***** Wow, I think your little comment here alone is quite devastating to presuppositional apologetics. Well played.

+The Realistic Nihilist LMAO! I didn't expect to find you here lol

Praesuppositional-logic boils down to "no Knowledge/STANDARD without G-D"which suffers from an ambiguity in "G-D" - everybody can insert their subjective G-D (YHWH, TriUneG-D, Allah...) which makes it null and void. Actually, Knowledge (thought, perception, awareness, image, STANDARD) is a non physical effect, fabricated in the brain. The IMMEDIATE causality is individual, it is subjective, it is the structure and the energy flux in the brain, both maintained by the continual oxidation of Glucose, and Betahydroxybutyrate in the Long fasted state respectively. The EVENTUAL causality is, via our 5 senses, objective templates, outside the brain, Facts, physical, object, matter, cosmos. All KNOWN G-Ds are just that: non physical *EFFECTS,* fabricated in the evolved-primate brain, *ON-, OF-, ACQUIRED/OBTAINED FROM-, ABOUT-* physical CAUSE, the cosmos itself, namely a *causality of the cosmos* itself, which WOULD qualify for- or be according to brainmade definition "G-D". The causality of the cosmos is possible; yet, if there IS causality of the cosmos, then it MUST be non physical (in order to not require own causality and so forth!) in other words will defy the scientific scrutiny in other words it is unknowable. The mere praesupposition of "Mono-Causality" is "already" an invalid Gnostic Position about the unknowable, and it is owed to a dishonest pontifical (bridgebuilding) attempt, to bring possible causality in congruence with Theism. Everybody plz GOOGLE the *fallacy of the SINGLE cause* Theists are worshipping a brainmade effect, an Image ABOUT the possible yet unknowable causality of the cosmos, in other words Theists are, unbeknownst to them but effectively, idolators, worshipping a non physical image = Idol which is the non physical aequivalent of a physical cult object.

yourg@disathought, thanks for introduction to the oversimplification fallacy.

Well, You are entitled to your opinion. You are yet to substantiate it though.Let us consider - HOW can Multicausality be an "oversimplication", namely as compared to a mere dichotomy "number of causes = 0" versus "number of causes = 1" ? IS multicausality NOT diametrally opposed to "oversimplification". If you have nothing intelligent to say - your oversimplified catchphrase indicates it - then FYI: I am a scientist, and i will not let you off the hook. *NOW, SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ALLEGATION*

madmonkey1968 No, unfortunately I moved to work in West Africa before finishing this series and I didn't want to upload the videos at a low quality because I liked doing the faces in this series greater detail. However as it looks like I'll be here a while I will probably restart the series some time early this year as time permits.

Thanks!

Apologies for misspelling your moniker, lol. I watched a video of "Why I am not a Christian" on KZfaq. Russell was Hitchens before Hitchens!

TheAtheistPaladin So would I. It's not finished as my uploading ability is hampered by my current location and I liked doing detailed philosopher faces. However I think I will suck it up and continue after we finish with Bayes and Teleology.

Petros Adamopoulos I never claimed to know anything. ;)

Carneades.org Bro you’re so woke for saying that.

I concur, had to find the comment to ensure I didn't have to add the point myself.... tip of the hat.

No, it is merely true.

Sebastiaan van Rijk Be careful. You're conflating denial of the existence of a set with denial that a set has members. The category "True" can be posited in a metalanguage as empty.

Stefan Travis but doesn’t that mean that the set of empty truth does not exist? Because by truth, we mean something such as “Truth” . Replacing truth for something that doesn’t mean truth to say see, truth is empty is just hoping through loops. You cant escape the concept of truth by redefining truth.

Didn't Descartes in effect ask God, by turning to God to assure that his senses were basically OK?

@@gerededasein1182 Yes he did. I don't know what I was thinking 7 years ago

@@kas00078 To be fair, you were ferreting out similarities in Sye's M.O.

+Ellis Farrow Aristotle's Organon and Frege's Grundgesetze der Arithmetik. If you have not already, you should check out my series on the three months of modal logic to get more info on sub -fields of logic (kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gK6pmdxhqM7Ho2g.html)

Carneades.org Thanks so much! Also wouldn't you consider Kurt Godel in the top logicians especially with his incompleteness theorems? And yes I will check out that series right now! I'm a little late to the party but this is going to be fun. Thanks for the hard work you put in.

Ellis Farrow If you want to learn logic it's probably not the best idea to start by reading Frege, Russell and Aristotle. You would do better to start with some introductory book on logic and then move on to something more advanced. I can recommend Causey's Logic, Set and Recursion for an introductory overview, together with Mates' Elementary Logic and Enderton's A Mathematical Introduction to Logic together with Shapiro's Foundations Without Foundationalism for more advanced topics in logic. Frege and Russell are better understood if you have at least an introductory background in logic. Both Russell and Frege published incredibly great, short books which purport to explain their more advanced work in mathematical logic: The Foundations of Arithmetic and Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy respectively.

Paradoxarn I think Carneades.org might disagree with your definition of knowledge. Carneades.org admittedly has a *very* high bar for what qualifies as knowledge and mere "justified belief" would not be enough to reach the bar.

I'm looking forward to seeing Carneades objections. I expect we will get fewer objections than "8 ways from Sunday." Cause that was a world record.

GainingUnderstanding True, but what I look at knowledge not as something binary but more as a spectrum. To explain better, I think that having a partially or poorly justified belief means you possess knowledge but not as much as if you have a fully or well justified belief.

Paradoxarn Hmm what is your epistemology?

GainingUnderstanding You want me to write an essay or just give you a label? I'll try to summarize it best as I can by giving my views on what knowledge is and how to obtain it. I previously stated that I define knowledge as justified beliefs rather than justified true beliefs. Now since all beliefs have justification you might think that I take some sort of postmodern stance on the nature of knowledge but what I'm really mean is that all beliefs contain knowledge and the better the justification, the more knowledge it contains. The observant will notice that this means that I have yet to give an actual definition of knowledge beyond "that which is contained in justified beliefs". Without going into why, however interesting that may be, what I believe what is contained in them is quite simply power, thereby taking literally the saying "knowledge is power". Having understood this, the answer to the issue of how to gain knowledge is quite easy to answer. It is simply to gain justified beliefs. Does this mean that I think that we should have as many beliefs as possible rather than suspending judgment when we aren't sure? Well I don't think there is any conflict between those two, in fact I'm convinced that suspending judgement is the expression of a of a belief. Consider these two statements: "X is true/false" and "X could be true/false". In my mind both are beliefs even though one of them is a example of suspending judgment. I'm sure I could go into more detail but, as I implied in the beginning, I'm not sure how exhaustive of an answer you wanted.

rodlurks66 No. I will. I have been meaning to for a while now, but by the time I got a strong enough internet connect to start posting these videos where I make the philosopher's faces again, I was already knee deep in several other series. Soon hopefully.

It is the only one of the four main arguments for the existence of God that I have yet to cover. I will do a full series at some point.

wow, I'll patiently wait Lord Carneades!!

This month we are doing the next video in the series!

Carneades.org wow, really? Thanks! Bless you Lord Carn. Your work is very appreciated from a young (future) psychologist and Philosopher, especially the 100 days of logic and 3 months of modal logic.

It is quite a read. Volume I looks accurate. I don't have a copy of II or III so I can't speak to their accuracy, but I would be surprised if they were incorrect.

Just wait until you get to *54.43 (page 379). That's what's up.

Maybe the copy I found was antique or something. I only popped one up.

You could, but without logic, you would not have any rational justification for it. :)

Renzo Andre What don't you get?

Carneades.org Nevermind I figured it out. Took me a while to wrap my head around the program example.

Made a positive claim prove it

Christians worship Jesus as God. Muslims don't. Very stupid statement. You guys should learn some theology if you want to debunk Christianity. But that takes years. You won't put in the effort.

Your false dichotomy makes me think you might be an anti-nihilist. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eJ-RgK-c3NbKYIk.html.

catapults.