David Hume

This is a rough draft of an "extras" video. Please rate and comment on how to improve it.

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• Bible
• verse
• God
• Jesus
• scripture
• reelverse
• christian
• philosophy
• athiest
• David
• Hume

[AXinthevoid]

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..

[reelverse]

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.

[AXinthevoid]

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..

[reelverse]

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.

[bacon4247]

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

[reelverse]

that's the point.

[Tibberclaw]

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.

[jellceyful]

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

[eyeammi]

@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.

[TheDarkSagan]

@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!

[marcuelcajon]

@eyeammi NICE!

[LibertyWaxlips]

@reelverse what is an 'athiest'? I think you mean 'atheist'.

[eyeammi]

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.

[ralphy078]

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.

[123halz]

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.

[ViktorW19]

Agreed. This video is nonsense. To the creator of the video: Take Hume's books and read them carefully. Maybe you'll understand something.