rational dawn hires hitman, deserves refund (part 1, probably)

[SerasXHarkonnen]

You seem like a smart guy and are arguing against the existence of god... there seems to be a trend there.

[Censeo]

Well, even if god doesn't exist, your argument doesn't prove that an intelligent agent didn't give rise to the universe and that a virgin held a son to be sacrificed on a cross 2.000 years ago. So what is the point of the argument?

[Censeo]

What I mean is. If unicorn means both magical horse like creatures with some horn on their forehead AND worms in the ass, that just means that neither of these two are unicorns, but both of them could exist.

[Dhorpatan]

Condescendingly pedagogical? I think this is the first video I've heard someone use the word pedagogical.

[SetonsH4ll]

You were equally if not more-so condescending and fascicle to vertias48 for significantly less warranted reasons.

[urbanelf]

It was sarcasm, not condescension.

[Dhorpatan]

@SetonsH4ll

God doesn't exist. Be thankful you are not beholden to a totalitarian dictator that can make reality conform to it's wishes. This would subvert the uniformity of nature.

[YumeNoEien]

@urbanelf

I think the analogy is best worked out with a mathematical line. It has length, but no width. When we draw a line it does have width, but thats only as a visual aid for the concept it represents. The width here is 0 (a quantity but still non-existent) in the same way that god is nothing (a meaning we give, e.g. old bearded man, but still non-existent).

If i lack sense keep in mind that its 0:21 AM and im just killing time.

[yikeswood]

i see rain

[PluripotentBrain]

I think this exchange is quite interesting.

[kaminarigaston]

All and every premises within an argument start with an (implicit) "if":

(if) all men are mortal

and (if) socrates is a man

then socrates is mortal.

[lostamasta]

I'm not sure this is true. Testing for validity involves acting like this is true, but arguments are intended (generally) not only to be valid but also sound. That is, arguments are not merely assertions of logical connections (as conditionals often are), but also assertions of their premises, while no conditional asserts its antecedent or consequent.

[kaminarigaston]

If you forget that every premise is a conditional you arrive to errors. Even definitions are conditionals in a sense. If you forget that you arrive to errors like this:

-Dracula is the most dangerous vampire anyone could conceive.

-A real vampire is more dangerous than an imaginary one.

-Therefore Dracula is real.

The problem of that argument is that the fully stated premise would be:

-If Dracula existed he would be the most dangerous vampire anyone could conceive.

[lostamasta]

It simply is not true that every premise is a conditional. Take "Socrates is a man" in your first example. If you treat that as a conditional, you get different truth conditions than those intended. "If something is Socrates, then it is a man," can be true even if Socrates never existed. "Socrates is a man," however, asserts the existence of Socrates. Similarly, if we treat every argument as only "If my premises are true, then my conclusion is true," we miss the point of the argument.

[lostamasta]

(con't)

The point of the argument is not simply to say "If my premises were true..." it is also to say "My premises ARE true, so my conclusion IS true."

[kaminarigaston]

But the truth of a definition is not the same as the truth of a fact, even if definitions are always truth, they are only REALLY truth if they apply to an existent entity. So they are conditional. (continues)

[kaminarigaston]

Example:

1.Martians are living entities that were born and live in Mars. (truth as a DEFINITION)

3.All living entities that were born and live in Mars were also born and live in the solar system.(truth as a DEFINITION)

1.Earthlings are living entities that were born and live in Earth. (truth as a DEFINITION)

5.All entities that were born and live in the solar system are Earthlings. (truth as a FACT, as far as we know)

Therefore: All Martians are Earthlings.

(Continues)

[kaminarigaston]

As you see the conclusion can't be right because Martians can't be Earthlings as defined. The problem is that definitions are always truth as definitions but to be truth as facts they must apply to something that actually exists.

So this:

1.Martians are living entities that were born and live in Mars.

Should be stated as:

1.If Martians existed, they would be living entities that were born and live in Mars.

Unless you limit yourself to the realm of definitions OR to the realm of empirical facts.

[telemantros]

If a premise must contain an 'if then' clause, then the majority of philosophers are wrong ... and dumb.

[urbanelf]

Maybe I said it wrong... Jericomovie told me, in public communication, that a premise MAY NOT contain an if-then. The conclusion is still equally bizarre, no?

[telemantros]

I don't think premises are that restricted by regulations or criteria. Maybe he's confusing how premises follow from one another with those logical laws being the criteria for a premise?

[SonofTzeentch]

Urbanelf, will you be putting up a revised version of your second forbidden argument?

[urbanelf]

Yes sir.

I had good feedback from FatGermanBastard and VeryEvilPettingZoo(good in that they pointed out a huge problem). I've been discussing it with friends and I think I've worked it out.

Thanks for the interest.

[SonofTzeentch]

Good to hear, and thank you, sir, for the video(s).

[TheNakedAtheist]

Wow Rational dawn is scraping the bottom of the barrel, also the fact that his video has 4.5 stars is proof God doesn't exist.

[jcrebel18]

@TheNakedAtheist

WTheck?

[TheNakedAtheist]

What wtheck jcrebel? I'm referring to jericomovie's fail video showing his ignorance.

[TheNakedAtheist]

Unless you're referring to "proof God doesn't exist.proof God doesn't exist" statement. I guess it actually only proves there is no such thing as divine justice on earth. :p

[TheNakedAtheist]

O.O double paste.

[SonofTzeentch]

I'm not so certain @ the 4.5 stars thing; it's a difficult argument which uses terms largely unfamiliar/passingly familiar to most people. I can see how an innocent theist could come away from jericomovie's video and think a good point had been made.

...not that I agree at all with him or wasn't extremely disappointed.

Hopefully these follow up videos of urbanelf will make the argument clearer for people.

[TheNakedAtheist]

@SonofTzeentch

Yeah I guess I'm used to theists who have many atheist subs, or are at least those who have atheist subs, but aren't sickeningly arrogant. If his base is theists I suppose the rating makes sense.

[legodesi]

i think i understood your premise to mean that the word "God" has no semantic content.

[urbanelf]

My apologies that you had to endure my snarkiness this way.

[theowarner]

I don't understand what "no semantic content" means.

[legodesi]

oh! semantic features, as defined by my linguistics textbook: "elements by which a person understands the meanings of words and sentences". in this case, the semantic content is determined by the word's referent.

i think then that i understood urbanelf's argument in a way that he didn't intend.

[theowarner]

I think so.

[TheTruePooka]

Heh heh, Oh man. I should unsub from you just for the pleasure of subing to you again.

I'm going to be a helpful Pooka and point out to this Jericho fellow in case he catches it;

That last 30 seconds or so; in Metaphysics... we call that;

"Slightly snarky, deadpan sarcasm".

Can't wait for his response! This should be positively fun.

[cowboycoco]

what a dumb counter. Ignoring his "your premises aren't premises" attack, he argues that "god" won't refer to nothing, but rather something that doesn't exist. WTF!?! How does this defeat the argument at all. RD hired a hitman to take out urbanelf but his aim was bad and he took out god instead.

[YumeNoEien]

Isn't saying that 'nothing' has no meaning the same as saying that '0' is not a quantity? Just curious :)

[urbanelf]

I like your analogy. I'm going to have to puzzle over it.

[AutodidacticPhd]

Reference to absence is not absence of reference?

[legodesi]

nope, reference to absence is not absence of reference. if it were, then the word "absence" would both refer to "absence" and also lack a referent. (i'm not sure now if you were joking, so if you were, sorry for being needlessly terse)

[AutodidacticPhd]

Sorry, I forgot Poe's Law.

[legodesi]

wha?

[AutodidacticPhd]

Poe's Law states: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

I was making fun of the age old theist defense... absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, dig?

[WayOfTheBastard]

LOL harsh!

[BuBBaGump014]

Premise: a proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn

Proposition: a statement in which something is affirmed or denied, so that it can therefore be significantly characterized as either true or false

Premise: a statement (possibly if-then statement), which can either be true or false, which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn

Well that wasn't too hard, now was it?

[urbanelf]

It wasn't too hard, but jericomovie thinks you are an incompetent boob, apparently.

I, for one, can't wait to find out what a premise really and truly is.

[polymath7]

This was beautifully pithy.

[Cyrathil]

The first point he brought up sounded a lot like the "God is the most perfect being. It is more perfect to exist than not to exist. Therefore God exists"...

The same problem applies, that I saw. Just because you can come up with words and claim they have attributes doesn't mean they exist.

No one disputes that the concept of a deity exists. That would just be silly, if that was the point he was trying to make. It's whether or not the deity actually exists and is able to do anything.