Honestly more stupid than flat earthers. 😂 At least they just dont understand science. Entire presupp argument is stupid and makes no sense. 😂

It’s not that complex 😂

​@@alexanderingraham8255still, darth is an old idiot.

And if he has it happened thousands of years ago.. so we would still not have any clue 😂

Oy vey

Or if a god even exists or revealed anything

The Bible.

@@lightbeforethetunnel Why not the Quran?

It's worse, in fact, because Satan exists in the Christian worldview. Satan has immense powers, and is the lord of deception, so any given divine experience (or any other experience for that matter) could actually be the work of Satan, instead of a god. Therefore any Christian has no grounding at their foundation at all. There entire life could be a lie, as well as their entire religion, according to their own worldview.

🤣🤣🤣​@@lightbeforethetunnel

Oy vey

Yep. If there was a drinking game with those rules we would all be plastered halfway in the first video.

What is your epistemology? Let's test it and see which it falls under.

@@jason335777 to know something rests on axioms I hold, for example I can learn something about the world.

​@@jason335777Reality is my Epistemology. Your god is not part of the Reality that we find ourselves residing in, it's a Fantasy that you are Projecting outwards onto Reality. You are claiming your Fantasies are the Cause of Reality. Presup is Infinite Ignorance, plus Infinite Arrogance.

I tend to cut that off at the pass by taking the, what I feel is justified, position that transcendentals simply do not exist as anything other than a human concept.

@@jason335777 Reality is Self-Evident, we test parts of Reality against other parts of Reality to see if there is Consistency. Science is the repeated testing of parts of Reality against other parts of Reality, it demonstrates the Epistemology of Science by being Repeatable. Modern Interpretations of ancient Mythological Beliefs from long-dead cultures isn't a "grounding of knowledge"; it's just bad Fan-Fic writing to justify the Modern Interpretations of ancient Mythology and label the nonsense from the bad Fan-Fic writing as "Theology" Presup doesn't ground knowledge, it just makes up a definition that it likes and claims knowledge comes for whatever "X" they want to posit. It's nothing more than Tradition that Presup is even considered as an "argument"; without thousands of years of people just accepting that the Christian god is a valid concept, the arguments of Presup wouldn't exist. This is because the argument of Presup isn't valid, Theists just want it to be valid, so they can claim to have an argument.

It's circular reasoning dressed up in impressive sounding verbiage.

I think that’s actually the point

Ikr? I never understood religious people who feel they have to claim knowledge they dont have. Why not be honest and say its what they believe? 🤷‍♂️ Would solve so many problems in the world.

Secure means to uphold. He can simply uphold them so that they are universal so long as he upholds them.

@@sgloobal2025 But when they are violated, they are not upheld. In the Christian God world, there is no such thing as a uniformity of nature that we can depend on.

@@dbt5224 So then in such a case they would be upheld except for rare circumstances when god decides to intervene so why wouldn't you trust them? That doesn't follow. By the way god doesn't violate the laws of physics he supersedes them. Just like we supercede gravity by putting planes in the sky.

@@sgloobal2025 Supersede essentially means to replace. Planes do not replace gravity. God having the ability to supersede the uniformity whenever he wants, even if the instances are rare, means the uniformity is not secure. Pretty simple concept.

@@dbt5224 Laws are not created entities or powers that act as intermediaries between God and nature; they are best understood as expressions of God’s will for nature. Within daily life, regularities in nature are interrupted all the time and nature’s response is to adapt to change. There is always something new in nature, and as new patterns and entities emerge, previous natural patterns and entities adjust accordingly. This novelty does not break or disrupt the natural order or laws any more than the evolutionary emergence of new ecosystems undermines the laws of organic chemistry. The same principle applies to God’s relationship with nature. In Koperski’s proposal for divine action, “God can at the very least do everything we can do without violating the laws.” Consider, for example, what happens when you reach into a grandfather clock to adjust the hands for daylight savings time. You have changed the course of that law-governed system - since you moved the hour hand forward - but the laws of motion have not been violated. In the same way, says Koperski, “the universe is an open system from a God’s-eye point of view, like the clock is to us.” According to Koperski, “The laws of nature never break, they flow. They adapt to change.” Nature’s deep propensity for adaptation in response to novelty and change could even be seen as a law of nature itself. Nothing in either classical Newtonian physics or quantum physics prevents the introduction of new influences on a system. To illustrate this idea, Koperski uses the classical example of two balls colliding on a pool table. Assuming a very simple system where there is a perfectly elastic collision - which itself is an idealization - what happens if one were to tilt the table just prior to the collision? This tilting would produce changes in the decomposition of forces, the force of friction, and a few other factors, resulting in a new differential equation at the end. However, the laws would not change.

Really? How is it that God does not exist? What is ultimate and foundational in your not-God model of reality that can provide a foundation for facts? How is a fact a fact? Failure to answer this is proof of your irrationality.

@@jason335777 which one of the thousands of gods are you talking about first??

@@porkyboy4226 Quit dodging. I'm talking about the triune God of scripture. The only ultimate that necessarily must exist. Now, answer me. What is foundational in your model of reality that provides for the intelligibility and actuality of facts?

@@jason335777 Could you be wrong about your god existing?

@@donnamurphy8551 No, because the God of the bible must exist, otherwise you could not have any facts or a foundation for human intelligibility. If you disagree, then in your not-God model of reality, how could there be any basis for facts, and any ground for the preconditions required for human intelligibility?

Whats that?

13:17. Laws of nature are established through observation. Laws of physics are ultimately empirical, even if they have a theoretical formulation. We can only know that they apply where they have been tested. We do not have any guarantee that they are universal or eternal.

14:30 I describe eyesight as the ability of my eyes to detect certain wavelengths of electromagnetism that deliver information about the world. Eyesight could stop working for me at any moment, and so it does not presuppose a uniformity of nature.

The presup answer would be: how do you know you can rely on your senses?

​​@@VolrinSethHow does the presup know he can rely on his senses? Nobody knows for certain that natural law will always hold. Natural law is rooted in observation, and is ultimately empirical, not a priori. If there were a God, he could change the rules at any time. Furthermore nobody truly knows if his senses are deceiving him. The conclusion that they are accurate is reasonable when other people report similar things, and when things you sense lead you in an expected direction.

@@andrewphilpott3220 I know, I was just answering your question.

You said _brut_ instead of _brute_ and now I want champagne. You owe me a bottle of Veuve Clicquot.

It fails earlier than that imo. As soon as he demands that an atheist must have a defeater for his vague god is the moment he loses his "debates".

Could you give your most obvious error in the bible? :o heard a few, some are good and some just seems to be meh. For example: who discovered the jesus empty tomb. The stories dont exclude each other.

@@andreaskarlsson5251 I replied, a two word answer, but it was censored. Judas Unalived

So when the Bible says “buy your slaves from the heathens that surround you” you agree that it actually says that and supports human ownership? Also, when it says “god sent 2 bears to maul 42 boys for making fun of baldness” it really is saying that god is petty enough to answer Elisha’s curse?

Also, how have you determined that you know what the Bible says more than any other denomination of Christianity out there? What makes your interpretation special? Also, also, everyone knows that DD is only doing this for his ego. It’s so blatantly obvious and it’s so humorous when he thinks his script proves anything. That’s the only reason I listen to him at all because it solidifies my atheism even more

If God is not a trinity of 3 persons in one singular being, then you cannot have a ground for certain preconditions of human intelligibility and experience. For example, love can be grounded and be actual because God Himself is love and within the persons exists eternal love to each other. How can love exist in your non-trinity model of reality? Then after that, think about how can relationality have a ground. What about unity among diversity? How can you have one and many and unify these? Only a trinitarian ultimate can ground the reality we have.

@@jason335777 so what about the existence of hate then? Is it grounded by god because god is hate? Hate exists so why does that not coincide with equivocating god as hate? The problem with defining god as a term such as love, is you are just tautologically proclaiming that “god is god” or in this case “god is god so how can you have god in a non-trinitarian worldview?” It’s a nonsense question Please tell me how a trinitarian god is necessary to ground the reality we live in and how trinitarianism is even remotely preferable to monism or pluralism. How does the concept of the “trinity” explain unity among diversity?

@@FRMurOWNopinion ok so hate, much like evil, can be described by the opposite of the thing that is. For example, evil is merely going against God's standard of good. God is good, He grounds it. God is love, only He grounds it. So hate would be to withdraw love. Evil would be to act opposite of God's standard. So in a sense, yes God grounds evil, but not in the bad way youd would think of it. He grounds it by creating the free will choice to act opposite. Ya, so think about this. Love is being other oriented. But if a deity was to ground love, how would love be actual for a unitarian god? It would not because there is nothing else to love, so it would not be a maximal love. Only the eternal, triune God can ground love, being an eternally loving trinity of persons. Google the one and many problem in philosophy. Its an age old problem. Whats is ultimate? Unity or diversity? If unity, then individual particulars lose meaning. If diversity, then what unifies things? Only the trinity solves this problem. Unity and diversity are equally ultimate because God is both one and many. So you see, only the Christian God can be actual because His exclusive attribute set grounds ALL necessary preconditions we need for intelligible human experience.

He does an amazing job exposing just how $tupid Presup is. Presup is equal parts Ignorance and Arrogance. There is nothing to ground the Presup assertions, yet they will not stop claiming to be "correct" Word games, cannot define god into existence. Presup is nothing but a series of Arrogant Proclamations.

And yet Gary still couldn't get ahead during this "debate". Goes to show how utterly intellectually bankrupt he is.