Epistemology: Paleocrats Presupposition Nonsense

[rowsofvoices9]

Why are atheists always so angry?

[nosajj12345]

Excellent video. Great response to that apologetic toad known as "paleocrat."

[CRM0001]

tooltime,

You say:

"Having a consistent reality is a precondition to having a consistent being (ie God)"

This statement is pure conjecture, a false presupposition that you start with! Given the Christian worldview the reality that we know is a created entity (time, space, matter) distinct from the eternal Creator. Therefore, from our stand-point for there to even be the reality that we know it was conceputally proir to it's existence in the mind of God.

[tooltime9901]

@CRM0001 no, you are talking about the universe, I am talking about reality in the sense of everything which can be said to exist, including god (if there were one), his nature, his mind, logic, etc.

[CRM0001]

@tooltime9901 This statement is still pure conjecture, and false presupposition that you start with. You are assuming God's consistent being is not reality and making up some sort of dichotomy. From the Christian point of veiw God is the *be all and end all* and God's being is "consistent reality (but not merely that). By definition you can't have a precondition for the self contained God of Christianity.

[YaleBreaker]

@CRM0001 I know this is an old post, but sorry, I'm a weak person:

If God is what he is, he isn't what he isn't, and he is either real or not real, then either God is the Three Logical Absolutes, in which case the term "God" is meaningless and unnecessary...or he is contingent upon them and therefore not eternal nor the creator of everything.

Or he is nonsensical and self-refuting.

[CRM0001]

@YaleBreaker I don't hold that "God is the Three Logical Absolutes" or that "he is contingent upon them"

The laws of logic reflect the thinking of God but are not God Himself. So it's not simply an either or situation.

If there were no minds where would the "Three Logical Absolutes" exist?

[leviksu]

You are a rather angry person. Perhaps you should chill out. Also, you have no idea what he's saying. Hooray!

[billiey61]

you have long hair like Jesus . grow a beard and you'll have the look .Maybe than you will beleive

[TheHardworlder]

@billiey61 then*

[ominousmaximus]

Play alot of D&D in your mother's basement as a teenager, did you? Or was it world of warcrap? I bet your collection of Rush albums is extensive, isn't it?

[tooltime9901]

@ominousmaximus for the love of christ, please come up with a more original insult than that.

[Ilikenuman]

@tooltime9901 i like world of warcrap...

[joe80dman]

Well, God orders me to live free as long as I don't violate anyone else, or their property. And since the 1st Amendment guarantees me the freedom of religious belief, so be it.

[CRM0001]

CRM0001 wonders if tooltime believes there was a time when the the Laws of Logic did not exist?

[dbertube]

The laws of logic are conceptual in nature. Concepts exist in a mind. Never a time when logic was not applicable; ergo logic = eternal concept. Ergo, eternal concept exists in an eternal Mind. You are partially correct > God presupposes the laws of logic but the laws of logic (being eternally conceptual) presuppose God. They are intertwined.

[CRM0001]

dbertube,

You are correct. How can you account for something such as a concept in a material world. I wonder if tooltime understands that there is a difference between TAG and presuppositional apologetics?

[tooltime9901]

no, i do understand, but that is irrelivant. concepts "exist" in a secondary sense in the mind. they are metal reprentations of the actual world. TAG confuses the map for the territory.

[dbertube]

I think u confuse TAG w/ the Ontological arg. I also think CRM has good questions (which u didn't respond to). So I'll try: was there a time when the laws of logic didn't exist? Did intelligence arise from non-intelligence?

a worldview "founded on nothing of substance"? A worldview's foundation isn't supposed to be "founded" on anything. By def. it is the foundation.

>re: ur last paragraph: are all philosophical probs solved by ur system? Or is ur system antithetical to logic itself?

[CRM0001]

tooltime,

Concepts exist in a secondary sense in the mind? Okay we agree that they exist! As far as being secondary I'm not sure what you mean.

Is a concept material or immaterial?

[fede2]

we created god in our image and killed him.

[UsernameClayton]

HAHAHA I like this guy

[ajdesau]

finally, god is not the baseball player explaining baseball, he is the being to which you must appeal to make sense of baseball, because baseball exists.

[ajdesau]

secondly, you have tried to discount god as a viable presupposition, but you fell into the same error that the presuppositionalist will fault you for in the first place. you used logic and reasoning to invalidate paleocrat's reasoning, but you still assumed the correctness of logic to do it. give an account for that. in your view a consistent reality explains itself but you haven't justified that.

[tooltime9901]

WTF do you mean "give an account"? presuppositionalism simply does exactlyly what the name implies, it presupposes, making it pretty much useless. pegging on an "account" does not make it any more valid then having a "just-so" account of logic

[ajdesau]

what i mean when i say give an account, is this: give a rational reason, which will sustain your position or will justify the coherency and validity of your proposed worldview.

giving an account does validate a worldview more than a "just-so" account, because the "just-so" account is illogical and internally contradictory, thus pointing to the falsehood and senselessness of one's worldview. you can be illogical if you want to, but then just don't give your opinion. it won't be helpful.

[tooltime9901]

you apparently miss the point of presuppositionalism. simply saying "god done did it" does not rationally explain anything, it is just to assert a presupposition which you hold as foundational.

as it is, the idea of god presupposes quite a few things, such as the laws of logic. invoking god to "account for" something which in turn you use to make sense of the idea of god is putting the cart before the horse.

[CRM0001]

I think you should look into the argument a bit more. Everyone puts the cart before the horse and has a presupposition one way or another. The question is whose presupposition provides the preconditions for morality, intelligibility, science, the laws logic and so forth.

From your worldview do you believe intelligence came from non-intelligence?

If so from my perspective that is nonsense. You use the very mind that God made after His own image to deny Him.

[tooltime9901]

yes, we do all make presuppositions, but presuppositionalist make additional ones for purely self serving reasons to make their position seem intellectual.

I can quite easily adopt a world view that provides all of those things, but it is founded on nothing of substance and therefore gives me a hollow victory.

I can make the presupposition that everything i say/believe/think is correct and then say all philosophical problems are resolve by my system, but really I have solved nothing at all

[CRM0001]

tooltime,

I would say that we have *different* presuppositions (that are our starting points) not additional.

I would hold the position that the presuppositions that you hold are "self serving." Is it your belief that intelligent beings came from non-intelligent matter? If so why do presuppose that? You certainly can't scientifically prove it.

So you admit that your worldview does not provide for "all those things." ?

If not then why live by them?

[ajdesau]

firstly, you are committing the fallacy of equivocation. you are using the word "beings" to define two radically different types of beings: i.e. god and humans. god is not a human. your analogy treats god as a human. and thus it breaks down at the most fundamental level.

[coolbeens21]

we were created in gods image, so the bible implies at least

the bible even says, men have become like god..

if god isn't in human form..

then what is he/she/it?

perhaps your definition of god is unique from the one I've heard from christians.. and if you aren't a christian then i apologize because I was arguing "being" based on the christian god bearing a likeness to humans.

your definition of god as a non-being (bearing no likeness to humans)... where are you getting it from?

[coolbeens21]

"it comes from his need of playing the ball in the baseball game" So, i have to ask you this, us being the base ball, God being the baseball player.. What did he need when he created us? What was this all powerful being need so badly that he created humans?.

[ajdesau]

god was in need of nothing. god being needy is not a precondition for his creative disposition. that is a complex question, for you assumed that god was in fact needy in the question itself.

[coolbeens21]

creation in and of itself requires a reason. (whatever it may be, even if it something as simple as "because I felt like it"

To have a reason for something, means you have a purpose in mind.

A purpose fullfills a need. ie ( creating something because you felt like it, would mean possibly that you were bored.. or you felt the need to just make something, etc.)

[ajdesau]

your reasoning from purpose to need does not necessarily follow. to purpose something does not at all imply neediness in the way you are using it.

ex: i may want or feel like purchasing a tv, and then i may purpose to do it. however, it does not then follow that i needed a tv or needed entertainment, or needed something to do. i simply acted upon my desire because i have the prerogative to do so.

god has no needs that are met from without (acts 17:24-25).

[coolbeens21]

perhaps i should use the word "desire"instead of "need"

a desire still stems from a lack of something, the thing for which you desire.

[coolbeens21]

the baseball could have been made my someone else. NOT the baseball player.

[Gagrith]

yeah, but you wouldnt call him a baseball player unless he played baseball, now would you?

[coolbeens21]

The baseball player could change his mind and use the same ball to play catch =). he could still be a baseball player and play catch or tennis.

so yes, i can still call him a baseball player even if at any given time he was playing something else with said ball..

however when using that ball to play baseball, he is indeed at that moment a baseball player. He nor that ball is not limited to baseball.

[Gagrith]

So speaking your mind is against "god´s" will? Nice god you got

[coolbeens21]

LOL =)

[ApostleofMary]

All of our intelligence comes through the what the senses observe and the senses observe objective reality. If any part of that statement is false then rational thought is impossible. If the sense are wrong, then we don't observe reality. If the world isn't real then we don't observe reality. His belief is then; "I know I can think: but in order to do so I must understand my definition of thinking and believe that I can attain to that definition, that is, that I can think and that I do think."

[TheCephalizedOne]

That was hot. Keep up the good work gorgeous!

[logicaust]

Immanuel Kant was good for something :)

Existence is not a property. By defining a concept, it is implicit that it exists (whether it be tangible or intangible).

Also, you are now thinking of a burrito pancake. It looks delicious, I know; help yourself.

Peace.

[comradepinko]

Logicaust's comment caused me to attempt to create a burrito pancake. It did not look delicious but it actually turned out to be delicious.

WIN!

[zoidburg002]

forsooth.

[gt6303c]

Is it just me, or is the response vid by GodKillsBlasphemers the creepiest thing you've ever seen?

[bigl240]

yeah his presupposition shit has to be the weirdest convoluted argument ive ever seen anyone make.

[enjoytheride85]

no, it doesn't.

[Killer191919]

GOD explains why he is logical! Duh!

[akinadownhillace]

Can your god make a apple both a apple and not a apple at the same time?

[Killer191919]

First of all, it's AN apple. Secondly, I'm not a Christian.

In fact, if you go to my channel it's quite obvious I'm not.

[akinadownhillace]

But can you answer the question?

[Killer191919]

No... because I'm an atheist. I don't have a God. You're extremely stupid, you know that?

[akinadownhillace]

And your opinion should matter to me because...?

[jessicaR4bbit]

lol @ 1:08

[Theologica37]

oh wow this is dreadful. Please watch the video I posted as a response to this one.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

"having a consistent reality is a precondition to having a consistent being"

why? i mean,if we are arguing the christian God then originally,he was ALL "reality",right?

if he was ALL reality (originally) then everything he produces outside of his reality is going to reflect his consistent nature.

[Elitistb616]

How can God produce anything outside of her reality? If she is omni-max, isn't EVERYTHING in her reality?

[NotWhollySane]

Things like TAG and Ontological arguments shouldn't even be given any time. They are based on zero physical evidence, make no predictions and have zero explanatory power. The human mind is deeply flawed because we evolved, and any idea that is not or cannot be empirically tested is equally flawed. Philosophy is given way too much authority by Christians. Same with "History". An evolved flawed mind thought it up so it must be true! A superstitious ancient dude wrote it down so it must be true!

[AtheistKang]

"Things like TAG and Ontological arguments shouldn't even be given any time."

I agree.

[Barklord]

"any idea that is not or cannot be empirically tested is equally flawed."

Yet, there is no evidence to suggest that hypothetical abstractions are not useful when deified or otherwise used in social situations. We all use non-existent entities, (e.g. *yesterday, *today and *tomorrow) in order to function so it's my conclusion that Deities have and will continue to be enriching and valuable to people.

[NotWhollySane]

An abstract hypothesis? So a hypothesis that has no bearing on reality? Oh I see. You mean a lie. Deities and words to describe points in time are apples and oranges my friend. And who cares about "no evidence suggesting there's not"? The burden of proof is not on me.

[Barklord]

Of course you're free to not believe. My point being that your "points in time" do not exist outside mind.

As your name suggests, maybe you're notwhollysane.

[NotWhollySane]

"My point being that your "points in time" do not exist outside mind."

That depends on what theory of time you accept.

[SofaKingLoaded]

T.A.G. is powerfully compelling and logically sound.. if you are willing to concede Magic..

[Barklord]

Magicians and sorcerers were the discoverers of logic.

[SofaKingLoaded]

Incorrect... when the Universe cooled to a few thousand degrees Kelvin and Matter and Radiation were no longer in thermal equilibrium, Logic was created along with the lighter elements such as Hydrogen and Lithium..

[Barklord]

It wasn't discovered yet. I'm more of the philosophical view that none of these things you mentioned actually existed until there was a consciousness to diferentiate them. To say that they exist outside consciousness may be untestable.

[SofaKingLoaded]

I'm joking man.. just not very well. I think I probably agree with you..

No frontal lobes - No Logic

[Barklord]

k

:P

[RyuDarragh]

A "being" must be logical and be bound by HIS OWN logic. If that being is not bound by his own logic, he cannot be logically explained or have any logic applied to him or his actions. He is, in other words, illogical. And illogical ideas can't be used to make a logical case for or against any supposition.

[MercifulMing]

Well articulated, Tooltime. Now when the hell are you going to change your name to something that doesn't conjure Tim Allen?

[Egs5428]

It just "is" what a cop out atheists.

[alastairguhn]

God explains everything. It's the ultimate christian cop out.

[TooTuffShuff]

1:12 roflcopter

[jtbovis]

As far as I'm concerned if someone wants to fill the gaps in human knowledge with their god that's fine (although I personally view it as a failure of the imagination), but they have to, at the very least, label that view as uncertain. Anyone that claims to be certain of their god's existence is disingenuous at best.

[Alpha1Bravo1Charlie1]

lmao, this was an awesome vid.

[bugninja80]

Ha ha ha ha owned in under 2 minutes.

[INTJ22]

This video misses the argument. Consistency must have a source. Presuppositionalists claim God is that source, and that metaphysical naturalism cannot be that source. You can't have "consistency" as a floating metaphysical abstraction. Something must be self-consistent (similar to how something must be eternal, otherwise we have the infinite regress problem).

[aderek79]

Someday I hope to meet a logically consistent religious nut. I'm convinced that such a being would break the fundamental constants of the universe causing the destruction of time and space. : )

[KingHeathen]

1:10 LMAO!

[JonThaBrave]

You can't have baseball players without baseball but you can't have baseball (you can have the concept of baseball, but not real baseball) without baseball players. I think what the transcendental argument and stuff attempt to prove (or should attempt to prove) is that logic and God are dependent on each other. At this stage however, transcendental arguments need some work if they are to reach their full potential.

[gingergreek]

If we cut your hair would you lose your awesomenisity?

[GBart]

Don't even dream of it.

[gingergreek]

Oh gone one, just take one half off

[adamthebaddun]

Brilliant rebuttle TT. Good work.

[Childinfaith]

*sigh*

[sausage4mash]

2 childinfaith

whats with the big *sigh* I would bet all I own you didn't understand a word of this video , what he is saying is irrefutable

[DeimosSaturn]

Damn. That's how brilliant you are, tooltime9901. Your arguments are so insurmountable that all a christian can say is "sigh". He doesn't even bother with an attempt at doublethink, he himself knows that his religion is a house of cards that has just been knocked down by a hurricane of logic, so he just says "sigh" desperately trying to prove to himself how unphased he himself is by your rebuttal. Bravo!

[CropDuster33]

Nice work, checkmate creationists.

[exitskaterjeff]

exactly.

[synthtron2000]

your videos are very.......brown.

[Nocturnous]

Computer: What was Kiri-Kin-Tha's first law of metaphysics?

Spock: Nothing unreal exists.

[abortabraham]

1:08

this refuted his argument alone.

[crackshot91]

fantastic.

[SkyDaddy7]

But god makes me feel all warm and fuzy inside!!!

Support Bronze Age Myths as Science!!!

[Mastikator]

Alcohol made me feel warm and fuzzy. Maybe we should worship alcohol.

[gingergreek]

Which Brand?

[tehknologik]

Like Ayn Rand said, existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

[ethosflux]

oh remind me never to argue with this guy :)

[olivermeeh]

i love this guy

[Puchicas9]

A phonetic description of the lip-flapping sound: Voiced bilibial trill with egressive pulmonary air and digital articulator

A philosophical description of presuppositional apologetics: Hot air. Sorry, Cornelius Van Til, but it really doesn't amount to any more than this.

[Nalsii]

Actually, it's "bilabial", and I would prefer "pulmonic air" over "pulmonary air" if used as a description of lung-propelled air, but yeah I see your point :)

This moment was so unexpected and hilarious that I had to rewind because I completely forgot what he was saying before that :-))

[Puchicas9]

My typo. Bilabial it is.

In my phonetics course back in 1981 we were taught to just say egressive "lung" air, but I thought I would use a more technical sounding term for this. I just looked in a few of my linguistic reference books and found that "pulmonic" is indeed the proper term. Thanks for the tip!

The most important point is, though, that apologetics (of any variety) just don't work for Christianity in the scientific age.

[fcabido]

starting with a compliment; classy dude!

[melwap]

You are Jesus right, trying to clean the mess up you toll the first time ;-)

[h8uall66]

But can you imagine your own non-existence?

[mogulwraith]

"can you imagine your own non-existence? "

Yes, that's where my imagination ends and there is nothing. Nothing is the easiest thing to imagine... you don't have to put any effort into it. There is no "what will it be like?" because it is void. It's a person alive in your arms one moment but closes his/her eyes forever. End of story for him/her.

[h8uall66]

It's a joke, based on Tooltime's previous debate with Npage85.

[wHisperis001]

Can you think of your own arguments and not spit someone elses shity ideas which by the way have been already debated by tooltime.

[h8uall66]

Do you know who else debated against that argument? Me. The question was meant to be rhetorical and humorous.

[Chuloloc]

Awesome. Way to go.

[bu1ckgnx]

I like the BLBLBLBLBLBL part

[Ludde365]

You rock as always.

[brutus149]

paleocrat: "[My deity explains everything! My deity just being is the only way, no way that before the Big Bang there were different laws of physics, no way there was Chaos, before the Titans]"

[AxiomofDiscord]

It would have to be some non or unbeing at that point. Something we really can not conceptualize either. Yay go nowhere slowly.

ATF of Axiom of Discord

[vgfmak]

Presuppositional Apologetics: rejecting reality since 4000 B.C.

[nomadsoul]

It always makes me laugh when certain people cop out and use "god" as an answer. Makes me laugh and shrug my head because they throw the answer out and say it is an answer because it is without any good evidence to back it up.

[CarolineATRC]

Does anyone else's head hurt now! I think i get what you mean :)

[PygmyLepper]

Good video 1:08 is weirsd though

[Houseraider]

hahaha, five stars!.

[Mephistophilus]

I can't get this more then 5 stars. 8o(

[bennycredenza]

1:08 is one of your funniest moments.

[montrealpsycho]

Very well said. Very good explanation of logic, very good analogy you made with baseball/baseball player.

[Ephemerance]

If God has a logical nature, the laws of logic supersede the existence of God, QED.

But, an argument I have seen is that the laws of logic are an expression of God, rather than something exclusive of God.

[DotPaulish]

You're not sorry! :P

[DblOSmith]

I'm sorry 1:08. Can you do that again?

[FatGermanBastard]

Good video... I really think this is obvious too but too many Christians just refuse to accept this obvious point. It reminds me of a child holding his hands in front of his eyes and saying: "Now you can't see me".

[Myboss2oo9]

If you like this user here(spike Bravo),Please donate to his pay pal account !

[sortdane]

One advice for christians....quit trying to justify your religion through reasoning and logic..........what you got is (blind)Faith...treasure it. Once you start this kind of sound arguments , clear thinking and logic...ur faith will naturally be lost for ever. Hide your God in ur faith.....lol

[lynchmobb2000]

This is so clear. If they don't get this, then they are either stupid or deliberately obtuse.

[FallenAngel0fDoom]

If anything, TAG should be understood as, and renamed to, Condescending Arrogance for God.

[floydstinkyboy]

paleo - guilty of begging the question. all questions, really.

[borgimplant]

Tooltime has it right. Such presuppositional nonsense is the biggest problem with arguments such as TAG.

[GWR3440]

"I don't understand it, so let's have the god of somebody else's religion do it"

"I don't understand how it would work, so let's have the god of somebody else's religion do it"

Why can't these imbeciles think before saying something so ridiculous to people outside their religion?

Something about Christainity blocks out even trying to understand how their audience sees it. and turns them into idiots.

[blahben342]

Awesome!

[UnBeguiled]

Great stuff Tooltime.

The most ridicule inducing argument from presuppers:

"God justifies induction, because of God's unchanging nature."

Well, how do you know God's nature is unchanging?

"Because God never changes."

So you are using induction to predict that God's nature will not change? And in turn use that to justify induction?

Doh!

I think you are right. Ridicule is the only proper response to a presupper.

[paleocrat]

You made a video to me a long time ago? Flattered.

Go read a book. Any book by a major presuppositionalist. None will say that logic preceded God or that it is even a separate entity or concept. Saying as much just goes to show that you haven't done your homework.

Better luck next time.

I won't be doing much responding to videos or comments until school is out. I already broke my rule 1,000 times over. I have one week of school left before finals week.

Have a good one.

[tooltime9901]

I was referring to the transcendental argument (TAG), which although it may not be a part of the "school of presuppositionalism" as you see it, works in the same way.

regardless, you still still ignored my main point, so spare me your "better luck next time".

[paleocrat]

TAG is at the core of presuppositionalism. For crying out loud! ABC's and 123s.

I didn't ignore your point as it is a horrific misunderstanding of the presuppositionalist's view of logic in relation to God. The idea of it being a concept preceding God or being a separate entity or concept is entirely foreign to presuppositionalism.

How can you guys deal with presuppositionalists when you are grossly unfamiliar with their position concerning logic and its relation to the Ontological Trinity?

[tooltime9901]

banish the whoel part about logic from your mind and move on to dealin with the rest of what you said, instead of avoiding so you can keep thinking you are oh-so clever.

god cannot explain the consistancy of reality. given that fact, he is a useless supposition when tryign to explain the consitancty of reality.

[paleocrat]

OK, so forget that your banter about presuppositionalists believe logic precedes God. No problem. It was a complete misrepresentation of our position to begin with.

As for your second sentence:

God can't do X, because [in my opinion and according to my espoused worldview] he is useless in explaining X.

Fascinating! Outstanding argument. Insurmountable logic! Oops, I am just repeating what your cheerleaders have been posting.

Hey, you've mastered unargued assumptions and vicious circles.

[LoganStrain]

"The idea of it being a concept preceding God or being a separate entity or concept is entirely foreign to presuppositionalism."

No duh. If presuppers grasped that logic is necessarily prior to God, there wouldn't be any presuppers.

He is Risen! And He is also most likely awfully embarrassed by the Bahnsenian sophistry done in His name.

[justintempler]

paleocrat,

Using the words LOGIC + TRINITY in the same post.

LULZ

[Munkatten]

I don't really get the tag argument, still.

What makes god the ultimate reason for everything rather than, let's say, the flying spaghetti monster?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Wow, very concise and very clear.  Great work.

[Thereminator101]

Yeah..He put the exsitential cart before the objective horse.

[atlant80]

Shit, that was crazy! I never thought of it like that!!

[TamaDuder]

hahahaha what was that lip-thing about?

[CarpeOmne]

1:08

lol

[Twobitz1]

wut wut in da butt

[migkillertwo]

maybe he doesn't hold to the primacy of existence?

[Uxoriouswidow]

So he doesn't exist?

[DisforDubby]

hahaha i lost it when u did the lip thing.

anyway, another good video with great points

[Nothiean]

He got pwned By Fakesagan AND Tooltime. That must hurt.

[Mjhavok]

The term spit roast applies.

[m00ph00]

last

[arbuckle1029]

Also, happy zombie day, everyone.

[SteilAmSeil]

FIRST

YES

I MADE IT

WOHOOOOOOO