there was always one person like this in every college philosophy class. mental masturbation masquerading as intelligence. Incoherent words used to hide vacuous thought.
People need to stop diluting the idea of the gods they obviously believe in while trying to convince people they exist. I've heard Catholics speak of their god like a Deist would. Each god has a set of rules. for instance, no one can ever speak to the Catholic god, ever (assuming it's existence). If someone does, that proves that it's not the Catholic god their are speaking to.
Sure if someone holds his pointer finger and middle finger up most people would say he holds two fingers up but I maintain that two is not real and the correct answer to "how many fingers am i holding up," is "aardvark"
For some reason people think I'm retarded, but they're the fools for believing in silly things like "numbers"...as if THOSE are real...mirite?
I've heard more coherent arguments from people that were high...people on meth make more sense :P
Out of all the non-sensical ramblings of that guy I think I got a small bit of valid criticism. For areas that we know little about (ie. prior to the big bang, possibility of a multiverse etc.) Mathematical models are stronger than mere speculation. While they are not proof, they do extrapolate what we already know, which makes for a stronger case than most other educated guesses, which generally have less precision.
@playadominical He was speaking taking the deistic side. Basically, there is a god, but it is completely unquantifiable. He exists in your mind, therefore, he exists in reality. He also put across that believing can be beneficial. This is partly true, unlike his last idiotic point. Believing you have a supermodel waiting for you at home might make the hours at work go a bit faster, but that's hardly a major benefit.
The caller perceived a false dichotomy between Atheism and Agnostism perhaps :/? As theism is a *human* concept of god, it's rational for *people* to be critical of theistic claims (I don't see what he finds so hard to understand). I would have also liked the caller to better outline his argument for a supernatural dimension. From what he said, I don't think he understands the importance of the difference between 'does exist' and 'could exist'.
Dont worry guys one day i will be the empero and will flex my awesome powers of spychic ability and build the frist emperium of men through out the stars. :)
I think Charles is going to break his brain one day and end up in an insane asylum if he keeps this up. That or he's going to be found on a park bench in a catatonic state with the number 4 carved into his arm. I admire how much information he seems to have absorbed, but, like all the other commenters have mentioned, he's not applying it effectively.
@djanheuser I don't admire him even for that. First, it's one thing to absorb information but another to draw sound inferences and make arguments with it; that's what people who think do, and he can't do that. Second, the caller thinks he knows everything after reading the books assigned in a typical Intro to Philosophy course, though anyone who hasn't read Plato or Descartes could steamroll over his half-baked arguments. Not only can't this guy argue, he's disgustingly conceited.
Man philosophy neophytes make me wanna die. Just like my brother in law who took one class and was convinced of determinism instantly. The problem is this crap exists in human minds and without corporeal demonstration, is completely meaningless as anything but brain exercise. It may provide tools to examine reality or ideas about reality, or to define the limits and nature of human concepts, but to hold them as laws that prove gods or other things is to lose sight of the point.
It's bullshit like this caller espouses that turned me off of studying philosophy in college. A modern-day sophist. A bullshit artist. I care about what happens in the here and now. I've only got a hundred years on this earth, give or take, and life is way too short to contemplate whether "four" actually means "four" and blah, blah, blah....
I can't believe this wanker got a 2 parter video. He's a tard full of clever talk. A bullshitter, a wanker, a fucktard, and certainly not worth all this effort and time.
The hosts have patience of SAINTS with rambling arrogant callers like these who get attached to bizarre esoteric philosophical bilge that is WORTHLESS and a grotesque waste of time, as it is just pseudo-intellectual bullshitting.
I hate when the hosts talk over the callers. They prove nothing and remind me of Bill O'Rielly. Laughing at someones argument and calling them stupid isn't an argument.
poor ppl so frustrated about a fictional being,,, maybe in some distant future, we can travel back in time and meet jesus and we can kick him in the nuts.
If this God is invisible and doesn't manifest himself in any tangible way in our universe, then why should I believe he exists?
Even if you were to prove that God exists that tells us nothing about his nature. Is he useful to us? Is he good or evil? Not all powerful things are good. Might doesn't make right.
Hopefully, it isn't the war God of the Israelites because that God is as big a douchebag as the caller.
Well, i do actually understand the caller, as i say god do exist the realm is in question, i do believe god is human creation/concept just like mathematics/language, god is just one of many human effort to quest reason.
I doubt that's as far as his point goes. Everyone agrees that God exists as a concept - why would he call, especially if he goes on to call people "inane philistines"?
Hey Caller? In what context are numbers not an abstraction of a demonstrable reality?
Forms may be an abstraction too, but only through imagination can they ever be given status as part of reality.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Platonic forms are not demonstrable at any time, in any situation, under any circumstances, with any certainty, ever!
What's hilarious about this video is that Russel would have hung up on this guy in a heartbeat if he knew that he was a solipsist.
I hate pseudo-intellectual mental midgets who love to play semantics with philosophical terms. One of the main reasons why I love this show is that it takes philosophical concepts like Exclusionary principles of logic and explains them in a simple way for people. When I debate I freely understand that not everyone understands the jargon so I dress down my language.
I can't believe this guy cited C.S. Lewis who is only regarded as a sophisticated thinker by apologists like Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, Josh McDowell & a handful of theologians. This guy is an obvious proponent of the TAG argument which is a rather sophomoric modern variation of the Ontological Argument.
The notion of Platonic ideals -- in the sense of an ideal abstract "chair" that real chairs are mere shadows of -- is absurd. And it's frankly no less absurd to suggest that, somehow in some invisible numerically spiritual realm there's an ideal abstractly perfect "4" or "822" that the mere earthly quantities or mental concepts merely aspire to achieve.
A prerequisite to arguing properly is understanding the position one is arguing against. If this guy wouldn't talk over them and actually listen to their counters to his claim, this conversation would probably be more productive.
If this guy has such a problem with things having a 'mathematical' basis, I'd like to see him stripped of all items that have mathematical basis. Such as clothes (measured), cars (need measurements), books, pens, buildings, bridges, wheels and just about every kind of invention known to mankind. If maths is so bad then okay, try to live without it!
Man i hate these pretentious morons who think they know what they're talking about. they need to go back to fucking school and learn how skepticism works
"You're going to tell me that numbers are only important as conceptual tools."
Uh, yes. That's exactly the only reason why numbers matter, or that they even exist. Numbers are human inventions used as conceptual tools to facilitate things such as mathematics, geometry, calculus, etc. But numbers don't actually exist. There is no such real thing as a "four."
This guy spews a whole truckload of vocabulary, philosophy and accusations hopefully to confuse the 2 guys just to insert god ultimately. One heck of a scum !
LMAO, "Charles" takes another shot at TAE in a May 2010 show. He has worked on his philosophy (NOW he is some sort of Cartesian Dualist but claims to be a Solipsist...or who knows what since he won't take a consistent stance) & takes a far more agressive posture with Matt D. He is hilarious. I hope he keeps calling back. He is exhibit A to students taking philosophy of what not to do with their new vocabulary.
Numbers are not representative of anything that actually exists in the universe. However, numbers are useful, and using mathmatics has given us useful and accurate models. This caller seems to believe in the Platonic forms. And seems to believe that there is a perfect number 4, eg. in the mind of god. It's like when we say tree. No trees are identical. Yet, we say look at that tree over there. But the word "tree" doesn't represent some idealised tree in the mind of god. Plato was wrong.
How is the concept of a god as a cause existing outside the knowable universe more cognitively useful than simply thinking there's a cause but not understanding it? The notion is unnecessary. Thinking that the cause is a god before knowing is a bias.
Unless I'm slightly misunderstanding his point and all he's been saying all this time is that the god concept can be attached to causality just as the 1 concept can be attached to a single stone or a single cup or whatever. It's just another application of the word and doesn't actually give "god" a deeper meaning than causality making the concept unnecessary.
no athiest or agnostic, including myself, would disagree with your statement.....
however, at no point does the caller ask the host any such question......
u seem to imply that the hosts would disagree with your question. they most likely wouldnt. thats a strawman arguement.
the premise of the callers arguement is based on inaccuracy, that being the hosts position is neutral, when they repeatedly tell him otherwise. also a strawman arguement.
Penrose is a fine scientist but when he tries to talk philosophy he descends to the level of C.S. Lewis, not a sophisticated thinker. Plantonism was a fine allegorical way of looking at things in Platos day. The neoplatonism of Penrose is laughable in its literalism.
@MaryJesusJoseph "The caller obviously just took a couple of Philosophy classes. I admire you two's abilitiy not to just tell the guy to fuck off."
That's okay, I told the guy to fuck off for them. Well, technically I said it to my monitor, but it felt good. Which is why I believe faithfully in that guy fucking off.
@MaryJesusJoseph Hey! I'm offended by that(not really)! I actually teach philosophy and I guarantee you that no student of mine would ever speak such nonsense and hope to pass.
@ahmedeox I think people who take just one philosophy class (or just read an article online) are as dangerous as people who take one psychology class (or read one self-help book).
well, i think this guy did get his story in his head. the only problem is, the two didn't get him. all he was triying is to argue that when someones claims, he doesnt believe in god in a lack of proof, must step into a neutral/objective position, claiming that there is no objective method to prove gods existence.
equally, when he asks to prove four. this brings the two hosts in the very same position, in which he is when it is to defend the presumption that god would exist
I think part of his problem is that he doesn't clearly distinguish between the mental concept of four (4) and the objective reality of four (fingers, toes, whatever).
The concept isn't "real". It's useful, sure, but even if we didn't have the concept, the reality of four fingers wouldn't change.
If the argument is that god is real as a concept, in the same way as four, then I'd totally agree. It doesn't follow from that that god is objectively real, though.
This charles guy is very articulate and seems very sure of himself. Unfortunately the conversation is very abstract and I cant follow what the hell he's talking about.
@mccote He seems educated, but certainly not articulate. Charles is trying to argue against the naturalist slant of the show. To be honest, I watched it twice to tease out a coherent point from this caller specifically because he seemed like he had one, but couldn't express it well.
I've had a similar gut reaction to the AE's untempered emphasis on objective reality, but let's face it, unless gods are just metaphors, the claim, "God exists" is a truth claim and has to be approached this way.
Charles is an idiot. His examples and explanations are absurd and he contradicts himself repeatedly in the argument without even realizing or acknowledging it. That's idiocy at its finest.
time does 'change' ...in fact during the 30 or so years the Concorde was in operation the clocks had to be reset twice to the the effects of relativity... the faster an object travels relative to another the slower that object will permeate through time... so the clocks on the Concorde fell out of alignment with the rest of the planet!
so time is in fact observed and therefore outside the scope of your original question.
Ahhh... brings back basic astronomy! The twin on Earth and the twin on the spaceship! Good times... suffering through the equations still, but I suffer by choice.
lol... Good man... better you than me.. I made the distinct mistake of doing Math as well as physics... DOH!
OF course when I done it... I didn't have to get into quantum entanglement as much as you guys will... If you think the basics are a pain in the ass... just wait until you have to grapple with string theory!
I'll agree not to... besides I have a case load of budweiser here... and have full intentions of poisoning whatever intellect I have left with it... lol
the scientific method relys on testing to 'qualify' a hypothesis to start with... not to prove it...
It is easier to 'discount' something then it is to prove it...
There are lots of things that COULD BE proven... but rather than waste time on all of them .... it is easier to simply prove them incorrect... if a hypothesis survives that... well then you might go on to test it's validity!
fair enough... give me a non-observable phenomena... which is said to be real... and your reasons it does not exist...
Now to give you some background... I know just a little about quantum mechanics! and there are lots of unobserved phenomena in QM... nonetheless they are real! and do exist... and can affect the nature of the universe!
"My quest is to determine, logical statement by statement, that non-observable "phenomena" however designated, cannot exist."
You might have worded that wrong... don't you mean you want to know IF such can exist... if you set out having made up your mind... well...you'll find the answer you were looking for to start with!
Einstein never claimed that 'time' was warped... einsteins theory proves that the fabric of the universe... the space, time, gravity construct... in related. This means that time and space 'can' affect each other.... and proved that they do! and proved it so easily (odd that everyone missed it) that you can prove it yourself with a telescope and a pen and paper!
Its not an abstract... in fact many modern inventions depend on it!
I have obviously been humbled by your flawless repartee(?).
I however don't see how any of this makes your arguments any more credible but I guess your goal in the last few messages wasn't to convince me but perhaps to anger me or something of the sort.
On a closing note, if it is so important for you to have the last word, then go ahead, knock yourself out.
I promise I won't answer no matter what you type.
I will take my own advice and go on with my life and be happy!
Jesus fucking Christ man...
Tell this fucker to make a point, or GTFO.
Zentz29 1 week ago
there was always one person like this in every college philosophy class. mental masturbation masquerading as intelligence. Incoherent words used to hide vacuous thought.
funcpl2741054 3 weeks ago
When I hear people say God is "neccessary" I know they're full of it. They're not claiming he's "real", they're claiming he's "neccessary".
BottleConcreteBlond 1 month ago
Theres more evidence for a multiverse than there is Christian based heaven
PaganDruid30 1 month ago
I bet this caller has putted a unicorn in his mouth at least 3 or 4 times :P
TheDigitalStone 1 month ago
this is what happens when morons learn a few 'big' words
dancingnancy09 1 month ago 3
This caller sounds MAD.
FR3DKRU3G3R 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
@MrLittletomdj: You're an idiot.
chinopisces 2 months ago
@chinopisces fuck you very much.
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
@MrLittletomdj: No thanks. Your mother already proved quite adequate.
chinopisces 2 months ago
@chinopisces My mother's 60 years old! What's wrong with you? Sick!
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
@MrLittletomdj You're an ageist!!
supermark420 2 months ago
@MrLittletomdj: Because blow jobs are better without the dentures.
chinopisces 2 weeks ago
@chinopisces It's not a blowjob if the chick doesn't have teeth, it's a gummer.
BA-ZING-GA!
=p
Zentz29 1 week ago
@Zentz29: I stand corrected.
chinopisces 1 week ago
@chinopisces ;)
Zentz29 1 week ago
@Zentz29: Better than kneeling, I'd say. :D
chinopisces 1 week ago
People need to stop diluting the idea of the gods they obviously believe in while trying to convince people they exist. I've heard Catholics speak of their god like a Deist would. Each god has a set of rules. for instance, no one can ever speak to the Catholic god, ever (assuming it's existence). If someone does, that proves that it's not the Catholic god their are speaking to.
skywize 3 months ago
"I don't know if I really believe what I believe in, but you're philistines because 4 doesn't exist."
Sorry his rambling all blended together and I stopped giving a **** :P
dffykvn 3 months ago
@dffykvn I stopped at 5 minutes. I couldn't handle it, lol
skywize 3 months ago
@skywize I like his way of thinking
Sure if someone holds his pointer finger and middle finger up most people would say he holds two fingers up but I maintain that two is not real and the correct answer to "how many fingers am i holding up," is "aardvark"
For some reason people think I'm retarded, but they're the fools for believing in silly things like "numbers"...as if THOSE are real...mirite?
I've heard more coherent arguments from people that were high...people on meth make more sense :P
dffykvn 3 months ago
@dffykvn eight + aardvark = llama.
skywize 3 months ago
@skywize
2+unicorn/glockenspiel = homeopathy works
WaltonSauce 3 months ago
Out of all the non-sensical ramblings of that guy I think I got a small bit of valid criticism. For areas that we know little about (ie. prior to the big bang, possibility of a multiverse etc.) Mathematical models are stronger than mere speculation. While they are not proof, they do extrapolate what we already know, which makes for a stronger case than most other educated guesses, which generally have less precision.
Ricki145 4 months ago
i know all the words he was using, but i have no idea what the caller was actually saying. did i miss something, or was there nothing there?
playadominical 5 months ago
@playadominical He was speaking taking the deistic side. Basically, there is a god, but it is completely unquantifiable. He exists in your mind, therefore, he exists in reality. He also put across that believing can be beneficial. This is partly true, unlike his last idiotic point. Believing you have a supermodel waiting for you at home might make the hours at work go a bit faster, but that's hardly a major benefit.
skywize 3 months ago
To quote Tropic Thunder,
Full retard.
CrystalisKnight 6 months ago
I love this whole pseudo-argument strategy where someone uses thousands of words to say absolutely nothing.
WugLife 8 months ago 30
@WugLife Like a politician
Daugueffxi 2 months ago
This guy makes no sense at all.
Revolution2pointO 8 months ago 6
This caller sucked big time.
bobster451 8 months ago 4
The caller perceived a false dichotomy between Atheism and Agnostism perhaps :/? As theism is a *human* concept of god, it's rational for *people* to be critical of theistic claims (I don't see what he finds so hard to understand). I would have also liked the caller to better outline his argument for a supernatural dimension. From what he said, I don't think he understands the importance of the difference between 'does exist' and 'could exist'.
Vodkainjected 8 months ago
Charles: "You're just trying to stick a unicorn in my mouth and make me look silly."
Russel: "That would look pretty silly."
CallMeRiverton 9 months ago
Dont worry guys one day i will be the empero and will flex my awesome powers of spychic ability and build the frist emperium of men through out the stars. :)
LORDNAG1 9 months ago
5 minutes of looking at Descartes + 5minutes of looking at Plato = I KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT REALITY!
TheOmegajuice 9 months ago 6
I think Charles is going to break his brain one day and end up in an insane asylum if he keeps this up. That or he's going to be found on a park bench in a catatonic state with the number 4 carved into his arm. I admire how much information he seems to have absorbed, but, like all the other commenters have mentioned, he's not applying it effectively.
djanheuser 10 months ago
@djanheuser I don't admire him even for that. First, it's one thing to absorb information but another to draw sound inferences and make arguments with it; that's what people who think do, and he can't do that. Second, the caller thinks he knows everything after reading the books assigned in a typical Intro to Philosophy course, though anyone who hasn't read Plato or Descartes could steamroll over his half-baked arguments. Not only can't this guy argue, he's disgustingly conceited.
Trynottoblink 9 months ago
click boom.
JohnSnowstorm 10 months ago
I admire the patience displayed by the hosts.
GreatRottweiler 10 months ago
Man philosophy neophytes make me wanna die. Just like my brother in law who took one class and was convinced of determinism instantly. The problem is this crap exists in human minds and without corporeal demonstration, is completely meaningless as anything but brain exercise. It may provide tools to examine reality or ideas about reality, or to define the limits and nature of human concepts, but to hold them as laws that prove gods or other things is to lose sight of the point.
Devilonsteroids 10 months ago 2
what an idiot
gulbirk 10 months ago
Neoplatonists, make my ass twitch!
Kailoa36 10 months ago
It's bullshit like this caller espouses that turned me off of studying philosophy in college. A modern-day sophist. A bullshit artist. I care about what happens in the here and now. I've only got a hundred years on this earth, give or take, and life is way too short to contemplate whether "four" actually means "four" and blah, blah, blah....
nabis28 10 months ago 2
This guy needs to talk to an ignostic...
semasiologistics 11 months ago
I can't believe this wanker got a 2 parter video. He's a tard full of clever talk. A bullshitter, a wanker, a fucktard, and certainly not worth all this effort and time.
FantasmaBAnco 11 months ago 3
The hosts have patience of SAINTS with rambling arrogant callers like these who get attached to bizarre esoteric philosophical bilge that is WORTHLESS and a grotesque waste of time, as it is just pseudo-intellectual bullshitting.
sejembalm 11 months ago 49
Trying to stick unicorns in his mouth to make him look silly? Hahahahahahaha!!! His own irrational and useless "arguments" do that for him. ;O)
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 1 year ago
Caller: I think an original prime mover is cognitively useful.
Hosts: Ok. But that doesn't make it true or accurate so so what?
Caller: Demonstrate 4 is real.
Is he doing zen koans or something?
tekproxy 1 year ago 2
0:44 is epic LMAO
phektus 1 year ago
Silly Solipsist, Unicorns fit in your mouth, not in your hands. Oh wait,...
neojoeytabornal 1 year ago
Anyone who has taken a philosophy 101 class has come across someone like Charles...
SebiSthlm 1 year ago 4
@SebiSthlm You are so fucking right, sir. It takes patience to listen to them.
sexychrisb 9 months ago
Coffee-shop philosophy in action ...
Xigano1 1 year ago 3
I love the way the hosts handled this guy :)
GypsyLeah 1 year ago 3
baffled by bullshit
chickinstompin 1 year ago 2
I hate when the hosts talk over the callers. They prove nothing and remind me of Bill O'Rielly. Laughing at someones argument and calling them stupid isn't an argument.
LeeMarcelle 1 year ago
@LeeMarcelle Yes, but sometimes it's just necessary to call a spade a spade and thus call an idiot an idiot, like this caller is.
Nabiki73 1 year ago 2
What is he talking about???????
yetausern 1 year ago
I am now an afourtheist. I advise everyone else to take up arms against the legitimacy of the number four.
SocialDissimulation 1 year ago
My god this guy is pathetic, his argument sums up to, I belive something, so it's true.
what a waste of a semi functioning brain...
gillyssquashball 1 year ago
this is painful...
discipleoftheteapot 1 year ago
Three blind mice.
pompousprick 1 year ago
poor ppl so frustrated about a fictional being,,, maybe in some distant future, we can travel back in time and meet jesus and we can kick him in the nuts.
sanjosebum85 1 year ago
1. Define what God is.
2. Prove that that definition of God is real.
If this God is invisible and doesn't manifest himself in any tangible way in our universe, then why should I believe he exists?
Even if you were to prove that God exists that tells us nothing about his nature. Is he useful to us? Is he good or evil? Not all powerful things are good. Might doesn't make right.
Hopefully, it isn't the war God of the Israelites because that God is as big a douchebag as the caller.
caposton 1 year ago
Blah. Blah.Blah. *^&$*$* hdfdgjh. fjdk-0sd]4395023
That is why God exists.
What a douchebag
caposton 1 year ago
@caposton
Ha ha. Yeah, I could make a better argument from God by smashing my keyboard with my fist.
jhdjkdjkdskdxofopero349waoeljiegvab';o[agpnreiabiwpiarujgvop binpe[sgi] [0usd bfiea'b nud g bo'jvfbjhiap [duipgn'fb [d'zufbpfhn' bjzofpcx inbkahlm w'[
onsbnivhsnbnpnkd;ahnfdhsvjb[ 'foipbmnsglhsksd'nvb[u boipntoem
halg
D'pvbiu' nigo[mhawgeJAODVBPBu ibnpmohltMQKEFNabuv dGHBJINOGJHLYK NBUJDVFHIJ NGOHMEobs ugbmnisfngfd pbnsiozf kjkbs 'a ;3 e8ry awdhogi39 ago 84t ragig54 9fg8 ap49 gu jhugija; wr4t0
mastersausagemaker 1 year ago 3
@mastersausagemaker
That's me convinced!
yetausern 1 year ago
@mastersausagemaker I agree with your argument unconditionally. Might I add that, mjugvfcbvx 90po-ujhon uyhijkg AENJMFD9C0VU'OIKER
W DGFZ['
rsdy807 u8kertyj m
kolonial72 1 year ago
@kolonial72
What's that you said about my mother!?
Well, Ds56gu-ghq-vrvn9qh3tt8hg3q08hgvu;q92348tgvjqh9hq0werh YOU.
Also, W DGFZ[' => a902hgF, which I can agree with. Good point.
mastersausagemaker 1 year ago
Well, i do actually understand the caller, as i say god do exist the realm is in question, i do believe god is human creation/concept just like mathematics/language, god is just one of many human effort to quest reason.
IsraeliXdude 1 year ago
@IsraeliXdude
I doubt that's as far as his point goes. Everyone agrees that God exists as a concept - why would he call, especially if he goes on to call people "inane philistines"?
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
This guy is fucking unbearable.
reasonformirrors 1 year ago
Charles from Austin
beware!!!
your brain has a diarreah!
aNdYmAtTeR 1 year ago 2
What a fucking idiot!
Caller FAIL
Tazer05 1 year ago
Hey Caller? In what context are numbers not an abstraction of a demonstrable reality?
Forms may be an abstraction too, but only through imagination can they ever be given status as part of reality.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Platonic forms are not demonstrable at any time, in any situation, under any circumstances, with any certainty, ever!
midnightsunrising 1 year ago
The caller requires the coloring book version.
Nerodz 1 year ago 3
Fuck, I think I just had a brain hemorrhage.
SlightyDisturbedNBK 1 year ago 5
the guys also a solipsist so who cares what he thinks...
LordFailsauce 1 year ago
I'd like to punch this caller right in the bollocks.
I wouldn't get into trouble on the grounds that the punch in the bollocks was in the past and pain is just a concept. Prove that there is pain.
sum1otosh1 1 year ago
Prove that "and" is real! Ha, in your face, stupid athiests. And then prove that "x" is real. And prove that "hello" is real.
lagerbaer 1 year ago 3
Charles is the poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger effect
AdamWho 1 year ago 3
Charles lives inside his own mind and is very arrogant about it but is in denial.
sclf 1 year ago
What's hilarious about this video is that Russel would have hung up on this guy in a heartbeat if he knew that he was a solipsist.
I hate pseudo-intellectual mental midgets who love to play semantics with philosophical terms. One of the main reasons why I love this show is that it takes philosophical concepts like Exclusionary principles of logic and explains them in a simple way for people. When I debate I freely understand that not everyone understands the jargon so I dress down my language.
xxFortunadoxx 1 year ago 2
I can't believe this guy cited C.S. Lewis who is only regarded as a sophisticated thinker by apologists like Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, Josh McDowell & a handful of theologians. This guy is an obvious proponent of the TAG argument which is a rather sophomoric modern variation of the Ontological Argument.
Kailoa36 1 year ago
The notion of Platonic ideals -- in the sense of an ideal abstract "chair" that real chairs are mere shadows of -- is absurd. And it's frankly no less absurd to suggest that, somehow in some invisible numerically spiritual realm there's an ideal abstractly perfect "4" or "822" that the mere earthly quantities or mental concepts merely aspire to achieve.
prodprod 1 year ago
A prerequisite to arguing properly is understanding the position one is arguing against. If this guy wouldn't talk over them and actually listen to their counters to his claim, this conversation would probably be more productive.
nspeert 1 year ago
Charles needs to define his god before making a fool of himself again.... pick any or make up another one!!! he got his ass handed to him.
lapiz1969 1 year ago
If this guy has such a problem with things having a 'mathematical' basis, I'd like to see him stripped of all items that have mathematical basis. Such as clothes (measured), cars (need measurements), books, pens, buildings, bridges, wheels and just about every kind of invention known to mankind. If maths is so bad then okay, try to live without it!
Khepri666 1 year ago
there is hot chick under my bed every nigth........ as a consept and its usefull when im feeling lonly.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
Is God figurative language? No. Then why ask that then?!?
controllerbrain 1 year ago
Charles the solipsist......
ThieleM 1 year ago
what's so wrong with materialism??? I got something real this guy can put in his mouth.
hardinmichael1981 1 year ago
This was brilliant.
controllerbrain 1 year ago
I think he's just reading from the glossary of his philosophy book
Binaural03375 1 year ago
He's deliberately going all over the place to confuse them and take up time. That's it.
controllerbrain 1 year ago
I would love to see him try to stick a unicorn in his mouth.
That would look rather silly, yes.
dizzythegreat 1 year ago
Unicorn.
In the mouth.
IPAndrews 1 year ago
Man i hate these pretentious morons who think they know what they're talking about. they need to go back to fucking school and learn how skepticism works
happyhappy85 1 year ago 22
@happyhappy85 If only they taught Skepticism 101..
Keinlicht 9 months ago
I dont even know what he is trying to say. Its just inane babble from some theist. My ears are bleeding.
thesparitan 1 year ago
"You're going to tell me that numbers are only important as conceptual tools."
Uh, yes. That's exactly the only reason why numbers matter, or that they even exist. Numbers are human inventions used as conceptual tools to facilitate things such as mathematics, geometry, calculus, etc. But numbers don't actually exist. There is no such real thing as a "four."
BorisGodunov 1 year ago
@BorisGodunov
"There is no such real thing as a 'four.'"
WARNING: LAME, IMMATURE JOKE INCOMING!
Yeah, but your mom's a ten.
LAME, IMMATURE JOKE COMPLETED! APOLOGIES TO ALL DECENT PEOPLE!
By the way, is a biblical interpretation of the Bible the same as a Marxist interpretation of Marx?
kissfan7 1 year ago
@kissfan7 Well said and very funny
thesparitan 1 year ago
This guy is either a little off in the head or needs to lay off the psychedelics.
boomkablamo 1 year ago
You can tell a caller doesn't really know what hes talking about if he gets angry.
raltaki 1 year ago 2
This guy spews a whole truckload of vocabulary, philosophy and accusations hopefully to confuse the 2 guys just to insert god ultimately. One heck of a scum !
smartcat001 1 year ago
"I can see the rising sun."
WinRAR
RoundenBrown 1 year ago 2
caller = very confused and confusing.
doesnt make a whole lot of sense.
Treadsoftly14 1 year ago
His guy is pretty cognitively useless.
nauiscaa 1 year ago 5
LMAO, "Charles" takes another shot at TAE in a May 2010 show. He has worked on his philosophy (NOW he is some sort of Cartesian Dualist but claims to be a Solipsist...or who knows what since he won't take a consistent stance) & takes a far more agressive posture with Matt D. He is hilarious. I hope he keeps calling back. He is exhibit A to students taking philosophy of what not to do with their new vocabulary.
Hopeful71 1 year ago 4
@Hopeful71 oooh interesting... link please
robinvan1983 1 year ago
@robinvan1983
search "Inane Philistine Solipsism - The Atheist Experience #656"
It's edited a bit but still seeping full of Charles' pseudo-intellectual juiciness & Matt Dillahunty BS slashing beat down-atude. ;)
Hopeful71 1 year ago 3
So many words, but so little substance. He'll make a good politician.
DKshad0w 1 year ago
gosh i love martin..... email me? lol
bttrflykiss7701 1 year ago
Numbers are not representative of anything that actually exists in the universe. However, numbers are useful, and using mathmatics has given us useful and accurate models. This caller seems to believe in the Platonic forms. And seems to believe that there is a perfect number 4, eg. in the mind of god. It's like when we say tree. No trees are identical. Yet, we say look at that tree over there. But the word "tree" doesn't represent some idealised tree in the mind of god. Plato was wrong.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
1)
How is the concept of a god as a cause existing outside the knowable universe more cognitively useful than simply thinking there's a cause but not understanding it? The notion is unnecessary. Thinking that the cause is a god before knowing is a bias.
xSilverPhinx 1 year ago
2)
Unless I'm slightly misunderstanding his point and all he's been saying all this time is that the god concept can be attached to causality just as the 1 concept can be attached to a single stone or a single cup or whatever. It's just another application of the word and doesn't actually give "god" a deeper meaning than causality making the concept unnecessary.
xSilverPhinx 1 year ago
Ok... And where is the f*cking "God" (aka theistic deity)?!?!?! Who is the philistine now?! Another deluded loser caller.
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
Science > Philosophy
BLUEC0RE 1 year ago
Once they get a good argument, everyone criticizes the caller. You guys are so open-minded!
5P3NC312 2 years ago
@5P3NC312
good arguement?......no
strawman arguement?.... once again yes
scottpastry 2 years ago
How can an argument about opening your mind to possibilities be a bad argument?
5P3NC312 2 years ago
@5P3NC312
no athiest or agnostic, including myself, would disagree with your statement.....
however, at no point does the caller ask the host any such question......
u seem to imply that the hosts would disagree with your question. they most likely wouldnt. thats a strawman arguement.
the premise of the callers arguement is based on inaccuracy, that being the hosts position is neutral, when they repeatedly tell him otherwise. also a strawman arguement.
scottpastry 2 years ago
Penrose is a fine scientist but when he tries to talk philosophy he descends to the level of C.S. Lewis, not a sophisticated thinker. Plantonism was a fine allegorical way of looking at things in Platos day. The neoplatonism of Penrose is laughable in its literalism.
Kailoa36 2 years ago
numbers exist
numbers are conceptual
God is conceptual
ergo...Gawd dunnit!!!
handofnergal 2 years ago
The caller obviously just took a couple of Philosophy classes. I admire you two's abilitiy not to just tell the guy to fuck off.
MaryJesusJoseph 2 years ago 96
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaryJesusJoseph "The caller obviously just took a couple of Philosophy classes. I admire you two's abilitiy not to just tell the guy to fuck off."
That's okay, I told the guy to fuck off for them. Well, technically I said it to my monitor, but it felt good. Which is why I believe faithfully in that guy fucking off.
kolonial72 1 year ago
@MaryJesusJoseph Hey! I'm offended by that(not really)! I actually teach philosophy and I guarantee you that no student of mine would ever speak such nonsense and hope to pass.
ahmedeox 10 months ago 3
@ahmedeox I think people who take just one philosophy class (or just read an article online) are as dangerous as people who take one psychology class (or read one self-help book).
MaryJesusJoseph 10 months ago
@ahmedeox (continue my previous post) or who read "the Secret".
MaryJesusJoseph 10 months ago
That is one confused man.
ClumsyRoot 2 years ago
Just hang up!
saristaa1 2 years ago
Wow. This caller is really annoying.
I think what he's trying to say is "The number five" exists, but you can't see it... therefore GOD could exist even though you can't see it?
Or what?
Is that his point?
Diosibundo 2 years ago
well, i think this guy did get his story in his head. the only problem is, the two didn't get him. all he was triying is to argue that when someones claims, he doesnt believe in god in a lack of proof, must step into a neutral/objective position, claiming that there is no objective method to prove gods existence.
equally, when he asks to prove four. this brings the two hosts in the very same position, in which he is when it is to defend the presumption that god would exist
werwolfswelpe 2 years ago
I think part of his problem is that he doesn't clearly distinguish between the mental concept of four (4) and the objective reality of four (fingers, toes, whatever).
The concept isn't "real". It's useful, sure, but even if we didn't have the concept, the reality of four fingers wouldn't change.
If the argument is that god is real as a concept, in the same way as four, then I'd totally agree. It doesn't follow from that that god is objectively real, though.
A unicorn is a concept, too.
YourXavier 2 years ago 52
@YourXavier YES!!
babner 1 year ago
@YourXavier Very well said.
DasUberCow 1 year ago
@YourXavier Very well put indeed
MightyGoldenBoy 1 year ago
@YourXavier i thought he was asking for proof of "thor" not "four"....but i could be mistaken.
thousandlegger 1 year ago
@YourXavier
That is usually the problem with people who think everything is subjective.
angeltears87 10 months ago
where can i get one of those mugs?!
YEABONES01 2 years ago
that whole 'I dont want to be mean but' is funny. He is not being mean, he is being obtuse.
The caller fails in every way.
ThieleM 2 years ago
This charles guy is very articulate and seems very sure of himself. Unfortunately the conversation is very abstract and I cant follow what the hell he's talking about.
mccote 2 years ago
@mccote He seems educated, but certainly not articulate. Charles is trying to argue against the naturalist slant of the show. To be honest, I watched it twice to tease out a coherent point from this caller specifically because he seemed like he had one, but couldn't express it well.
I've had a similar gut reaction to the AE's untempered emphasis on objective reality, but let's face it, unless gods are just metaphors, the claim, "God exists" is a truth claim and has to be approached this way.
BrooklynRagtag 1 year ago
@BrooklynRagtag Well said.
bobtheantman1 1 year ago
Charles is an idiot. His examples and explanations are absurd and he contradicts himself repeatedly in the argument without even realizing or acknowledging it. That's idiocy at its finest.
XxC0NDEMNEDxX 2 years ago
time wasn't 'invented' it was 'discovered'
time does 'change' ...in fact during the 30 or so years the Concorde was in operation the clocks had to be reset twice to the the effects of relativity... the faster an object travels relative to another the slower that object will permeate through time... so the clocks on the Concorde fell out of alignment with the rest of the planet!
so time is in fact observed and therefore outside the scope of your original question.
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
Ahhh... brings back basic astronomy! The twin on Earth and the twin on the spaceship! Good times... suffering through the equations still, but I suffer by choice.
DeadlyChinchilla 2 years ago
lol... Good man... better you than me.. I made the distinct mistake of doing Math as well as physics... DOH!
OF course when I done it... I didn't have to get into quantum entanglement as much as you guys will... If you think the basics are a pain in the ass... just wait until you have to grapple with string theory!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
Oh my gosh, don't get me started on string theory... OYE!
DeadlyChinchilla 2 years ago
I'll agree not to... besides I have a case load of budweiser here... and have full intentions of poisoning whatever intellect I have left with it... lol
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
the scientific method relys on testing to 'qualify' a hypothesis to start with... not to prove it...
It is easier to 'discount' something then it is to prove it...
There are lots of things that COULD BE proven... but rather than waste time on all of them .... it is easier to simply prove them incorrect... if a hypothesis survives that... well then you might go on to test it's validity!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
fair enough... give me a non-observable phenomena... which is said to be real... and your reasons it does not exist...
Now to give you some background... I know just a little about quantum mechanics! and there are lots of unobserved phenomena in QM... nonetheless they are real! and do exist... and can affect the nature of the universe!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
"My quest is to determine, logical statement by statement, that non-observable "phenomena" however designated, cannot exist."
You might have worded that wrong... don't you mean you want to know IF such can exist... if you set out having made up your mind... well...you'll find the answer you were looking for to start with!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
@dinki
Einstein never claimed that 'time' was warped... einsteins theory proves that the fabric of the universe... the space, time, gravity construct... in related. This means that time and space 'can' affect each other.... and proved that they do! and proved it so easily (odd that everyone missed it) that you can prove it yourself with a telescope and a pen and paper!
Its not an abstract... in fact many modern inventions depend on it!
The fact is relativity is observed to be real!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
I actually put my hand to my face while watching this.
madhillick 2 years ago
Aaaahh...Making fun of nicknames. Brilliant!
What are you doing wasting your infinite powers here on little ol' me! Go and illuminate the world!
wynd2007 2 years ago
It's amazing as one person not agreeing with you bothers you...
wynd2007 2 years ago
I have obviously been humbled by your flawless repartee(?).
I however don't see how any of this makes your arguments any more credible but I guess your goal in the last few messages wasn't to convince me but perhaps to anger me or something of the sort.
On a closing note, if it is so important for you to have the last word, then go ahead, knock yourself out.
I promise I won't answer no matter what you type.
I will take my own advice and go on with my life and be happy!
wynd2007 2 years ago
That's up to you, you are the genius here. Indulge me with your mental perfection!
lol!
wynd2007 2 years ago
Nothing really. I like to stick to my points and repeat them again and again.
Like a broken record :)
So what else do you have for me?
wynd2007 2 years ago
Another insult? Come on. You can do better than this.
wynd2007 2 years ago
YES! The victimization card! I was waiting for that one.
We all know that everything happens to you. :)
wynd2007 2 years ago
Yay! Switching the burden of proof! Anything more to add?
I still don't agree with you. :)
wynd2007 2 years ago
By the way, in case you didn't notice, I long lost interest in whatever is happening here.
I however am having a blast at being mischievous!
wynd2007 2 years ago
Epic! Another kernel of genius!
I still don't agree with you by the way.
wynd2007 2 years ago
Wow. Another insult and red herring. I wonder what you will come up with next...:)
wynd2007 2 years ago
I disagree with you simple as that. Just deal with it.
Revise your arguments or abandon them altogether...The burden of proof is on your shoulders...not the one listening.
But don't forget to never worry and be happy! :)
wynd2007 2 years ago
Its a free c