Welcome to Wellsville, Napalmtube.

[Jesusfleabop]

eh

[R0undAboutMidnight]

Is he still alive?  Is he ever returning to the tubes?

[cyfuse]

Dude, you seem eloquent and polite at a lot of points in this video, but that seems to be just a mask for your cheap-shots at atheism which you can't defend on an intellectual level.

I'm an atheist, but I don't sit around depressed or have any moment of doubt like napalmtube does. He is just a person, we don't have a dogma in which we must remain "consistent" in EVERY aspect of our lives (so much that take irrational positions).

There is no abysmal, "logic conclusion" as you dumbly put it.

[DeraJa]

your whole argument is all emotion based. There wasn't anything "rational" about it at all. I must be missing something.

[KabaneTheChristian]

Some of the comments you are getting on this video are appalling. On another topic, I think that evidentialism and presuppositionalism are both useful apologetic methods.

[paleocrat]

But presuppositionalism does what evidentialism refuses to do: challenge the philosophical worldview of the non-Christian to demonstrate how it can account for those things necessary for those things both parties will be relying upon throughout the duration of the discussion. In fact, everyone has relied on and taken these things for granted during every moment of every day of their life. It is unavoidable.

Evidentialists grant them a "get out of jail free" card on this. Unfortunate.

[KabaneTheChristian]

Why not use them both, and have people who are good at both forms?

[paleocrat]

Presuppositionalists use both. The reason for pushing the debate back to our espoused worldview is that this network of related presuppositions just so happens not only to be our starting point, but it determines our methodology, provides the grid through which we will evaluate and judge evidences, and also just so happens to be (of necessity) what we are ultimately aiming to prove. For our conclusion will determine our ruling assumptions (starting point), which determines our methodology.

[TheIrrationalAtheist]

love the shovels in the background!

[migkillertwo]

it reminds me of the parable of the madman in Nietzsche's "The Gay Science."

[paleocrat]

My office was flooded with the sounds of three children, my wife, and the television show "The Nanny" with Fran Drescher. So I thought it best to head out to the garage. Not ideal, but free from the noise of the circus inside the home. haha

[migkillertwo]

wow Paleocrat. I am pretty stunned at the intellectual mediocrity of the comments this video is getting. Napalmtube hit the nail on the head, sorta. I think I might actually make a video on presuppositionalism and how particularism may undercut it.

[paleocrat]

I am not stunned. Been playing in this park for too long to be stunned by the intellectual mediocrity coming from most atheists leaving comments under my videos. Give them the benefit of the doubt that it is general ignorance of the role of presuppositions in relation to our overall worldview and, consequently, how this impacts (or should if one is consistent) what we say and do.

(cont.)

[paleocrat]

Particularism has been tried here. Didn't work.

Take epistemology for example. The problem wasn't the admission that they didn't know how they knew what they knew. The problem was with those things they claimed to know and whether or not they accounted for, or provided the necessary preconditions for, knowing anything at all.

I grant that one can know things without knowing how. But one can't espouse something that would, were it true, be at enmity with the existence of knowledge.

[migkillertwo]

The problem is that "provided the necessary preconditions for, knowing anything at all."="ow how they knew what they knew". You're using a methodist epistemology to criticize atheists. Why can't the atheist just say "these are things which we obviously know, so let's form a method for dealing with the grey areas(like finer inductive inferences)"?

[paleocrat]

Fine tuning or deepening our understanding of something is more than fine, so long as we don't espouse a worldview that is at enmity with the existence of knowledge. It is the difference between dealing with a paradox and dealing with a contradiction.

You and I both claim a number of things about man, our nature, brain, senses, the natural order, etc. But doing so, in and of itself, doesn't satisfy the need to demonstrate how what we espouse isn't at odds with these necessary preconditions.

[migkillertwo]

and I, as a particularist, as an internalist, as a foundationalist, would contest your statement that claims to knowledge cannot contradict the so-called "necessary preconditions", and I would HOTLY contest your notion that one must account for these "necessary preconditions", or even be aware of these necessary preconditions. Why can't perceptual beliefs be properly basic, wholly lacking in justification from other beliefs, like, say, the uniformity of nature?

[paleocrat]

Read slowly next time. I already granted that one may not know how they know what they know. This happens all the time.

You don't have a problem espousing something that contradicts a condition necessary for knowledge? Remember, we are talking about conditions within man and the natural order that make knowledge possible. If you espouse something that contradicts this, then you espouse something that would make knowledge impossible. Absurd.

(cont.)

[migkillertwo]

"I already granted that one may not know how they know what they know."

Yes, and yet you constantly assert that we need certain preconditions for knowledge to be possible. To say that we need these preconditions is equivalent to saying that we need to know how we know before we know.

"You don't have a problem espousing something that contradicts a condition necessary for knowledge?"

I put quote marks around "condition necessary for knowledge" because I denied that there are such conditions

[paleocrat]

Absolutely I do, and absolutely it does not.

Once again, I may need air to breath, and I may need to be breathing to be alive, and I may need to be alive to be able to ride a bike, but air is nothing more than a necessary precondition, not a cause of my riding, or wishing to ride, a bike. This is rather elementary.

Your moving your fingers to press keys you assume will be there betrays your denial of necessary preconditions. If no uniformity, why presume the K will not become the A?

[paleocrat]

Now you are being silly. Were certain conditions not in place, this entire discussion would be absurd. Trustworthiness of the senses with the keys and reading the type. Uniformity of nature with every click of the "post comment" button. Meaningful communication, without which your continuation would be quite wasteful. The existence of abstracts within the created order, as your use of logic demonstrates. Free thought and will, unless you're a robot. Must I really go on with this? Seriously.

[migkillertwo]

"Must I really go on with this? Seriously"

No you have already made your point and have clearly shown that you're a cartesian methodist.

We do not presuppose these "conditions" when gathering knowledge or communicating said knowledge. We are not even aware of these facts. When I post a comment, I'm not aware of the uniformity of nature and how it will allow my comment to be seen. I just know it. You say "well how do you know?" But you're trying to force the particularist to be a methodist.

[paleocrat]

Oh brother. We take these conditions for granted. How many times must I grant that people may or may not consciously recognize necessary preconditions whereby their thought, sensations, and reason are made possible?

The issue is the thing in and of itself and the role it plays in providing a framework for anything and everything. Once aware, they are (unless they don't mind intellectual schizophrenia) duty bound to harmonize what they espouse and what is there regardless of former ignorance.

[migkillertwo]

"The issue is the thing in and of itself and the role it plays in providing a framework for anything and everything"

The problem is there is no "framework for anything and everything", Its just beliefs and knowledge. There is no necessary framework. We use cases of knowledge to build our framework for the grey areas of human understanding.

[paleocrat]

We use cases of knowledge to build our framework. But we begin with a blank slate? On what basis, then, do you judge what you evaluate to determine whether or not it is in fact knowledge? If the mind is neutral, having no predisposition or presupposition framework by which to judge experiences and evaluations, then by what means would one choose one thing over another? It would be neutral. And where would this end? What or who determines whether beliefs about X comprise true knowledge of X?

[migkillertwo]

"But we begin with a blank slate?"

we begin with cases of knowledge.

"On what basis..." Please do stop trying to convert me to methodism.

[paleocrat]

Cases of knowledge? So let's say you and I are presented with a case of knowledge. Let's say we disagree regarding interpretation. Why? Who interpreted it properly? On what basis are we to determine which interpretation is truly knowledge? Or are they equally valid and truthful? And what within your construct would give warrant to the idea that one case of knowledge is anything like another case of knowledge? Even similar situations would be "unique events."

In short, your left with a mess.

[Cefuroxx]

none of this garbage your spewing proves that Jesus/god/holy spirit or whatever fairy tales nonsense you believe in is true. Jesus/god supposedly fuck his own mom and then had a son who died for our sins? You believe this? Then you´ll believe anything, and one more thing. FUCK THE CATHOLIC FASCISTS WHO STOOD SIDE BY SIDE WITH HITLER, Mussolini and FRANCO. Dumbass fat troll.

[paleocrat]

Perceptual beliefs presuppose the ability to meaningfully perceive the natural order, which is conditioned upon the belief in the general trustworthiness of the senses. There may be particular dots, but these just so happen to be connected in a web of related presuppositions.

If you espouse something that is at enmity with the notion of uniformity of nature, then employing or relying upon something conditioned on its existence is tantamount to philosophical schizophrenia. Theatre of the absurd

[migkillertwo]

"Perceptual beliefs presuppose the ability to meaningfully perceive the natural order, which is conditioned upon the belief in the general trustworthiness of the senses."

That is not true. You are giving an externalist, causal account of justification. However this is not a good theory of justification because there are cases where states of affairs can cause belief in those states of affairs in epistemically irrelevant ways, thus (cont.)

[migkillertwo]

(cont.) discount these certain instances as knowledge. Further, there are cases where we have knowledge which has nothing to do with that state of affairs causing our knowledge. For instance, our knowledge of the future certainly isn't caused by the future.

[paleocrat]

I visited your site. Honestly, it left me a tad confused. I am curious now as to what you wish to gain from this discussion. Is it simply that you disagree with presuppositionalism as an apologetic method? I see you like William Lane Craig, who is certainly no friend to the method. Or is it something else.

Just curious.

[paleocrat]

Who said that necessary preconditions are the causal agents of our knowledge? Not I. I may need to air to breath, and functioning lungs to be alive, and to be alive in order to go on a bike ride, but the necessary precondition of air to breath isn't the causal agent of my riding bike. Thus the nature of necessary preconditions.

Square one: Presuppositions and necessary preconditions provide framework wherein the existence, intelligibility, and utility of something (i.e. knowledge) may be found

[hydroids]

Presuppositional apologetics = wrapping a turd in a colored foil.

[dannypantsgm]

Hey bud. I subbed to you because I think you are a more sensible theist than is typically found on YouTube. But I can't agree much with your toting Napalmtube's return to the flock as the difinitive ending to every atheist's story. We are all very different in all aspects except for our lack of belief. For every story like Napalmtube's I can find you a dozen more hardcore atheists who have never had such problems. Just look at Thunderf00t. Does he look like a man on the verge of suicide to you?

[paleocrat]

I don't believe his return is a definitive end to every atheist's story. I believe that he did what most other atheists refuse to do: live out their espoused worldviews to the best of their ability.

I do believe that atheism, if taken to its logical conclusion, would force one to kick over the ladder made up of uniformity of nature, meaningful communication, free will, inductive reasoning, law of logic, the scientific method, trustworthiness of the senses, etc., and live in silent absurdity.

[dannypantsgm]

And thats exactly the crap I am taking issue with. Who are you to tell me or any other atheist we are not living our world views to the best of our ability?

The key word in your second paragraph is believe. You may believe that is the logical conclusion, but that does not make it so. And I would assert it is not.

[paleocrat]

I have asked, ad nauseum, for atheists to explain how their worldview provides the necessary preconditions for the uniformity of nature, the ability to objectively know the created order, the universality of logic, the possibility of abstract concepts in a materialistic and closed natural order, as well as the trustworthiness of the senses, free thought and will, and even meaningful communication. They have failed time and again.

(cont.)

[paleocrat]

... Worse yet, what they espouse (those positive affirmations comprising a network of related presuppositions forming their world and life view) makes such concepts not only irrational, but negates the possibility of their existence.

The problem, then, is what to do next. If you espouse X, and if X defies the rationality or possibility of Y, and if both you and I grant the existence and rationality of Y, then you are left with quite a problem. You must abandon one of the two. Pick your poison.

[dannypantsgm]

They fail only on the basis of your criteria, which frankly isn't important. Once again just because you say x defies the rationality of y does not make it so. The things you mention that you seem to think require all this justification are merely human constructs that we use to attempt to understand our world despite our inability of perception. To me, they require no such explanations as to where they come from. They come from us exclusively plain and simple.

[dannypantsgm]

Even without humans 2+2 would still = 4. This is a universal constant that even God could not defy. But without humans it would still be so, there would simply be no cognitive notion of it without us. There is a big difference. This applies to all the ideas you mentioned. They are human conceptions. And so is God. Isn't it strange that for billions of years the universe got along just fine without it all and then suddenly we appear and it all "exists". It does so only in our minds. It's vanity.

[paleocrat]

Nobody is denying that constants are constant whether we are here or are aware of why or how they remain so. The issue has to do with the constants in and of themselves. You continue to miss the obvious.

Uniformity of nature, which is necessary for even your arguing with me here on YouTube, is hardly a construct. Without it constructs couldn't be constructed. Everything would be in a constant state of flux. The old "can't step in the same river twice" would be absolute.

Once again, missed it

[paleocrat]

My criteria? Hardly. To deny that uniformity isn't necessary for laws of logic, laws of nature, the trustworthiness of the senses, inductive reasoning, etc. is hysterical. Take away uniformity and anything (literally) goes. This is why, regardless of whether or not you or I say so, necessary preconditions remain necessary preconditions.

Human constructs? Based upon what? Who said so? By what authority is this construct imposed upon anyone? And what did they base the construct on? Thin air?

[dannypantsgm]

So what your argument boils down to is that the constants can only be set in place an intelligent creator. I disagree. I think it is perfectly logical to think that they could have come about on their own. What's so hard to believe about that?

[paleocrat]

What my argument boils down to is that any and all of those things I have mentioned in the video and comment section, all of which we rely upon every second of every day, all of which most of us take for granted, is only compatible with the Christian view. It and it alone makes these things possible and intelligible. That is the short and easy.

[dannypantsgm]

Thats what I figured. Well sir, respectably, thats where you and I part ways. I wasn't lurking around to convince anyone anyway. ; ) Thanks for the conversation though bud. One of the more stimulating I've had on the tubes. Take care!

[ThaGMan51]

It comes down to theists making assumptions that they raise to the level of axioms.

[paleocrat]

Amazingly, your worldview couldn't account for the possibility of what we know as axioms. Unless you deny the notion that axioms require preconditions wherein they are intelligible, be they ontologically or epistemologically.

[ThaGMan51]

You assume a pure empiricist worldview.

[muertos06]

I find it so funny that people are fighting so vehemently to perpetuate the assertion that theists are deluded and need their religion as a crutch... because in doing so, they actually end up validating Platinga's EAAN.

I'm glad you're finally back paleocrat! We miss you! Please make more vids man.

And all my best wishes go out to napalm.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

It is actually quite ironic that Napalmtube, the erstwhile anarchist who vehemently spoke out against all forms of hierarchy and subjugation, feels that he needs a God in his life telling him what to do and how to behave. Some people just need their delusions, I suppose.

[SavedTru8]

Haha. When the video first started, I thought you had more of a Leprechaun look. Not amish. :)

No offense. 5 stars for the vid. :D

[UnBeguiled]

The Argument:

Atheism leads to nihilism.

Nihilism is an unlivable worldview.

Therefore, God exists.

FAIL.

[paleocrat]

You know better than that. The issue is with his recognizing that regardless of what worldview atheists may hold, their most foundational and ruling assumptions cannot account for those preconditions necessary for everything they rely on when doing anything whatsoever. Cut him some slack here. Like I said, you know better.

[UnBeguiled]

Jeremiah:

Please read my blog post from a while back. I think your whole apologetic reduces to what I like to call "brute facts".

unbeguiled (dot) blogspot (dot) com/2009/06/et-tu-brute-facts (dot) html

[JAMRAND]

It would be great if you stayed, instead of just visited.

Alot of us looked forward to your videos.

God Bless

[paleocrat]

I plan to post more videos shortly. This may have pulled me out of hiding, but I've come to the conclusion that I rather enjoy YouTube. Missed it, but needed a break.

[anavarre]

Cool vid, but I'm not convinced. Atheism isn't based on what I think will be best for me, but what I think is true. An inconvenient truth if you will. That said, I respect napalmtube's decision.

[cardellacole2]

yes, say what you mean and mean what you say , for lying to yourself may be the mother of all sin

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

He wasn't rational because he predicated his decision on an emotional need.

[paleocrat]

blah, blah, blah. Having an emotional element is hardly a reason to get your panties in a bunch. It is... well... merely human. But if you were actually listening, the issue was with his recognizing that all of those things he was doing, and all of those things required for the possibility of their existence and their intelligible use, were at enmity with his espoused presuppositions. Hardly the sound of an emotional crutch. Better luck next time.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

The way which you patronize me and misrepresent my arguments does not detract from their validity. You imply that I have some sort of antipathy towards emotion, which is not true; I simply do not think that an emotional need should be the basis of how to govern one's life. I watched his videos, and he came to his decision because he simply could not handle reality without religion. All he did was snivel about how pointless his life was and that is what de based his conclusion on - not reason.

[paleocrat]

Bull. He made it clear that life, given the nihilist presuppositions he espoused, lacked any means by which to account for purpose, reason, logic, or even a belief in the basic uniformity of nature. Suicide was no better or worse, in and of itself, than living. Rape, in and of itself, was no better or worse than baking a cake for your wife. And arguing against anything betrayed the notion that truth is subjective and adherence to it is no better or worse than non-adherence.

(cont.)

[paleocrat]

Questioning presuppositions, and how they impact one's worldview, and how one's worldview impacts the way one lives (be it consistent or hypocritical) is hardly sniveling, and far more than reasonable. It is pushing the issue to the core of it all. It is examining those things that make reason rational. Your not getting this says nothing of him, but plenty about you.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

Napalm tried to add a veneer of "reason" to his explanation of his conversion, but there was none. When one has an emotional predisposition to act a certain way, then they will go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try and rationalize their outlooks (it is similar to the cognitive- dissonance of racists and killers), which is exactly what Napalm did. You are setting up a false-dichotomy by saying that without religion there is Nihilism, which is simply not the case.

[paleocrat]

To claim that his dealing with presuppositions, the possibility and intelligibility of evidence, reason, logic, universal laws, ethics, meaningful communication, uniformity of nature, etc. etc. etc. is NOT employing reason in an effort to make a well-informed decision is absolutely absurd. Drink some more Kool Aid, guy.

And, yes, I believe nihilism to be the most consistent form of atheism, though even that falls short of bringing atheism to its logical conclusion. All others are watered-down.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

A Catholic should really not be ridiculing someone for "drinking the Kool-aid." You are just a more pretentious version of VenomFangx, using pseudo-philosophic arguments to try and verify the absurdities of your ludicrous and immoral views.

[paleocrat]

haha To compare a traditionalist Catholic who utilizes the presuppositional method of apologetics to the fundamentalist Protestant VenomFangX who uses evidentialism (and poorly) is cute. Ignorant, but cute.

Absurdity and immorality? These are two concepts your worldview castrates. What epistemological standard do you employ when calling me absurd? What ethical standard do you resort to when decrying my views as immoral? And how are those standards in any way binding on anyone?

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

You are espousing a belief that cannot be tested, that cannot be observed by the senses, and is based on whim (absurd). What's more, your belief is particularly immoral because it attempts to absolve the individual of his responsibilities by transferring them onto Christ. Furthermore, your world-view implies that individuals are nothing more than God's playthings; that our greatest purpose in life is to propitiate your benevolent dictator.

[paleocrat]

You really don't get it. Listen to yourself. Your saying that something must be tested presupposes a whole bunch of things! Uniformity of nature, trustworthiness of senses, the idea that empiricism is the only way to validate something, etc. But have you proven that your espoused worldview can even account for such things? No. You just skirt the issue. You didn't answer a single question, but you know how to sling mud. Not worth my time and effort.

Buy the ticket, take the ride.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

And your assertion that it was necessary for a god to initiate the universe presupposes that there must have been yet another god to bring him into existence, for your argument essentially is that the logical and uniform nature of existence could not have occurred haphazardly.

And even if there were a God,I am sure he is not the God of Catholicism nor any other religion, but simply an initiator of existence. You chose Catholicism because it brings you a sense of security, not because of reason.

[nofalltoofar]

You have several errors in your train of thought.

Saying that the creator needs to be created is just repetition of traditional evolutionary thinking. In order to explain existence, you need an uncreated creator, which God serves as. Your provisions for creation are pointless.

Also, you cannot be "sure" that Yahweh doesn't exist because it is impossible to know with any certainty whether he is real or not. That lack of certainty is free will.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

You are just proposing arbitrary explanations now. You theists are incredibly inconsistent: you say that all things require a creator, yet you do not apply this same reasoning to God.

And if you cannot be sure if "Yahweh" exists, then why worship him? It is irrational to base one's life on mere speculation.

[taylorsickler123]

so true. well put my brother.

[paleocrat]

A. Your understanding of the law of cause and effect (and the Christian dogma of God's nature and being) is WAY off here. The law only states that an effect has a preceding cause. No Christian would say God is an effect, as he has life in and of himself.

B. A sense of security? Who are you? Cleo the psychic? I do grant, though, that I find a sense of security in adhering the the one worldview that provides the framework wherein anything and everything is possible, rational, and ethical.

[CaptainFlamingo19]

My espoused worldview: "God probably does not exist".

How does that conflict with any of those presuppositions that you listed? Are they dependent on the existence of a God?

[CaptainFlamingo19]

To clarify my position, "God probably does not exist" might even be too extreme. I would even settle with "There's no reason to believe in a God due to a lack of evidence."

[paleocrat]

Um, we are talking about the necessary preconditions that make evidence both possible and meaningful. The existence of evidence, the binding nature of true evidence, the ability to meaningfully and objectively understand and collect evidence, the trustworthiness of evidence's normativity, the notion that evidence may not be material (ex. logic), and the belief that humans are capable of meaningfully communicating this evidence are all assumed. Even taken for granted. But also unaccounted for.

[paleocrat]

That isn't a worldview. It influences your worldview, but your worldview is far more complex. It is a related network of beliefs pertaining to origin, being and its nature, man, knowledge, ethics, etc. etc.

Atheists espouse a variety of worldviews, but denial of God most certainly impacts what they espouse and whether or not what they espouse is compatible with those very things they do and rely upon at all times in all places.

[napalmtube]

Thank you so much for the video, I'm glad I got you out of hiding. You used to put out some really hard hitting stuff. Is that the paleoshed?

[gpattt]

I'm really amazed. Napalmtube, welcome home to Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

[citizenkong]

I am happy for him and he has shown maturity, but Catholicism? Hehe!

[TheEcumenator]

your amish!

God bless

:)

[paleocrat]

What most people don't know is that the Amish beard is actually thinner along the jaw-line, only getting bushy and long around the chin area. It is also squared off, going straight down the cheek and the straight across the chin.

Yeah, I am a geek who happened to live near Amish country for a large portion of my life. I grew up not far from Lancaster, PA.

[urbanelf]

That's a sweet Abraham Lincoln you're sportin'!

[paleocrat]

Why, thank you very much. I normally wait until the latter part of August to begin letting it grow out, but I started early this year. I traditionally allow it to grow through the winter and shave it once the warm weather makes it uncomfortable.

I fear this beard will be out of control. It is growing much faster than it has in years past.