AntiCitizenX’s Maximally Great Field of Straw men

It seems a large amount of internet atheists do not know how to voice objections without revealing their immaturity and intellectual dishonesty. AntiCitizenX has decided to respond to the modal ontological argument with exactly this mentality. It is fine if you disagree, but why must respect be thrown out the window? When they do this, it really only reveals intellectual dishonesty, immaturity, and a pure lack of philosophical knowledge.

It should be quickly noted that AntiCitizenX put forward a large amount of objections that were straw men. This actually creates more damage for his case than aids because all he does it set up his viewers for failure. They are given objections by AnticitizenX, which do not work and are based on terrible reasoning like equivocating the property of necessity with existence. Instead of debunking the ontological argument he only succeeds in assuring his viewers will not only misunderstand how theists actually present the argument, but teach them objections to that do work and make them look philosophically ignorant. If one wants to have a conversation on natural theology that is fine, but quote mining and misrepresenting your opponents doesn’t do you or your viewers any favors. It actually hinders their growth for knowledge. So all AnticitizenX does is make his viewers truly ignorant on how the argument works and that is setting them up for failure.

 

AntiCitizenX’s video is by far one of the worse I’ve seen, which is quite funny because he has such an arrogant attitude about how right he knows he is. Allow me to explain:

 

Ending at 0:47 – So right off the bat we have a straw men. Never once did I say the ontological argument (OA) proves facts about the external world (by external I mean physical). In fact, I concluded “Answering Objections to the ontological Argument (Part 2) by quoting Plantinga and saying:

 

Plantinga is not saying the argument is a waste of time. It actually does exactly what it is suppose to do. The point he is making is that this argument cannot and should not be used to prove God exists like one can prove earth is round. But as he says at the end of this quote, the argument shows that the belief in God is completely rational. The ontological argument is not a way to prove God exists, in fact, no argument in natural theology can be said to prove God exists like one proves a scientific fact. The aim of this argument and natural theology is to show that the best inference, and most rational conclusion we can come to is that God exists.1

 

So we have our first straw man, and this is pretty much what the rest of his response is, but you’ll see why below.

 

Ending at 2:07 – AntiCitizenX shows his ignorance on philosophy by bringing up a common point he tries to state often is a proven fact – the analytic/synthetic distinction. First, he presupposes this is proven somehow (which is self refuting and I’ll get to in a second). It is not a proven fact, in fact, most philosophers accept the analytic/synthetic is controversial and blurred, since the philosopher Quine demonstrated this in his paper, “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” This has been pointed out to him before:

 

 

He just presents it like a proven fact, yet fails to mention it is really a controversial philosophical claim. This shows a lack of philosophical knowledge.

 

Second, he bases his objection on this presupposition, that analytical claims have no bearing on claims about the external world. The obvious problem is the analytical/synthetic distinction is claimed to speak about what is true about the real world and must therefore be a synthetic proposition. However, where is the empirical evidence to demonstrate this distinction is true? The fact is he doesn’t have any, so by his logic the analytical/synthetic distinction must be false and is therefore self-refuting.

AntiCitizenX wants to have his philosophical cake and eat to, that claims about the real world can only be empirical, but he presents this exact claim through analytical presuppositions, not empirical evidence. Where is the synthetic evidence of this analytic/synthetic distinction? Well, he doesn’t have any. It is obvious his distinction is analytical, so by his own logic it has no bearing on the real world.

Third, what does he mean by “real world”? Does he mean the physical world? If so, that is not a fact of what the real world consists of. Several philosophers, like Thomas Nagel, would argue the real world includes the objectively of abstract logic, as well as the physical world. In fact, if logical claims are separate from the ‘real world’ how can AntiCitizenX’s logical claims and ‘made up distinction’ have any bearing on the real world? This should alone refute the rest of his video, since he continually makes analytical and logical claims about what can and cannot be true of the real world. So his entire reasoning is – “do as I say, not as I do.”

When it comes to the ontological argument it is already assumed logic is objectively true, so if the real world is logical then what is discovered to be logically true will have an objective bearing on the whole real world. The only way out of this is to deny logic has any relation to the real world, which is self-defeating. Because to argue logic has no relation to the real world is to assume your claim is logically coherent about the real world. So does AntiCitizenX think his claims are logically true statements about the real world? If so then he accepts the same reasoning foundational for the OA and has refuted himself, again.

 

Ending at 2:26 – Again another straw man (that makes two so far) I never said I can prove God exists… Did he even watch my videos or he is more interested in creating propaganda?

 

Ending at 3:14 – AntiCitizenX claims the concept of God is logically incoherent. So my reply is: what professional philosopher in their right mind says that the concept of God is logically impossible? These supposed objections that the properties of God create logical absurdity have been overwhelming rejected by professional philosophers due to theistic responses to show they do not lead to any logical absurdities, once they are property understood. In fact, in my four part series on the OA I demonstrated why this is the case. Now if AntiCitizenX wants to redefine the concept of God in a way to debunk it then he is being ad hoc and not actually addressing the theistic definition. No one has to accept his absurd definitions, which is why this objection fails.

If he thinks religious apologists have not properly defined God then it shows he has never read any theistic philosophers. He should start here: “The Coherence of Theism” by Richard Swinburne. The concept of God is logically coherence and his past objections do not hold any water.

 

Ending at 4:58 – The ignorance is astounding. AntiCitizenX argues just because something is logically possible that doesn’t mean it exists in the real world, which is another objection I already addressed in “Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument Part 2. Of course logical possibility alone doesn’t mean it has evidence in the real world. He is confusing metaphysical and logical possibility. So the objection is answered by the simple point that I already addressed it in “Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (Part 2).”

 

 

Ending at 7:57 – Yeah, this is sad and pathetic. AntiCitizenX continues his immaturity by taking what I said out of context. Apparently if I state premise 3 that means I didn’t actually defend premise 3. However, I do in a later part of the video. I explain why premise 3 is sound. Instead AntiCitizenX has continued his immaturity and dishonesty by magically pretending I never did this in my video. If that is the best he can do, then it shows he is not interested in having a real conversation but creating propaganda. I do actually show why premise 3 is sound, unlike what AntiCitizenX implies… So this section of his video is propaganda, and reveals his motives are not pure…

 

Ending at 9:01 – Again, another straw man. I never said definitions transfer into empirical proof. I never claimed the definition means God exists in the physical world. In fact, if God did exist in the physical world He would not be God. No Christian theist would ever claim God exists in the physical world. Did he even watch my videos or just hear what he wanted to hear? The dishonestly is pathetic and really shows it is just another piece of propaganda.

Second, once again, he has limited the real world to the physical, which is not proven and is highly controversial, as philosophers like Nagel argue logical truths are objective but not physical. If the real world is only the physical then his own logical claims are not real or true and have no bearing on what is real. I thought it would be obvious the real world would include objective logic, but apparently that it too much to consider for some Internet atheists. Yet the irony is they insist their logical claims are true about the real world, like this analytic/synthetic distinction. It is an excellent example of terrible logic. If you are going to make logical claims about the real world then you already accept logic is objectively true and has a bearing on reality. But some Internet atheists, want it both ways. They want to tell theists their logical claims have no truth-value, why making logical claims about what is true. It is embarrassing and AntiCitizenX is a prime example of this.

Third, the OA never claims from a definition alone you get to existence. It claims the definition is logical coherent and then asks if it is metaphysically possible. You can have a definition, but that alone doesn’t make it metaphysically possible. I can define a tree as necessary, but that will not show it is metaphysically possible based on a posteriori reasoning. So he dishonestly attacks the OA and demonstrates he doesn’t understand it.

 

Ending at 10:28 – This is just plain wrong, as even David Hume points out centuries ago. The only way something can be proven logically if its negation is logically impossible, and Robert Maydole’s Modal perfection argument does in fact show the negation of maximal greatness is impossible, which I went over in “Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (Part 1). Even if you deny the MPA, no one is saying the definition alone gets you to existence. It must also be metaphysically possible. It must be easy to attack an argument when you consistently take everything out of context.

 

Ending at 10:52 – AntiCitizenX asks for examples of things that exist necessarily, which doesn’t address the argument. That wouldn’t work because he is asking for physical things in the universe, which by definition are not necessary. So this question is a setup. Second, it is matter of metaphysics to explain the physical universe and is the basis of contingency arguments. The obvious logic follows – if there are contingent things, like the physical, where did they originate? This obvious chains goes back to the need for a necessary substance so contingent things can exist, which theists argue would have to be a necessary being. Asking for extra examples would be absurd because logically there would only be a need for one necessary substance/being. Also the mere lack of other necessary things doesn’t imply there are is not one necessary substance obviously… That would be an association fallacy.

 

Also, his ignorance on the nature of necessity outstanding. The definition of ontological necessity does not mean existence by definition, it means “cannot fail to exist if possible.” It is a way for something to exist, not existence by definition. In other words, it describes a type of existence, in the same way something can exist contingently. I doubt he has ever read anything on necessity like, “Naming and Necessity” or “The Nature of Necessity”? If you are going to redefine terms to debunk an argument you only show your ignorance and you end of debunking a straw man, not the argument itself. Necessity doesn’t equal existence; it is a property of something that can exist, if possible…

 

Ending at 11:29 – AntiCitizenX says truth doesn’t exist, it is label. So the obvious question which follows: It that is a truth about reality or just a label? It is true that no truth exists? By his own logic is that not just a label? In other words if all truth is a label, then so is this claim so why would it be anything but a label? This is why his entire position is self-defeating. He wants to say there is no truth, but that itself is truth claim. As Thomas Nagel says:

 

“Claims to the effect that a type of judgment expresses a local point of view are inherently objective in intent: They suggest a picture of the true sources of those judgments which places them in an unconditional context. The judgment of relativity or conditionally cannot be applied to the judgment of relativity itself. To put it schematically, the claim “Everything is subjective” must be nonsense, for it would itself have to be either subjective or objective. But it can’t be objective, since in that case it would be false if true. And it can’t be subjective, because then it would not rule out any objective claim, including the claim that it is objectively false.2

 

Ending at 12:02 – This is false dichotomy. It is not true that in saying if some claims are true, then you are necessarily agreeing in a raw essence of truth. You can think truth exists while not thinking it is a thing of itself, but simply an abstract objective fact of logic like in nominalism and true. Some claims are objectively true and some are objectively false. We do not create the label, we simple discover what is true or not. So even if you reject platonism that doesn’t entail fictionalism. Many philosophers agree in the objectively of logic while rejecting platonism.

 

Ending at 12:33 – This doesn’t make any sense. No one is saying the definition of a square means it exists in the real world. This is once again another terrible straw man. The point is a raw definition of a square entails necessity of four sides. There is no scenario where a square could be without 4 sides. It is a necessary truth of what a square is. No one is therefore claiming it must empirically exist. The dishonestly from this guy is astounding.

 

Ending at 13:33 – This is getting sad and AntiCitizenX only continues the pathetic propaganda. First, I noted in the beginning of my video I am trying to simply the OA, meaning the formulation used is meant to teach, not be a rigorous formation. Second, I already addressed this in a different video, where I point out the OA doesn’t beg the question and gave a more rigorous formulation:

He also continues with his straw man of a definition of necessity. Once again, necessity doesn’t mean existence, that should have been obvious. I can definite a tree as necessary, but that doesn’t make it logically possible or even metaphysically possible.

Ending at 14:42 – Another straw man. Does this guy even try or does he just hear big words and assume the rest without any thought? I never once said “greatness” or “betterness” are objective quantifiable things. This is dishonestly at its finest. ‘Great-making properties’ is a title for properties that are ontologically beneficial in all possible worlds. No where did I say greatness is a property itself. I can’t tell anymore is he is really this ignorant and lying on purpose.

Ending at 15:03 – AntiCitizenX has tried to say he can out define a MGB by defining a being that is maximally great, but can beat the other MGB in an arm wrestling contest. Does he even try? If that was the case then the first being is not maximally great and is just another lesser being. We are not asking for degrees of power but one who would be all powerful and if a being could be all powerful then no other being could be more powerful. So just saying there is a greater being is meaningless. If that was the case then that would be the MGB and the other would not be.

Ending at 15:45 – It is evident AntiCitizenX is not even trying. I never said God is necessary because I said so, but because a MGB must entail all great-making properties. It is not accepted ad hoc, but because all GMPs must be entailed, which includes necessity by definition. Asking why is a MGB necessary is like asking why does 2+2=4. It is by definition. If you think the definition is incoherent then you must explain why, not just get upset because you do not like the definition. When I see parodies of the OA, I explain why the definition is logically incoherent, that is how logic works.

Ending at 18:15 – This is once again self-refuting. If you cannot demonstrate something empirically that means it doesn’t exist? I’ve yet to see AntiCitizenX empirically demonstrate the truth of this claim he insists is true. If the truth of the real world is determined by empirical claims then the claim, “empirical claims determine truth” requires empirical evidence as well, but it has none.

Also, once again, I never said definition alone means it exist in the real world. Something must be metaphysically possible for it to be considered to exist in the real world (and yes, I am making a distinction between real and physical world since the real world is more encompassing than the physical). And I’ve already given evidence for why a MGB is metaphysically possible in the real world. So we have more examples of AntiCitizenX taking things out of context.

Ending at 18:44 – I think this may be the worst lie yet. We have no empirical evidence for God? Notice the switch from empirical proof to empirically evidence. Because in reality, we have plenty of evidence, which we infer to the best explanation of theism, but we never claimed proof:

With this empirical evidence William Lane Craig then explains what the OA does:

The theistic arguments need not be taken to be like links in a chain, in which one link follows another so that the chain is only as strong as the weakest link. Rather, they are like links in a coat of chain mail, in which all the links reinforce one another so that the strength off the whole exceeds that of any single link. The ontological argument might play its part in a cumulative case for theism, in which a multitude of factors simultaneously conspire to lead one to the global conclusion that God exists. In that sense, Anselm was wrong in thinking that he had discovered a single argument which, standing independent of all the rest, severe to demonstrate God’s existence in all his greatness. Nevertheless, his argument does encapsulate the thrust of all the argument together to show that God, the Supreme being, exists.3

So now that we do have evidence in the other arguments of natural theology we then have metaphysical possibility from a posterior reasoning and from there we have all we need for the conclusion of the ontological argument. Even if you deny the conclusions from these other arguments, you cannot deny the minimal metaphysical possibility. From there the OA follows and shows that to simply accept the metaphysical evidence that a necessary being is possible means one the most logical conclusion about the actual world is one exists. The only way out of the conclusion is to deny logic has any bearing on the real world, and which is kind of what it seems AntiCitizenX is implying. Which makes me wonder if he thinks his logical claims have any bearing on the real world.

In conclusion AntiCitizenX did an excellent job debunking the straw man he built. He wrapped himself up in a self-defeating case of nonsense and demonstrated he doesn’t understand the OA or how logic works. If he really thinks logic has no bearing on the actual world, then I expect him to through out all the logical claims he made of the real world. He cannot have it both ways.

 

 

 

 

Notes:

  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JRsHIN5ATY
  2. Nagel (2001). The Last Word, Page 14-15.
  3. Craig and Moreland (2003). Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, Page 449.
Advertisements

22 thoughts on “AntiCitizenX’s Maximally Great Field of Straw men

  1. Why do you have to lie to make your points? Here’s a nice little gem:

    “Ending at 15:45 – It is evident AntiCitizenX is not even trying. I never said God is necessary because I said so, but because a MGB must entail all great-making properties.”

    I never said you said so, either, and you know it. What I did say was that your argument, upon examination, is practically equivalent to mere “say so”, because all definitions are fundamentally arbitrary. Never did I actually imply that you honestly claim this or believe this. So either you have terrible listening comprehension or you’re just lying.

    Here’s another example:

    “Ending at 2:26 – Again another straw man (that makes two so far) I never said I can prove God exists… Did he even watch my videos or he is more interested in creating propaganda?”

    You absolutely said so. Do you not remember your own words, IP?

    “Alvin Planting’s modal ontological argument is probably the best argument for the existence of God. It uses the laws of modal logic, and acts similar to a mathematical proof.”

    Those are your words, IP: “Acts similar to a Mathematical proof”. That’s how you describe the modal ontological argument for the existence of God. What kind of argument acts similar to a “mathematical proof” while simultaneously not proving anything? Either you honestly can’t keep up with your own claims, or you are simply lying once again.

    More still:

    “Never once did I say the ontological argument (OA) proves facts about the external world”

    Not in those words, no, but for all practical purposes that’s exactly what you’re doing. When you say a thing like “God exists,” that is obviously a claim about the external world, IP. It is irrelevant whether or not this includes “physical” or “immaterial” objects. The external world is, by definition, everything (physical or otherwise) that lies beyond your immediate sensory and mental awareness. It’s a perfectly standard philosophical term, and you of all people should know what it means.

    For a third time, I honestly can’t tell if you’re this unaware of your own claims, or if you just like lying.

    I can honestly do this with nearly every paragraph you write. Would it seriously kill you to engage in the discussion sincerely? I may be an arrogant jerk, but I never misrepresented you so brazenly.

    • No… You literally say “literally, because he says so” from 15:42 to 15:45. Those are you exact words. So you did incorrectly accuse me of saying God is necessary because I said so. If that is not what you meant then perhaps you should of been more careful because all I did was respond to your exact words. So, no, I don’t have terrible listening skills because those are your exact words, deal with it. Even if that it not what you meant, saying “literally because he says so” directly implies you think I honestly claimed that.

      Second point: Can you read? I said, “…acts similar to a mathematical proof.” That doesn’t say this proves God exists… I said it acts similar to something of a mathematical proof. Acting like a mathematical proof is not claiming it is proof. Also, acting similar does not mean it is identical to one. Similarities are drawn for teaching purposes, not meant to equivocate.

      Third Point: I addressed this at the end of “Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (Part 2)” to clear up confusion about what the goals of the OA are. You could of at least taken that into consideration.

      Finally, I would highly disagree you did not take me out of context. It is obvious in this very comment you did it again, case in point, changing “acting similar” to mean “equal to”. I was especially annoyed by your treatment of when I initially simply mentioned P3 and you accuse me of making a logical leap when I directly say I will explain why the OA flows from P2 to P3. That was blatantly taking what I said way of out context.
      Also I can’t believe you have the audacity to say, “Would it seriously kill you to engage in the discussion sincerely,” and then follow it with, ” I may be an arrogant jerk…” Well, to which I reply, maybe because you are such an arrogant jerk (your own words) that I do not waste my time with you. That type of maturity brings out the worst in me and why I try to avoid it, because I don’t like how I respond to that mentality or being dragged down to that level (too late now). If you are going to act like a jerk then I doubt we can have a sincere discussion, but if you want a to then mature a bit and then we can talk.

      • “No… You literally say “literally, because he says so” from 15:42 to 15:45. Those are you exact words.”

        Yes, those are my words. Those words are my personal analysis of what your position effectively entails, and I never indicated otherwise. In critiquing your views, I have every prerogative to restate your position in what I conclude to be equivalent terms. This is basic critical analysis, IP. If my analysis is wrong, then I’m wrong and that’s fine. But nowhere did I ever imply that those words were ever actually spoken by you, nor did I ever make any pretense to metaphorically putting those words in your mouth. That is a made-up boogeyman man of your own invention.

        “That doesn’t say this proves God exists… I said it acts similar to something of a mathematical proof”

        So you have an argument that, in your words, “works similar to a mathematical proof” but simultaneously, in your own words, doesn’t actually “prove” anything? Do you honestly not see how this can come off as unintelligible doubletalk? Where do you get the gall to act surprised when people can’t follow the actual intention of your arguments when this is how you express yourself?

        “you accuse me of making a logical leap when I directly say I will explain why the OA flows from P2 to P3. That was blatantly taking what I said way of out context.”

        First off, it doesn’t matter what your explanation is. A violation of axioms is a violation of axioms, and I am under no obligation to listen to anything beyond that step. Secondly, you also saw the rest of the video, so you already know that I went ahead analyzed your defense of P2 to P3 anyway. So what’s your beef? Do you understand that it is impossible to take you out of context when I went ahead and provided all of the actual context? As in, literally, played video clips of your own defense with minimal editing?

      • “This is basic critical analysis, IP. If my analysis is wrong, then I’m wrong and that’s fine. But nowhere did I ever imply that those words were ever actually spoken by you, nor did I ever make any pretense to metaphorically putting those words in your mouth.”
        – And i have a right to point out I never said or implied necessity is entailed because I said so. Again, I responded to your exact words. If you thought that is what I am equivocating to, then re-read my post, because all I am doing is explaining why that is an incorrect equivocation. I, as well, have I right to clarify what it means.

        “So you have an argument that, in your words, “works similar to a mathematical proof” but simultaneously, in your own words, doesn’t actually “prove” anything? Do you honestly not see how this can come off as unintelligible doubletalk? Where do you get the gall to act surprised when people can’t follow the actual intention of your arguments when this is how you express yourself?”
        – If you are going to literally take what I say out of context then, yes, I am surprised since I specifically clarified this that later video. Are you seriously getting upset because you feel I didn’t articulate a point well enough, but literally just commented that it was wrong for me to misunderstand your exact words in your video? Do you see the irony? Plus, remember my exact words are not even what you reinterpreted it to be. The fact boils down that i didn’t say what you reinterpreted me to say. Crying about how it may come across wrong doesn’t change that fact of what was said.

        “A violation of axioms is a violation of axioms, and I am under no obligation to listen to anything beyond that step.”
        – Then you are quote-mining. You are listening up to the point you like and then taking just that section out the full context. That is quote-mining. So my beef is you quoted-mined. Also, what is the point of that section if you address the full context later? Just for a cheap shot for the time being?

      • Look, if you want to have a real discussion without any snarky attitude, then that’s fine. We can have one. But that requires you to follow certain rules of discourse. Chief among which, you have to follow basic principles of logical consistency. You can’t say things like “It’s similar to a mathematical proof” and then in the same breath claim that “it doesn’t actually prove anything.” That’s literally saying “It’s like a proof that doesn’t actually prove.” Or equivalently, “it’s like a proof that’s incorrect.” And if you honestly have to say something like this, then the least you can do is acknowledge the fact that other people will have no idea what you’re talking about.

        Secondly, if you want to have a real discussion, then you have to follow certain pragmatic measures of epistemology. That means sooner or later, somewhere, somehow, you need to tie your beliefs into meaningful actions with predictable consequences. Sure, you are certainly more than welcome to reject this epistemology and substitute your own, but then all you’ve done at the end of the day is admit that your beliefs have no epistemic connection whatsoever to your actions and consequences. Therefore, by definition and admission, whatever beliefs you hold are literally irrelevant. I can completely concede everything you have to say, and by your own admission, nothing I ever choose to do has to change as a result.

        So what’s it going to be? Are you going to follow the rules or not? Because if you can’t follow the rules, then this is no longer a discussion. It’s just a spectacle.

      • Honestly, that is like saying I can’t say a dog is similar to a wolf but not actually a wolf. If I said “acts similar” then I obviously mean it is not actually equivalent to a mathematical proof but only acts similar, it just is resembling without being identical. Also, I understand that some people will be confused. This is why i clarified in a later video and when people ask me about them I refer them to it.

        I think you should know, most of the criticism I hear about you from other people is you make up rules and expect everyone to agree on them. In other words, you just assume certain philosophical presuppositions that are not proven and become upset when other people disagree with those presuppositions. I am not a pragmatist, nor would I accept that is the guaranteed measure of truth. I don’t follow yours rules because they contain philosophical problems and lack support (like I pointed out in this post). Meaningful actions are only a indication of truth but they do not guarantee it, as Russell has pointed out. It is also easy to note this philosophical presupposition of pragmatism doesn’t have any predictable consequences of its own. It simply attempts to identify what corresponds to truth of other propositions, but at the end of the day this theory has no epistemic connection whatsoever to your actions and consequences, unless you beg the question and assume it is true. GE Moore already demonstrated in his essay “William James’s Pragmatism” that it is really a theory of truth based on a linguistic confusion.

        I think the problem is we have different beliefs about truth and instead of debating that we argue from our different views of truth about natural theology. Of course if I accept your views of truth the argument doesn’t make sense. But most theists, like myself, deny that to begin with so why would we accept your criticism when we disagree with the underlying philosophical position?

  2. “”Ending at 18:44 – I think this may be the worst lie yet. We have no empirical evidence for God? Notice the switch from empirical proof to empirically evidence. Because in reality, we have plenty of evidence, which we infer to the best explanation of theism, but we never claimed proof:”””

    I agree IP, atheists like citizenx tend to make this subtle switch many times. I was recently having an email debate with an atheist from yahoo answers about the shroud of turin, and I kept bringing up a case for authenticity being the inference to the best explanation . After about 5 back and forth emails he changed his argument when his case against the shroud’s authenticity failed and he started accusing me of claiming the evidences were 100% proof of its authenticity when he knew that wasn’t my argument.

    This subtle switch on words comes about when an opponent can’t focus on the meat of the argument and starts reaching for straws as a way out countering the strength of his opponents claims.

    This is called getting desperate . I have a younger brother who does this all the time so it’s a bit easier for me to spot from experience lol

    IP, you made a fascinating video on quantum mechanics debunking materialism.
    I understood most of it but I had a hard time understanding the end part. If God is constantly observing us how can we collapse the wave length function since he should have collapsed it already. I heard your answer, but I didn’t fully understand
    It. Maybe u can write a blog post explaining it so that a layman can understand it a bit better.

    I’m also interested in your views on weak panentheism as I was baptized a Melkite (greek catholic ) and my ancestors used to be Greek Orthodox .

    Keep up the good work my friend. There are more Christians taking notice of it then we both may know , and that’s a good thing.
    God bless
    Bob

    • Thanks, and I’ve had conversations like that as well where they do whatever they can to deny the conclusion.

      To answer your question, remember that Gd is observe ring what we observe, so He sees our experiences, not the physical reality for us. He is simply observing our experiences, as they would happen for us in a sense. So He wouldn’t collapse it prior to us, but see as we see our experiences. I hope that clarifies.

      God Bless,
      IP

  3. “– And i have a right to point out I never said or implied necessity is entailed because I said so. Again, I responded to your exact words. If you thought that is what I am equivocating to, then re-read my post, because all I am doing is explaining why that is an incorrect equivocation. I, as well, have I right to clarify what it means.”

    Okay, that is good. You acknowledge that I was not putting words in your mouth. You simply do not agree with my assessment. So when you say this:

    “I never said God is necessary because I said so,”

    What am I to make of this? The only way to interpret this is that you have accused me of putting words in your mouth.

    But fine, let’s examine how you defend your assertion:

    “I never said God is necessary because I said so, but because a MGB must entail all great-making properties. It is not accepted ad hoc, but because all GMPs must be entailed, which includes necessity by definition. Asking why is a MGB necessary is like asking why does 2+2=4. It is by definition.”

    Dude, all definitions are ad hoc. All of them. No exceptions. Definitions are nothing more than substitutions of words and ideas for other words and ideas in accordance with linguistic conventions. Anyone is free to define any word they want, in any way they want. You, of all people, should know this.

    When you define God as being MGB, that is necessarily ad hoc. It is a definition that you chose to apply. The collection of letters that make “God” is hereby deemed, by you, to define a set element with the property of being “maximally great.” You then define the set property of maximal greatness as having the property of “necessity.” That is again ad hoc. It is literally “because you say so.” Those are the words and ideas you arbitrarily decided to include in the elemental set definitions. I don’t know how I can say this any more simply. This is basic epistemology 101-level stuff, and I should not have to be explaining it to you.

    “If you think the definition is incoherent then you must explain why, not just get upset because you do not like the definition. When I see parodies of the OA, I explain why the definition is logically incoherent, that is how logic works.”

    I never said your definition of MGB was incoherent (I do claim that earlier in the video, but in this later context I have explicitly granted otherwise). I said that it was circular. “Existence” is the thing you’re trying to prove, but all you’ve done is define it as a property of “God.” Well good for you. Mere definitions alone do not prove anything, other your arbitrary choice of what words to substitute in place for other words.

  4. “I am not a pragmatist, nor would I accept that is the guaranteed measure of truth. I don’t follow yours rules because they contain philosophical problems and lack support (like I pointed out in this post).”

    Then by admission, you make no effort to tie your beliefs to your actions. That is all pragmatism entails. “True” beliefs ultimately grant me the capacity to exercise decisions and experience predictable outcomes. “False” beliefs fail in the goal. All linguistic conventions and logical axioms are simply tools designed to help me organize my beliefs into a meaningful framework that eventually facilitates decision-making with predicable, observable consequences.

    “It is also easy to note this philosophical presupposition of pragmatism doesn’t have any predictable consequences of its own.”

    You obviously don’t understand what pragmatic epistemology entails, so I shall explain it for you in detail.

    I have a distinct mental awareness, and I incorrigibly prefer certain states of experience over others. I therefore desire to make decisions that lead to predictable outcomes, and I do not desire to live in a state where bad things can just happen beyond my control. Thus, I assert pragmatism outright as an epistemic maxim because that is how I incorrigibly choose to measure “truth” when I see it. I then define my axioms accordingly to serve that ultimate desire. Pragmatism is therefore “pragmatic” by definition, and your above claim is simply false.

    You are likewise free to choose whatever maxim you want to guide your epistemology, but I have yet to see you even try to explain what that is, or why it is any better than what I just suggested. Because really, if you’re just going to sever all connection between belief and action, then that is the literal definition of pure irrelevance. It doesn’t matter what you believe to be “true” or “false” because such beliefs will never drive an actual decision in your life. And if that’s how you honestly live your life, then it doesn’t take long before you get run over by a bus while crossing the street. So whether you realize it or not, you must exercise basic pragmatic principles or else you would have just died years ago.

    But seriously, if you reject pragmatism, then who cares what you think about anything? By definition and admission, your beliefs no longer matter to anyone, including yourself. If I can live my entire life believing in “false” propositions, yet still manage to find myself living a rich, fat, happy existence, then why should I care what is “true?” Your choice is really that simple. Either you are pragmatic or you are irrelevant.

    • ““I never said God is necessary because I said so,”
      What am I to make of this? The only way to interpret this is that you have accused me of putting words in your mouth.”
      -Hold on, I acknowledge you took what I said way out of context. Second, you have also accused me of saying things I didn’t. So my advice it is clarify and move on. That is half of what philosophers do.

      “Dude, all definitions are ad hoc. All of them. No exceptions. Definitions are nothing more than substitutions of words and ideas for other words and ideas in accordance with linguistic conventions.”
      – Are you denying words have meaning? If so then this is self-defeating since all your definitions are ad hoc and lack and valid meaning now.

      “When you define God as being MGB, that is necessarily ad hoc. It is a definition that you chose to apply.”
      – No, again, it is matter of logic as Robert Maydole points out.We are not starting with the concept of God and adding necessity to it, but starting with the properties themselves and seeing if they are coherent and a being that logically contains them all is who we wold titled God. You have reversed the OA.That is not ad hoc since we are asking if there is a being that must entail all GMPs, which by definition includes necessity. It is not ad hoc because there is a reason necessity is entailed. So once again, it is not because we said so, but because it would logically follow from a being that must entail all GMPs. Now if all definitions are arbitrary then your reasoning behind your counter argument would only be true because you said so. So is your counter argument suppose to have meaning?

      ““Existence” is the thing you’re trying to prove, but all you’ve done is define it as a property of “God.” Well good for you. Mere definitions alone do not prove anything, other your arbitrary choice of what words to substitute in place for other words.”
      – Again you are equating necessity and existence. This is false as I pointed out in this post. I never said definitions prove anything, because the definition doesn’t tell us whether it metaphysically possible. Plantinga specifically points out defining God as necessary doesn’t equate to existence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXvVcWFrGQ
      The possibility aspect requires a second premise.

      “Then by admission, you make no effort to tie your beliefs to your actions. That is all pragmatism entails.”
      _ that is fine but you need to show pragmatism is what truth is, but that is highly controversial and suffers from logical problems. Pragmatism can only be an indicator of truth but it cannot be the meaning of.

      “ “True” beliefs ultimately grant me the capacity to exercise decisions and experience predictable outcomes. “False” beliefs fail in the goal. “
      – The theory of pragmatism doesn’t do this. It create no predicable outcomes unless you beg the question. GE Moore reminds us a Successful lie can be pragmatic and useful but it is ultimately not true. Now to answer you below:

      “I therefore desire to make decisions that lead to predictable outcomes, and I do not desire to live in a state where bad things can just happen beyond my control. Thus, I assert pragmatism outright as an epistemic maxim because that is how I incorrigibly choose to measure “truth” when I see it. “
      – Ok stop here… This is exactly what Russell was talking about. You measure truth with pragmatic measures? So “meaning of” can be indicated through pragmatic measured? But you have already separated the two. As pragmatism is used to arrive at truth and would an indicator.

      “I then define my axioms accordingly to serve that ultimate desire. Pragmatism is therefore “pragmatic” by definition, and your above claim is simply false.”
      – Of course it would be because you have defined it as so by begging the question. Unless it is truth is it not pragmatic and it is pragmatic because it is truth. The problem is as Russell pointed out there is a disconnect between the pragmatic and the truth, and pragmatism is only used to indicate truth, so it is simply a subset of correspondence theory, and incomplete. Or as GE Moore put it, it is a linguistic confusion between what works and what is true. Somethings that are true, like death, are not always practical, and things that are practical, like Ptolemy astronomy, are not always true. Moore points out there is a different between “what is” and “what works.” So belief and action are clearing different things to begin with, not the same.

      “And if that’s how you honestly live your life, then it doesn’t take long before you get run over by a bus while crossing the street. So whether you realize it or not, you must exercise basic pragmatic principles or else you would have just died years ago.”
      – Of course, but i don’t have to believe that is truth but only an indication of truth. Denying pragmatism doesn’t mean you deny use of it within correspondence theory. Russell said it was used within Correspondence as indicators. So we do not reject pragmatism, we point out it is not truth but only an indictor of what could be truth.

      “If I can live my entire life believing in “false” propositions, yet still manage to find myself living a rich, fat, happy existence, then why should I care what is “true?” Your choice is really that simple. Either you are pragmatic or you are irrelevant.”
      – First you admit there is a difference between why works and what would be ultimately true. So pragmatism in your own example would not be truth. Second that is missing the point. You can lead a good life without theism but that is not the point theist are making. To quote CS Lewis, “The question sounds as if it were asked by a person who said to himself, ‘I don’t care whether Christianity is in fact true or not. I’m not interested in finding out whether the real universe is more like what the Christians say than what the Materialists say. All I’m interested in is leading a good life. I’m going to choose beliefs not because I think them true but because I find them helpful.’ Now frankly, I find it hard to sympathise with this state of mind. One of the things that distinguishes man from the other animals is that he wants to know things, wants to find out what reality is like, simply for the sake of knowing. When that desire is completely quenched in anyone, I think he has become something less than human. As a matter of fact, I don’t believe any of you have really lost that desire.”
      Correspondence theory is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes the world around us. This is simply what I see pragmatists trying to say and can never seem to equate truth and action.

      • “Are you denying words have meaning? If so then this is self-defeating since all your definitions are ad hoc and lack and valid meaning now. ”

        What on Earth are you going on about? Of course words have meaning, but only because subjective agents like ourselves have given them meaning. It’s called “language” IP. Do you know what concept means? There is no such thing as an “objectively correct” definition. There are only the definitions we arbitrarily decide to utilize and agree to in our linguistic conventions. This is not controversial.

        “You have reversed the OA”

        It doesn’t matter what the order is. All definitions are transitive. I can start with “unmarried man” and decide to call it a “bachelor,” or I can start with “bachelor” and decide to use it as a definition for unmarried man. The result is the same. Truth by definition.

        “Now if all definitions are arbitrary then your reasoning behind your counter argument would only be true because you said so.”

        No, it’s true because *WE* say so. We collectively speak English, and so we collectively agree to abide by certain conventions with words and definitions. If you want to follow some other set of assignment declarations for your arbitrary combinations of letters and sounds, then that is entirely your prerogative. All it means is that other people no longer have any idea what you’re talking about.

        Seriously, IP, have you never met another human being who speaks, say, Spanish or German? Do they hold to the same definitions as you? Are they “wrong?”

        “Again you are equating necessity and existence”

        All necessary entities exist, by definition. It is impossible for a necessary entity to not exist. Watch:

        1) A necessary entity is an entity that exists in all possible worlds (your own definition).
        2) An entity that exists in all possible worlds is an entity that exists in the actual world (actual world is an element of all possible worlds).
        3) An entity that exists in the actual world is an entity that exists (definition).
        4) Therefore, a necessary is an entity that exists (circular – assumes the conclusion by definition).

        Or perhaps you mean “If it exists, it exists in all possible worlds.” Again, follow the logic:

        1) A necessary entity is an entity that, if it exists, exists in all possible worlds (your own definition).
        2) An entity that exists in all possible worlds is an entity that exists in the actual world (actual world is an element of all possible worlds).
        3) An entity that exists in the actual world is an entity that exists (definition).
        4) Therefore, a necessary is an entity that, if it exists, it exists (tautology)

        So what’s it going to be? A circle or a tautology?

        “Plantinga specifically points out defining God as necessary doesn’t equate to existence: ”

        Then I’m sorry, but Plantinga is a moron who can’t do basic logic. See above. You make a lot of appeals to authority, but you don’t address the fundamental problem. When you say “it is possible that a necessary being exists” you have literally said “It is possible that a thing which exists, exists.” That’s what the words mean, as you specifically defined them to mean.

        “Pragmatism can only be an indicator of truth but it cannot be the meaning of.”

        “Truth” is nothing more than a proposition that possesses the property of being “true.” The determination of some truth-value is then achieved by applying axioms. Axioms are algorithmic rules that conditionally assign truth/false labels to propositions. The choice of axioms one uses is fundamentally arbitrary, but some axiomatic systems can be said to have more objective functionality than others, depending on one’s epistemic goals. For this reason, there is no such thing as “objective truth” in the strictest sense. There is only an “objective reality,” external to our senses, that we attempt to model through ideas and propositions. “Truth” is a measure of how well we think we’re describing that external reality, but no proposition is “absolutely” binding across all epistemic systems for a truth-value assignment.

        I can’t count how many times you’ve appealed to authority in these discussions, but what I’ve just told you is not controversial. I don’t know where you think you learned epistemology, but this is how the game is played. It’s epistemology 101 material, and I should not have to be explaining this to one such as yourself who pretends to be so well-educated in philosophy. For heaven’s sake, at least read the Wikipedia article on this subject before pretending to know what you’re talking about:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

        “Of course it would be because you have defined it as so by begging the question.”

        Again, you act as if you are so well-versed in philosophy, but then completely misunderstand what question-begging is. Begging the question means “assuming the conclusion.” I am not assuming anything. I am making an active, incorrigible choice. It is not question-begging to say “I choose to drink orange juice over apple juice.” That is a decision. It is not question-begging to say “I choose to measure truth in accordance with the pragmatic maxim.” The absolute bedrock of all epistemology can very easily be summarized by the question, “what are your axioms, and why should I agree?” That is not something you can derive. It can only be defined and stated outright for the sake of incorrigible desire. I desire to formulate models about external reality with predictive, empirical capacity. What do you desire?

        “One of the things that distinguishes man from the other animals is that he wants to know things, wants to find out what reality is like, simply for the sake of knowing. When that desire is completely quenched in anyone, I think he has become something less than human. As a matter of fact, I don’t believe any of you have really lost that desire.””

        I agree with this sentiment, but you still have to answer the same question – How do I “know” the truth when I see it? Again, that requires axioms, which are only a matter of choice. The reason why I choose pragmatism is because it is the only epistemic system that possesses a meaningful arbiter of what objective reality is really like. Namely, the consequences to my actions. If I really wanted to, I could make-believe whatever I wanted for whatever reasons I wanted, and nothing you say can stop me. However, the one thing that absolutely cannot be faked, argued, debated, or rationalized, are the empirical consequences to my actions. You constantly complain about how pragmatism feels all weird and “relative” to you, without stopping to realize that this is the only system any defensively “objective” measure of reality contained within it. That’s why we logically formulate empirical models, commit them to actions with specific, predictable outcomes, and then see if they manifest. Only “true” models satisfy this, because that’s what the definition for truth requires.

        And honestly, if you ask me, this is what scares you most about pragmatism, isn’t it. You know perfectly well that everything you believe about God is impossible to demonstrate empirically, and that measuring God against such a standard would immediately disprove Him objectively, without question. That’s why you cringe against it. You like hiding behind nebulous, rhetorical measures of truth because it’s the only place where your God can hide. You likely disagree, but so what? A God that can only be argued, but not demonstrated, is functionally equivalent to no God at all. So who cares?

      • “There is no such thing as an “objectively correct” definition. There are only the definitions we arbitrarily decide to utilize and agree to in our linguistic conventions. This is not controversial.””
        -First, yes it is controversial. See Jerrod Katz’s argument in “Language and Other Abstract Objects” or see the chapter “Language” in “the Last Word” by Thomas Nagel. Language may be invented by humans but invented to correspond to real things out there. It is not arbitrarily defined but meant to represent real things or objective logical facts that have meaning. As Nagel says, “it is not because logic is grammar, but because grammar obeys logic.”
        “It doesn’t matter what the order is. All definitions are transitive. I can start with “unmarried man” and decide to call it a “bachelor,” or I can start with “bachelor” and decide to use it as a definition for unmarried man. The result is the same. Truth by definition.”
        – That is not what I am saying. I’m pointing out why entailing necessity is not ad hoc because we start with the properties and then title a being that would entail all GMPs as God. We are not arbitrary giving whatever properties we want to God, but relying on entailing a GMPs by definition. This is not a quasi-MGB but a MGB, so logically all GMPs must entail which includes necessity. It is a matter of logic why necessity follows.
        “Seriously, IP, have you never met another human being who speaks, say, Spanish or German? Do they hold to the same definitions as you? Are they “wrong?””
        – You are not following me. I am not denying language is invented but invented to correspond to real things and correspond to what is objectively true. That is why language works because it corresponds to what is objective true and real entities we assign language to.
        “All necessary entities exist, by definition. It is impossible for a necessary entity to not exist.”
        – Wrong again, a definition can be logically impossible, like a necessary tree. Such a concept is logically impossible even though it is defined as necessity.
        “1) A necessary entity is an entity that exists in all possible worlds (your own definition).
2) An entity that exists in all possible worlds is an entity that exists in the actual world (actual world is an element of all possible worlds).
3) An entity that exists in the actual world is an entity that exists (definition).
4) Therefore, a necessary is an entity that exists (circular – assumes the conclusion by definition).”
        – Nothing in these tells us whether it is possible or impossible. It is just a definition, not a connection to possibility. So it is incomplete.
        – You do realize I never denied the OA is circular. In fact i pointed out why it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC94N-mZnrM
        Second again, just defining something as necessary is incomplete because we have not answered if it is metaphysically possible or not.
        “Then I’m sorry, but Plantinga is a moron who can’t do basic logic. See above. “
        – Yeah, I did, and you only show you do not know what you are talking about. See “The Nature of Necessity” or “Naming and Necessity” by Kripke. A basic understanding of modal logic will show you definitions alone do not get you to existence, since we have to ask whether one is possible or impossible.
        ““Truth” is nothing more than a proposition that possesses the property of being “true.” The determination of some truth-value is then achieved by applying axioms. Axioms are algorithmic rules that conditionally assign truth/false labels to propositions. The choice of axioms one uses is fundamentally arbitrary, but some axiomatic systems can be said to have more objective functionality than others, depending on one’s epistemic goals. For this reason, there is no such thing as “objective truth” in the strictest sense. There is only an “objective reality,” external to our senses, that we attempt to model through ideas and propositions. “Truth” is a measure of how well we think we’re describing that external reality, but no proposition is “absolutely” binding across all epistemic systems for a truth-value assignment.”
        – Why do you think i am challenging this? This very part, “There is only an “objective reality,” external to our senses, that we attempt to model through ideas and propositions. “Truth” is a measure of how well we think we’re describing that external reality, but no proposition is “absolutely” binding across all epistemic systems for a truth-value assignment” – sounds exactly like correspondence theory, except I would says epistemically, “There is only an “objective reality,” external to our senses, that we attempt to UNDERSTAND through ideas and propositions. “Truth” is a measure of how well we think we’re describing that external reality.” Why you think I am challenging this is beyond me, especially when I already said I advocate correspondence theory in epistemology. I was addressing your use if pragmatism not challenging basic epistemology. Do you take an attack on pragmatism as an attack on epistemology?
        “I can’t count how many times you’ve appealed to authority in these discussions,”
        – Yes, excuse me for bringing in experts on this topic to back up my claims…
        “Again, you act as if you are so well-versed in philosophy, but then completely misunderstand what question-begging is. Begging the question means “assuming the conclusion.””
        -Sigh* Right and assuming the pragmatic theory is pragmatic is begging the question. I am not talking about orange juice over apple juice but the the very truth value of the pragmatic theory of truth.
        “It is not question-begging to say “I choose to measure truth in accordance with the pragmatic maxim.””
        – Right, but opponents are not talking about truth we are taking about the very truth value of it.
        “I agree with this sentiment,”
        – then why did you say, “If I can live my entire life believing in “false” propositions, yet still manage to find myself living a rich, fat, happy existence, then why should I care what is “true?” Your choice is really that simple. Either you are pragmatic or you are irrelevant.” It seems you are changing your view all of a sudden.”
        “but you still have to answer the same question – How do I “know” the truth when I see it?”
        – Again, in correspondence theory something is a true statement when it corresponds to the actual state of affairs. We can employ pragmatic measures to help indicate truth but that is not the whole story. Any book on Corresponnce theory will have this quote from Aristotle, “To say that [either] that which is, is not or that which is not is, is a falsehood; and to say that that which is, is and that which is not is not, is true.”
        “You constantly complain about how pragmatism feels all weird and “relative” to you, without stopping to realize that this is the only system any defensively “objective” measure of reality contained within it.”
        – OK thanks for ignoring all my objections to the incompleteness and of pragmatism and going right to objections I don’t have against it… Second, did you forget i said, “Denying pragmatism doesn’t mean you deny use of it within correspondence theory. Russell said it was used within Correspondence as indicators. So we do not reject pragmatism, we point out it is not truth but only an indictor of what could be truth”? And again, there are plenty of things which are true but not useful so something can be true without being useful, which is why pragmatism is only an indication of what is true. Pragmatism is tool to help us discover truth, not actual truth. No one denies that. “
        “And honestly, if you ask me, this is what scares you most about pragmatism, isn’t it. You know perfectly well that everything you believe about God is impossible to demonstrate empirically, and that measuring God against such a standard would immediately disprove Him objectively, without question.”
        – This doesn’t even deserve a comment since you barely addressed my actual objections to pragmatism… Is this your attempt to cover that up?

      • Dear InspiringPhilosophy: You can not object to pragmatism by just attacking a pragmatic theory of truth. This is a strawman in particular of modern pragmatists, like Stephen Stich. For the case you don’t know: Philosophers make progress and only quoting Russell & Moore is quite ignorant.

  5. “I think the problem is we have different beliefs about truth and instead of debating that we argue from our different views of truth about natural theology. Of course if I accept your views of truth the argument doesn’t make sense. But most theists, like myself, deny that to begin with so why would we accept your criticism when we disagree with the underlying philosophical position? ”

    This is a point I have tried to belabor with people for a very long time, so I am happy to see you agree (hence my “hooray for pragmatism” rant above). I would really like to see how you define your epistemology. What is your driving maxim? What axioms do you define to facilitate that maxim? What algorithm do you follow for evaluating the truth of propositions? And finally, why should anyone care to follow a similar epistemology?

  6. “Honestly, that is like saying I can’t say a dog is similar to a wolf but not actually a wolf. If I said “acts similar” then I obviously mean it is not actually equivalent to a mathematical proof but only acts similar, it just is resembling without being identical. Also, I understand that some people will be confused. This is why i clarified in a later video and when people ask me about them I refer them to it. ”

    IP, this is patently absurd. You describe the MOA as “similar to a mathematical proof,” despite the fact that it has no math in it, and doesn’t actually prove anything. That is not “similar.” That is “opposite.” It’s not a comparison between a dog and a wolf. It is a comparison between a dog and a potato.

    • IP is right, and I’m acting like a little child. I promise to never misled my audience again by misquoting others as I did to IP or teach them to ignore dissenters like I did at the end of my video.

  7. Forget AnticitzenX, IP. He would absolutely fail in a philosophy degree, particular concerning Religion, Metaphysics, Epistemology or even Logic to be honest. A man who has to be so dishonest and not even phrase your opponents argument in the strongest way is an immediate sign of poor reasoning. Typical atheist move, they straw man the argument rather than going through each premise one by one and refuting the claims. You can’t just define your opponents starting point as false simply because it is not the one you presuppose without argument yourself, thats absurd, and no philosopher takes this methodology seriously at all, its plain cheating. Refuting an argument by trying to demolish its presuppositions is like saying someones interior design is in objectively bad taste because theres a crack in the bricks supporting the beams in the house. You haven’t *really* refuted the argument at all, just explained it away. An odd way to approach it. All you have to do is show that it is not possible that God exists, that’s a sure way to go when refuting the ontological argument, which was not done. All of which were addressed in IP’s answers videos. So, bad luck again there.

    It seem as if, for his own world view to make any sense at all, he must embrace this form of metaphysical/logical scepticism to all propositions. You don’t even have to accept a modal version of the ontological argument to accept the concept of God as defined in perfect being theology.

    I think we have a classic case here of a little knowledge is dangerous. Accusing Plantinga, a highly regarded analytical philosopher all of the world, as someone who ‘can’t do basic logic’ is just hilarious. But you, Mr. YouTube Atheist in your bedroom… you know the situation on reality and truth. The arrogance and certainty with which you make your case is so staggering I’m surprised you don’t believe you’re omniscient.

    Trust me, there is a connection between being humble and being educated. The idea that fools and unlikeable people can be pillars of intelligence and intellect is a farce, I’ve never seen any evidence of it, nor will you.

  8. Pingback: traiteur rabat

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s