the least bit interested in having a discussion. People like that are fairly impossible to talk to without blowing a gasket.

[@AZRogue]

I really wish both HogTie and Alex would have not have acted quite so subservient with DD. DD is a mental midget and not an honest participant in these conversations, as revealed by his own behavior. He browbeats his opponents and, in their efforts to avoid being rude, they let him get away with shifting the burden of proof, dodging, strawmanning, and who knows what else. It's clear that most of these concepts are beyond DD's ability to contemplate rationally--a fact he clearly knows, but is suppressing--and so must rely upon tactics to get him through these situations. I love Alex's conversations, but the passive aggressive tyranny and intellectual dishonesty of DD are painful, absolutely painful, to sit through. Someone desperately needs to steal Dillahunty's mute button and apply it liberally here.

[@rungavagairun]

Is DD a trinitarian? If so, how does he explain the fact that the very nature of the god he thinks cannot lie and whose very essence is the foundation of the law of non-contradiction entails contradictions. Is Jesus the same as Yahweh? They are the same and different at the same time in the same way.

[@tsolum4126]

Barf seems to have a nervous tic everytime he begins a sentence with "how." how-do-we-how-do-we-how-do-we... It reminds me of the Porky Pig sign off, Abedee-abedee-abedee That's all folks!

[@mattevlogs5478]

Am I right when I think DD posted this conversation and then took it down? This would make sense. DD is clearly not equipped to engage in this level of conversation.

[@Whatsisface4]

+Tommy Boy Yes that's right. I watched it a little while ago, went to watch it again and couldn't find it.

[@porkyboy4226]

6 years later and still waiting for someone to prove god exists. God must really want me not to know him for some reason!!!!!!!!!

[@Xtro69]

I'm embarrassed for Antonio

[@benaberry578]

dd goes from ontology to epistomogly...if it's possible to have rationality by chance then it's also possible to know by chance also.

[@davids11131113]

Right, I can think of an example of where I have no knowledge of a thing and still be right like if a robbery happened and we know the bags of money are somewhere in a house, I could say I think it's in the kitchen pantry and we open the door and there it is. also someone can be sure they know something is a fact and be wrong, like if I saw the robbers bury the loot by the toolshed, I say I know it's there but when we look for it we discover it's not there because one of the robbers came back later and moved it. DD would have to demonstrate he gets special truth knowledge from a god and he knows he can't do that so he just shifts the burden of proof to other people to make himself feel better.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i'm not talking about the theoretical realm, i'm talking about the real world, demonstrate god.

[@marklee7126]

the way darth says "alex" all the time...he knows he's out of his depth...

[@Overonator]

I think I have seen this video before. Oh yeah the sufficient part is granted but the necessary part remains unjustified and un-argued.

[@bigskye606]

Presupposing anything into existence is a ridiculous way to try and prove anything. I would never allow myself to be interrogated by DD. Wish people would stick to their guns and demand that DD accounts for his claims, and not just by going to the Bible, which is circular. When he cannot do it, throws a tantrum, calls you a troll and boots you from 'his' hangout, it will save everyone from listening to his 1000 questions routine.

[@乙-f1s]

31:00 We know that the universe works in a reliable way, because if it did not, there would be evidence of that unreliability. In order for us not to be able to rely on our senses, reality would have to be reliably unreliable. In other words, deceptive. If it was simply unreliable, we could calculate that.

[@kevinr2552]

Awesome Alex! Keep them coming! :)

[@oxidize11]

it's so gross the way he says his opponents name so often. it's a manipulation tactic and not a very good one either.

[@aathanraan8819]

You guys need to quite letting this guy lead the conversation.

[@dospook]

This was recorded at a previous date than May 8th 2017.

[@alexmalpass]

Yeah, it was from a few months ago.

[@lostsoulhumanity5388]

Alex, are you sure about that, Alex?

[@992turbos]

If the world functions in such a way that we can prove something to be true, then you wouldn't need to presuppose that thing to be true in the first place, because you should be able to prove it. The entire reason DD thinks he can prove anything is based on something that he cannot ever prove.

[@Butzemann123]

At 38:00 Darth realized that Alex had him checkmate, so he just knocked the chessboard over and went back to "nothing you are saying matters, if god isnt true", which is in itself a claim he couldnt prove.

[@anitkythera4125]

I'm thinking he never took you up on the exploration of induction...

[@diogosesimbra]

Is there a source for the entire conversation?

[@darealtuck4420]

No one can handle the Presuppers like Alex can. Alex blows up Darth's script every time but he just keeps coming back with the same questions over and over

[@992turbos]

Even in a universe that follows "laws", randomness occurs.

[@psyseraphim]

Seriously your level of patience in unrivaled.

[@rarmachine8364]

Darth got owned at 38 mns and he freaked out hahaha

[@deedrabbit]

It doesn't follow that if you got rationality by chance, that all your thoughts are by chance. That's just another of Darths many many fallacies.

[@Enigmatic_philosopher]

- Darth Dawkins relies heavily on presuppositionalism - the view that one must presuppose God to reason, argue, etc. But this is circular reasoning and takes a theistic worldview as uncritically assumed. - Malpass rightly points out that logic does not necessarily require a theistic grounding. Abstract objects like numbers or conceptual truths could provide the basis for logic without requiring a god. - Dawkins ignores objections and continues asserting his presuppositional view without defending it. He does not engage in substantive back-and-forth philosophical debate. - Malpass argues more persuasively by pointing out flaws in Dawkins' reasoning rather than just asserting an opposing view. He questions the unsupported premises. - Dawkins seems to conflate evidence and proof, overstating the case for God's existence. At best he provides arguments not actual evidence. Malpass does well to call this out. - Malpass could press Dawkins further on issues like the problem of evil, divine hiddenness, etc. But Dawkins seems unwilling to dive deeper into these arguments. Overall, Darth Dawkins relies more on rhetoric and repetition rather than substantive philosophical argumentation. Alex Malpass employs more effective reasoned critique by questioning presuppositions and distinctions between proof vs. arguments.

[@peterwyetzner5276]

I don't see why the grounding of logic, whatever it might be, should be described as "theistic". What does calling it that tell us about this grounding that we didn't know before? That it liked to walk in the Garden of Eden in the heat of the day? That it had a son? That it wielded thunderbolts?

[@tylerwest719]

This is what happens when you try to reason with people who believe in a talking snake, a talking donkey, unicorns and Noah's ark.

[@porkyboy4226]

Too true 😂

[@peterwyetzner5276]

I've heard him use the phrases "Christian God". "God of the Bible", and "God of creation". are these three exactly the same thing? If so, what it is about Christianity, the Bible, and creation respectively which not only systematically defines this God in specific and distinct terms, but defines him in such a way that he is the functional equivalent of "that without which reason cannot exist"?

[@Cliveygee3422]

How can you have a conversation with a person that does everything to avoid answering a question…but when does his arguments fall apart!

[@miguelquintana8076]

Everything is a product of chance if a Christian god exists. You would have no way of knowing if you or the person you are talking to is experiencing a miracle.

[@lotus160]

DD is incredible frustrating to listen to - it is not a debate as he uses aggression to avoid questioning the fundamentals of his position. He asserts that god is self attesting but does not demonstrate it. I've never heard anyone manage to ask he him how he knows that without using circular reasoning.

[@kevinobrien2630]

We know that Newtonian physics works because when we fire a cannonball out of a cannon, or shoot a rocket around the Moon, we can predict those trajectories using Newtonian physics, and we see what we predict.

[@bigskye606]

Derpity claims he can 'know' things, based on what he read in a book, written 2000 years ago, by people that knew less about the outside world then the average 10 yo does today. Since using the Bible to prove the Bible is true, is akin to using a comic book to prove the Avengers are real. It is a nonsensical claim that does not belong in a grownup discussion. Also, it is laughable that every time DD gets backed into a corner, Anthony takes DD's balls out of his mouth, long enough to try and jump to his rescue.

[@constructivecritique5191]

Do atheist have any last words before they disappear?

[@Jaryism]

I’d never seen this before, but I was surprised.. Darth absolutely destroyed him in this debate. Alex was flip flopping like a fish out of water.

[@garrgravarr]

Imagine dropping this in a 6 yr old video and then liking your own comment 😂

[@navigator687]

@@garrgravarrcope and seethe

[@garrgravarr]

@@navigator687 Hey champ, is your god just a non-contingent mind, or does he actually have a personality? 😉

[@navigator687]

@@garrgravarr atheist comedy lol yikes. stick to flipping burgers

[@soccerplayer922]

@@garrgravarr you are a 🤡

[@eugenecoleman8525]

I would love to just start asking Darth all his own questions. Are you relying on your senses to interpret or understand gods revalation? Does gods revalation presuppose that you can reason and that nature acts in a uniform way? If everything were random including your thoughts could you logically understand revalation? The only and we I've ever heard a presupositipnalist give is "God reveals things in a way which can not be wrong". My first thought is what way is that? My second thought is, does that way depend on nature acting in a uniform way XD. It's sad that Darth doesn't realize that he's in the same boat as everyone else when it comes to knowing, and any other religion can make the same claims, on the same basis. It is funny to watch him try to wiggle out of situations when he gets put in them, like Alex asking about if he can know his inferences are correct or not.

[@Fluffykeith]

Wait....DD says he can know in advance that God has created the world to act in a consistent way But he also believes in the Christian God who is described as carrying out miracles that can fundamentally go against that consistent world and can do so whenever he wishes for reasons that cannot be understood or will not be explained. So how can DD trust anything he sees about the world?

[@edelker1]

Wow! DD cannot seem to grasp certain basic consequential ideas. One which is directly involved with avoiding a version of the problem of special pleading, seems rather obvious. If we assume the presupp's position that god must be accepted in order to have the experience and function of rationality and regularity, we can still ask the question, 'is god the only source of reason and rationality?' What DD would have to do is provide an argument that would demonstrate that god alone is the only source for these properties. Yet, he didn't provide anything. He probably just assumed 'other' arguments, like some version of the ontological argument, to say that god is the only thing that can account for these properties in all possible worlds. However, he wasn't clear about anything. He generated only claims without any demonstration. So, even when we assume the presupp. position, we're not prevented from asking the above question and it would require the presupp. advocate to provide some sort of argument. Also, it seems that he isn't really presupposing god for the ontological source of rationality and regularity! DD can only arrive at this sort of odd stance by way of some sort of inductive inference--the universe follows X patterns that rational minds can discover and recognize--because it seems to DD that we can do this and empirically demonstrate it. Then he wants to find some way to avoid error and since his odd view of "reason" and "regularity" exist in a universe wherein error in epistemic claims about these things is possible, the answer for certitude (albeit, he never explains why this is desirable or even possible), is by pulling a kind of semantic trick by subjectively defining views, (very sophomoric views at that), of traits of logic with traits of god, and, viola!, god is the sole author. It reduces to a mere set of claims. However, it seems to me that DD isn't working from god on down the deductive line. Quite the opposite! He starts with the supposed contingent world and then creates a semantic game wherein he arbitrarily lines up definitions about certain ontologies that forces the conclusion regardless of the price that must be paid for the effort!

[@Pyladin]

Hey Alex, I know this video is over 2 years old, but just want to make a point about randomness and chance. flipping a coin 20 times and it comes up tails all the 20 times is still randomness. There is a chance for that happening, although small. So, we could already live in a universe that in fact is all chance, is all randomness. It could be that we are just in this very small chance period, where everything comes up "tails" and to us that seems like the universe has a pattern and it has been like that for almost 14 billion years....yeah, I know, it is crazy, but if DD proclaims such things about a universe and thinks that is a good argument, he needs to (and so does many others) understand that this is in fact a possibility in such a universe. Like your debates and the way you do it. Hope you see this msg.

[@Pyladin]

@Intellect, reason&Logic Use your brain Exactly because we don't know all the variables, that we use the word: Random or chance. So yes, they exists, just like the word: car or feelings. We can show/explain what we mean by these words.

[@soccerplayer922]

@@Pyladin chance and probability are an ends measurement to tell us about something that is irreducibly complex. So we measure the outcomes and assign 'chance' based on the sampled distribution. This model is an abstraction of the underlying process with no explanatory power for the process itself.

[@samsepoil2111]

20:33 aaaaaaand DD lost

[@Someone-cr8cj]

hypothetical exchange does the law of non contradiction always apply in your worldview? -Yes Is your worldview valid? -Yes Therefore the law of non contradiction holds. right? why do you have to account for it, he accounts for it =/

[@braedenmatson-jones1071]

Alex, you are a saint, homie. I'm 4 minutes in and already very frustrated.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

15:00 lol, this is funny. "everything you do is nonsense" "but i've discovered sense by chance" "oh no you haven't" "oh yes i have" lol.

[@NikNakNaj]

I hate people that constantly use your name needlessly in a conversation. They immediately sound like a creepy dodgy salesperson. Darth said Alex like 80 times.

[@Julian-jc3xd]

why comes DD across like such an arrogant person. i dont like him. he comes across like a little dictator - condescending and making themselves look like a fool. he did ask good questions some of the time but sadly that was overshadowed by his behavior

[@davids11131113]

But when does DD not come across as an arrogant person?

[@thenightlifenj1]

DD is so dishonest its disgusting. all he does is question beg, dodge questions and switch the burden of proof, interrupt, and then leave lol what a fool.

[@johnelliott5859]

Didn't Darth's christian god reveal a geocentric universe?

[@nemdenemam9753]

Holy shit, how did you have patience for that? 8:13 'If the chemistry in your brain is simply absolutely erratic' Even if evolution is true, the chemistry in our brain is not completely erratic. Just because there is a form of randomness in evolution and materialistic worldview, it gets organized because non random constraints like the laws of physics or natural selection. Materialistic worldview is not completely random but randomness subjugated to a non sentient organizing principle.

[@Sampaxi]

Darth "circular" Dawkings.

[@braedenmatson-jones1071]

Drinking game: take a shot every time Darth says "Alex."

[@darkdragonite1419]

‘proven’ = ‘can’t be wrong about it’. idk if I agree with that simplistic definiiton.

[@simonpaterson9648]

Please don't fall for Dawkins' asking questions to a Question. Be forthright with him in getting him to respond to your Questions. Why do you feel obligated to be interrogated his script?