ok ppl,actually this vid is correct...kinda.(If it matters,this comment is coming from an agnostist).Hume's criteria for knowledge (known today as Hume's Fork) was that ANY meaningful proposition must either be a "relation of ideas" (df: proposition that is known by reason alone,telling us nothing about the external world) or "matters of fact" (df: propositions of sense experience,not entirely certain but tells us something about the external world).The problem is that Hume's Fork is neither
You can improve this video by abandoning it altogether. 1st, no atheist I know has arrived at the same conclusion as Hume because of Hume. 2nd, you would have to accept Hume's premise as TRUE to use it to disprove something, but that something you're trying to disprove is Hume's premise itself. Round and round you go. You CAN object to the premise, but you need external reasoning to refute it. I.e, you must show that it is true that his premise is NOT backed by reason which you haven't done.
In the video, it says that Hume "argued that any religious book or philosophy that is not mathematically reasoned or scientifically proven is naturally flawed and an illusion at best." This is a misinterpretation of Hume's contributions to philosophy; I recommend that whoever put that in this video take a course with a professor that can help them interpret Hume.
This video is pathetic. It shows you don't understand Hume AND you don't understand basic logic.
Hume never said everything had to be mathmatically proven. WTF? He basically just showed inductive reasoning (science) can never be 100% sure of anything, but also recognized the consistency of it and acknowledged its usefulness because of that. Maybe if you read "Of Miracles" you could actually grasp the reason why you can't trust religious testimony.
Your argument is circular reasoning, and it simply doesn't work. What you're doing is playing a linguistic game, all you've proven is that Hume's theory has a linguistic problem not an actual one. This argument in no way discredits Hume's, nice try though..
If it's a linguistic problem, how would you solve it. Because if you could solve it linguistically, I might be able to understand or even subscribe to his thinking, that is, if he can prove it.
If you "can't" understand it I don't know what to tell you, I am not an expert in philosophy or Hume for that matter, but I am sure you can ask a Hume scholar or a philosophy professor, assuming you have the nerve to do it. I really don't know what else I can tell you, I mean you seem to be going in circles with this..
I figured you wouldn't be able to because we use linguistics and language to represent our ideas and when our ideas are confused or incorrect, it will show up in the expression of it. I don't think Hume would be careless when expressing his most basic of assumptions or do you think he didn't really consider his words carefully? It is Hume who is contradicting himself. I'm just pointing it out.
david humes arguments are stupid, he cannot come to a linguistic conclusoin to weahter god exists or not and yet he believes in polytheism as he cannot even go next to arguing montheists.
@123halz Yeah, his arguments are stupid and that's why he is regarded as one of the most important figures in western philosophy. His arguments are so dumb that you, felt inclined to watch a video based on his dumb arguments. Oh, and its "CONCLUSION' and "WEATHER", not 'conclusoin and weahter. You're pretty smart!
@TheDarkSagan Easy killer. The proper word is actually "whether." I could rip apart you punctuation as well, but it's already ironic/sad enough as it is that you felt obligated to criticize another person's bad grammar and spelling with even more bad grammar.
As far as rating this . . .this is simple logic - however, "atheists" is spelled wrong. Your spelling "athiest" follows the grammar rule, but this is an exception - should be "atheists"
Wow.. you people... there's a reason why Hume is studied and why your philosophy and criticisms of the most brilliant minds in philosophy aren't..
And to all you religious folks out there, prove to me that there is a god. Hume just says that we can't prove ANYTHING and therefore should never believe that something will happen for sure. He makes sense.. why should we believe/have faith in something that we don't know/can't prove exsists?
Hume is right because what he says is based on logical conjecture through a thought process known as empirical thought. Look it up. How do we know this? Or "how can you prove it?" as you keep putting it? Because it has worked for the past 300 years. You have a very poor understanding of exactly what science is. Science is based on the foundation of empiricism, empiricism is based on logical conjecture through observable data. There is no contradiction, your argument is the contradiction.
And another thing, this "contradictory" logic of Hume's and science in general has contributed more to the development of our society in the past 200 years than your religion has in the past 8,000.
You creationists are just.... amazingly dumb. I'm very sorry to say.
go to wikipedia look up david hume look for the section on his works go tho the link on the article of inquiry concerning human understanding an then go to the section on of miracles or go down the page to where it says external links and you'll find his writings on the subject
If you accept that math and science dont support your philosophy because they dont support themselves.
(Prove 1+1=2 or that the dead sea scrolls are 2k yrs old.)
You have severed yourself from reality; IDEALISM . your senses can decieve you and are the work of the Devil. Bishop George Berkeley may have been right, But where have all the Idealist-scientist gone?
You can't use a second premise to test a first premise, that goes for Hume as well as any other system of thought, so the failure to pass its own test is no discredit to Hume's validity or merit.
There are actually two. The first says that there are natural laws (materialism), and second that the best way to know them is through empiricism (characterized here by Hume and his tests).
Sorry, Hume said it had to be measurable too for it to be believed.
Also, knowing where the chemicals are located doesn't mean that the chemicals cause the feeling. That's an argument for causation. I'd like you to prove that!
Love...you can't measure it nor prove it scientifically, but tell a newly wed that love isn't there. Try telling the mother of a new born child that love doesn't exist because you can't measure or prove it scientifically and she would laugh at you.
I mean if his argument is true?..or if any other argument is true for that matter...then why do you people still try to dispute it...
nature.
just by saying his argument fails his own test doesnt make any sense..cause your still saying it worked..by it being used against itself...drop it already
Hume's works don't pass their own test? I think you've missed the point of Hume altogether, he simply sates that certainty is impossible to attain. Furthemore, that he isn't even sure of his work's own certainty. In response, he asks only that if he is so obiously flawed in his assumptions, that he be corrected. To date no one has been able to do so.
I think you have missed the point. Since he espouses a philosophy for life, he must also consider it's validity against the rigidity of his own standards. If not, he imposes an impossible standard on others, yet allows his own beliefes unchecked. Sound logical? Only to those that want to divert the arguement in only one direction; against God.
Hume's gap demolishes rationalism & empiricism - God alone has the solution to Hume's gap & other dilemma's Hume raised that actually overturned his own empiricism, for Hume gave up on certainty & said we all should just play board games.
Kant heard Hume's clanging alarm, awaken from his philosophical nap & offered a transcendental solution: a commingling of Empiricism & Rationalism which is equally fallacious.
God is the only immutable foundation for the immutable law of non-contradiction.
i think hume mentioned logically as well with mathematically and scientifically.
so what he says still stands...if you want to look at it in that perspective you can. But since there is no logical, mathematical, or scientific evidence for Gog. Then it is still possibly an illusion.
We have no logical, mathematical, or scientific evidence for a flying pig. Its just a complex idea. Just like the concept of God. Its not something that we have experienced with our sensations.
Atheist materialist fails to understand the difference between an advocate of a view, i.e. Hume's destruction of empiricsm= I'm not a Humean, with the the hammer blows Hume delivers that destroy epistemic rights of empiricism & rationalism, And only theism can answer the problems Hume pounds any non-theistic Worldview.
Let 'x' and 'y' to be the means reasoning or proving through mathematics and science. And let 'z' be the Hume's claim based on empiricist philosophy that something is true with a and b. Since you claim that z is not true, may I suggest the otherwise and say that things that are proven through mathematics and science are NOT true? Reverse argument can take you only so far.
Does x + y = z or is does x + y = a and b? Just kidding. The entire idea is that Hume would not x, y nor a and b, be correct unless he had proof. The only variable he would allow into the equation without the necessity of proof was "Z" and that was because it was what he believed.
I'm not familiar with Hume's writings, but from what is in your video I can see an error in your argument. Hume seems to be specifically talking about religious books and religious philosophy, not all philosophy. On that point your argument fails. All he seems to be saying is that believing something is one thing, having actual proof (scientific or mathematical) to back it up is quite another.
I would agree with you but in the actual text, his statement refers to any way of thinking, not just religious. Requiring all arguments to pass this test automatically includes itself. I wouldn't have made the video had he just said "religions". I'll check the quote and post it verbatim.
So what is it you want to put in the gap - a God? Hume's empiricism isn't fallacious - it's just more self-evident than faith or revelation and can show how both are the products of natural causes.
People fill that gap by many things: love, sex, drugs, success, etc. The point is that this man set a standard to measure truth but his own standard didn't pass the test.
It's not more self-evident or less self-evident. It is a contradiction - which if Hume's reasoning were found in the Bible, it would have been paraded around by skeptics as a flaw. Now it's just the cornerstone of a failed logic.
Can't think of a verse for the end, though it needs one, imo. Btw, atheist is spelled wrong both times (00:12 and 00:49), as well as religious (already noted by shpgrl803). Not as visually compelling...I found my attention wandering.
Just a few thoughts 1) Slow down David Hume's details-it comes and goes way too quick 2) is it possible to show a picture of David Hume? Possibly one at the beginning another at the end. That will give it some variety. thanks
ok ppl,actually this vid is correct...kinda.(If it matters,this comment is coming from an agnostist).Hume's criteria for knowledge (known today as Hume's Fork) was that ANY meaningful proposition must either be a "relation of ideas" (df: proposition that is known by reason alone,telling us nothing about the external world) or "matters of fact" (df: propositions of sense experience,not entirely certain but tells us something about the external world).The problem is that Hume's Fork is neither
jellceyful 9 months ago
You can improve this video by abandoning it altogether. 1st, no atheist I know has arrived at the same conclusion as Hume because of Hume. 2nd, you would have to accept Hume's premise as TRUE to use it to disprove something, but that something you're trying to disprove is Hume's premise itself. Round and round you go. You CAN object to the premise, but you need external reasoning to refute it. I.e, you must show that it is true that his premise is NOT backed by reason which you haven't done.
eyeammi 1 year ago
@eyeammi NICE!
marcuelcajon 1 year ago
In the video, it says that Hume "argued that any religious book or philosophy that is not mathematically reasoned or scientifically proven is naturally flawed and an illusion at best." This is a misinterpretation of Hume's contributions to philosophy; I recommend that whoever put that in this video take a course with a professor that can help them interpret Hume.
ralphy078 1 year ago
This video is pathetic. It shows you don't understand Hume AND you don't understand basic logic.
Hume never said everything had to be mathmatically proven. WTF? He basically just showed inductive reasoning (science) can never be 100% sure of anything, but also recognized the consistency of it and acknowledged its usefulness because of that. Maybe if you read "Of Miracles" you could actually grasp the reason why you can't trust religious testimony.
Tibberclaw 2 years ago
Agreed. This video is nonsense. To the creator of the video: Take Hume's books and read them carefully. Maybe you'll understand something.
ViktorW19 2 years ago
Hume's philosophy is logically reasoned
It doesn't have to be mathematically reasoned and his entire philosophy is aimed at showing you there is no such thing as scientific proof
Try reading his work before criticizing it, so as not to appear as an obvious wanker
Toodles
adrastea99 2 years ago
Your argument is circular reasoning, and it simply doesn't work. What you're doing is playing a linguistic game, all you've proven is that Hume's theory has a linguistic problem not an actual one. This argument in no way discredits Hume's, nice try though..
AXinthevoid 2 years ago
If it's a linguistic problem, how would you solve it. Because if you could solve it linguistically, I might be able to understand or even subscribe to his thinking, that is, if he can prove it.
reelverse 2 years ago
If you "can't" understand it I don't know what to tell you, I am not an expert in philosophy or Hume for that matter, but I am sure you can ask a Hume scholar or a philosophy professor, assuming you have the nerve to do it. I really don't know what else I can tell you, I mean you seem to be going in circles with this..
AXinthevoid 2 years ago
I figured you wouldn't be able to because we use linguistics and language to represent our ideas and when our ideas are confused or incorrect, it will show up in the expression of it. I don't think Hume would be careless when expressing his most basic of assumptions or do you think he didn't really consider his words carefully? It is Hume who is contradicting himself. I'm just pointing it out.
reelverse 2 years ago
david humes arguments are stupid, he cannot come to a linguistic conclusoin to weahter god exists or not and yet he believes in polytheism as he cannot even go next to arguing montheists.
123halz 1 year ago
@123halz Yeah, his arguments are stupid and that's why he is regarded as one of the most important figures in western philosophy. His arguments are so dumb that you, felt inclined to watch a video based on his dumb arguments. Oh, and its "CONCLUSION' and "WEATHER", not 'conclusoin and weahter. You're pretty smart!
TheDarkSagan 1 year ago
@TheDarkSagan Easy killer. The proper word is actually "whether." I could rip apart you punctuation as well, but it's already ironic/sad enough as it is that you felt obligated to criticize another person's bad grammar and spelling with even more bad grammar.
eyeammi 1 year ago
@reelverse what is an 'athiest'? I think you mean 'atheist'.
LibertyWaxlips 1 year ago
As far as rating this . . .this is simple logic - however, "atheists" is spelled wrong. Your spelling "athiest" follows the grammar rule, but this is an exception - should be "atheists"
rayciervo 3 years ago
God scientifically and mathematically unproven
CoolAtheist 3 years ago
everything in this video is true. viva ayn rand!! srs
robskelly1 3 years ago
bacon fails...
but i like bacon...get me some bacon
Alanjan 3 years ago
This is nothing more than a word game and a bad one at that.
Things that aren't scientifically proven aren't scientifically proven?
Isn't that true by definiton? Moron
bacon4247 3 years ago 4
that's the point.
reelverse 3 years ago
ive given up lol..
god help you lolzzz
Alanjan 3 years ago
This video is pretty stupid. They obviously don't understand Hume's ideas.
bimmin318 3 years ago
Just showing the contradiction of one idea, not all.
reelverse 3 years ago
Wow.. you people... there's a reason why Hume is studied and why your philosophy and criticisms of the most brilliant minds in philosophy aren't..
And to all you religious folks out there, prove to me that there is a god. Hume just says that we can't prove ANYTHING and therefore should never believe that something will happen for sure. He makes sense.. why should we believe/have faith in something that we don't know/can't prove exsists?
peachycruisepy 4 years ago
Listen to yourself. You can't prove anything...so believe Hume because he's right.
How studied do you have to be to realize the contradiction?
reelverse 4 years ago
lol you still don't get it do you? did you pay attention to what jerico was saying at all?
natural laws? materialism, empricism...cant test a second premise with a first the first one?
its not that hard
Alanjan 4 years ago
Hume is right because what he says is based on logical conjecture through a thought process known as empirical thought. Look it up. How do we know this? Or "how can you prove it?" as you keep putting it? Because it has worked for the past 300 years. You have a very poor understanding of exactly what science is. Science is based on the foundation of empiricism, empiricism is based on logical conjecture through observable data. There is no contradiction, your argument is the contradiction.
AXinthevoid 3 years ago
And another thing, this "contradictory" logic of Hume's and science in general has contributed more to the development of our society in the past 200 years than your religion has in the past 8,000.
You creationists are just.... amazingly dumb. I'm very sorry to say.
AXinthevoid 3 years ago
Too bad this is over the head of most, if not all atheists and agnostics.
broj8s8n79 4 years ago
go to wikipedia look up david hume look for the section on his works go tho the link on the article of inquiry concerning human understanding an then go to the section on of miracles or go down the page to where it says external links and you'll find his writings on the subject
revise
partilov1 4 years ago
'I Know You are But what am I'
If you accept that math and science dont support your philosophy because they dont support themselves.
(Prove 1+1=2 or that the dead sea scrolls are 2k yrs old.)
You have severed yourself from reality; IDEALISM . your senses can decieve you and are the work of the Devil. Bishop George Berkeley may have been right, But where have all the Idealist-scientist gone?
gusb232 4 years ago
Nonsensical video...
Jerico proves yet again that logic prevails.
AXinthevoid 4 years ago
You can't use a second premise to test a first premise, that goes for Hume as well as any other system of thought, so the failure to pass its own test is no discredit to Hume's validity or merit.
jericomovie 4 years ago
There's only one premise here.
reelverse 4 years ago
There are actually two. The first says that there are natural laws (materialism), and second that the best way to know them is through empiricism (characterized here by Hume and his tests).
jericomovie 4 years ago
logic prevails...yet again lol
Alanjan 4 years ago
I'm happy it makes sense.
jericomovie 4 years ago
hume ruled yo! u guys are all just haters! i know this cos i know EVERYTHING !!!!!!!! I AM A GOD! i think.
bazset 4 years ago
Hey God, you misspelled "cause" or "because".
reelverse 4 years ago
make ur mind up, or ill give u cancer
bazset 4 years ago
Indeed. Wisly spoken...
ManofGodChristian144 4 years ago
I know one way to make this video better. Spell "ATHEISTS" correctly.
Mordecai36 4 years ago
Thank you. I already corrected it on the final draft. I need spellcheck on my program or something. Can you believe I'm a school teacher?
reelverse 4 years ago
Hahah! I was only joking. I mean, I wasn't. But, you know. It happens! Haha!
Jake
Mordecai36 4 years ago
What a shit video.
CptWang 4 years ago
Thank you.
reelverse 4 years ago
haha i was about to mention that. you beat me to it!
*clenches fist*
Alanjan 4 years ago
feelings like love and all that stuff has to do with the chemistry in your brian...no we cant measure it...at least i dont think...but we know
where the feelings come from..
your brain is all about chemistry...love, hate, pain, laughter, etc etc..
so in essence we do have scientific proof of its origins.
Alanjan 4 years ago
Sorry, Hume said it had to be measurable too for it to be believed.
Also, knowing where the chemicals are located doesn't mean that the chemicals cause the feeling. That's an argument for causation. I'd like you to prove that!
reelverse 4 years ago
excuse me...love and other feelings is chemical response in your brian...
i can wipe all that away with an injection...but that is besides the point..
Alanjan 4 years ago
i mean your just denying it and going in circles..give me one example..in real life where this argument is wrong?
Alanjan 4 years ago
Love...you can't measure it nor prove it scientifically, but tell a newly wed that love isn't there. Try telling the mother of a new born child that love doesn't exist because you can't measure or prove it scientifically and she would laugh at you.
reelverse 4 years ago
dude this is analytical logic...not deductive...
its like your saying im certain that nothing is certain in this world...
when he says anything that cant be logically, mathematically or scientifically proven, is an illusion;
is he wrong? hasnt that argument been shown to be true time after time.
do we have logical, mathematical or scientific reasoning for lets say...a flying pig? or a golden mountain?
Alanjan 4 years ago
lmaaooo so you agree then with his argument?
I mean if his argument is true?..or if any other argument is true for that matter...then why do you people still try to dispute it...
nature.
just by saying his argument fails his own test doesnt make any sense..cause your still saying it worked..by it being used against itself...drop it already
Alanjan 4 years ago
I proved his argument? What evidence did I use to prove it...was it the argument itself? That doesn't sound measurable nor scientific.
reelverse 4 years ago
Simply, I believe Hume took George Berkerly's subjective idealism philosophy and made it Atheistic.
MonsterEatsKids 4 years ago
Hume's works don't pass their own test? I think you've missed the point of Hume altogether, he simply sates that certainty is impossible to attain. Furthemore, that he isn't even sure of his work's own certainty. In response, he asks only that if he is so obiously flawed in his assumptions, that he be corrected. To date no one has been able to do so.
nofx221984 4 years ago
I think you have missed the point. Since he espouses a philosophy for life, he must also consider it's validity against the rigidity of his own standards. If not, he imposes an impossible standard on others, yet allows his own beliefes unchecked. Sound logical? Only to those that want to divert the arguement in only one direction; against God.
reelverse 4 years ago
The argument is evidence in itself you narrow minded moron...
Alanjan 4 years ago
So if I called you a moron, would the argument be evidence enough to prove it?
reelverse 4 years ago
Read my comment once more.
nofx221984 3 years ago
Hume's gap demolishes rationalism & empiricism - God alone has the solution to Hume's gap & other dilemma's Hume raised that actually overturned his own empiricism, for Hume gave up on certainty & said we all should just play board games.
Kant heard Hume's clanging alarm, awaken from his philosophical nap & offered a transcendental solution: a commingling of Empiricism & Rationalism which is equally fallacious.
God is the only immutable foundation for the immutable law of non-contradiction.
deu64 4 years ago
i think hume mentioned logically as well with mathematically and scientifically.
so what he says still stands...if you want to look at it in that perspective you can. But since there is no logical, mathematical, or scientific evidence for Gog. Then it is still possibly an illusion.
We have no logical, mathematical, or scientific evidence for a flying pig. Its just a complex idea. Just like the concept of God. Its not something that we have experienced with our sensations.
Alanjan 4 years ago
Logic prevails...you fail. End of story.
Alanjan 4 years ago
Atheist materialist fails to understand the difference between an advocate of a view, i.e. Hume's destruction of empiricsm= I'm not a Humean, with the the hammer blows Hume delivers that destroy epistemic rights of empiricism & rationalism, And only theism can answer the problems Hume pounds any non-theistic Worldview.
deu64 4 years ago
I realized that such claim was originally made by Epicurus.
ContraWagner 4 years ago
The sum of creation=2701
arusebud 4 years ago
so according yo your reason, neither Christianity nor David Hume's morality based on sentiment is valid.
witzkeyman 4 years ago
To what reasoning are referring?
reelverse 4 years ago
Let 'x' and 'y' to be the means reasoning or proving through mathematics and science. And let 'z' be the Hume's claim based on empiricist philosophy that something is true with a and b. Since you claim that z is not true, may I suggest the otherwise and say that things that are proven through mathematics and science are NOT true? Reverse argument can take you only so far.
ContraWagner 4 years ago
Does x + y = z or is does x + y = a and b? Just kidding. The entire idea is that Hume would not x, y nor a and b, be correct unless he had proof. The only variable he would allow into the equation without the necessity of proof was "Z" and that was because it was what he believed.
reelverse 4 years ago
Lol I know what you mean :P
michielmons 4 years ago
y did u make it look so 'tragic' and its obvious that if it aint mathematical its a myth, just like flogiston and ether theories in the middle ages
mrfatd 4 years ago
prove your comment with math, then get back to me.
reelverse 4 years ago
I'm not familiar with Hume's writings, but from what is in your video I can see an error in your argument. Hume seems to be specifically talking about religious books and religious philosophy, not all philosophy. On that point your argument fails. All he seems to be saying is that believing something is one thing, having actual proof (scientific or mathematical) to back it up is quite another.
Spar812 4 years ago
I would agree with you but in the actual text, his statement refers to any way of thinking, not just religious. Requiring all arguments to pass this test automatically includes itself. I wouldn't have made the video had he just said "religions". I'll check the quote and post it verbatim.
reelverse 4 years ago
How is it a contradiction? A contradiction is when A = not A. What's the test? Are you trying to use these terms in a formal philosophical sense?
RaoulAdam 4 years ago
So what is it you want to put in the gap - a God? Hume's empiricism isn't fallacious - it's just more self-evident than faith or revelation and can show how both are the products of natural causes.
RaoulAdam 4 years ago
People fill that gap by many things: love, sex, drugs, success, etc. The point is that this man set a standard to measure truth but his own standard didn't pass the test.
It's not more self-evident or less self-evident. It is a contradiction - which if Hume's reasoning were found in the Bible, it would have been paraded around by skeptics as a flaw. Now it's just the cornerstone of a failed logic.
reelverse 4 years ago
A few spelling errors. I think the music should be livelier, or at least change when you debunk Hume.
2 Tim 3: 7 "...always learning but never able to acknowledge the TRUTH." That's the sad state of many "thinkers"
praisecalvary 4 years ago
That's a good verse. I think I'll put that in when I redo this video.
reelverse 4 years ago
Can't think of a verse for the end, though it needs one, imo. Btw, atheist is spelled wrong both times (00:12 and 00:49), as well as religious (already noted by shpgrl803). Not as visually compelling...I found my attention wandering.
UC86 4 years ago
This video was watched about 50 times before someone caught the "atheist" mistake. Thank you.
reelverse 4 years ago
You're quite welcome. ;)
UC86 4 years ago
it is empirical that all truths have errors.
trerrunus 4 years ago
Just a few thoughts 1) Slow down David Hume's details-it comes and goes way too quick 2) is it possible to show a picture of David Hume? Possibly one at the beginning another at the end. That will give it some variety. thanks
louiseandon 4 years ago
Pictures, movement, font change emphasis, All the element you usually employ.
JADEDVisalian 4 years ago
Doesn't excite me
JADEDVisalian 4 years ago
Do you think it needs a verse at the end? If not a verse, then what do you think might make this better?
reelverse 4 years ago
Love it. Don't really need to change much. Possibly the music. It seems to repeat a bit too often.
joness105639 4 years ago
religious is spelled wrong; well i spelled it right :-) once you fix it let me know - i want to post it :-)
shpgrl803 4 years ago