Comments by "MC116" (@angelmendez-rivera351) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
William Brown "So 1. Objectivity is not false (otherwise you couldn't say is it false without it being objectively true. So that statement defeats itself)"
It doesn't defeat itself. It isn't objectively true, but that doesn't detract from my argument because the argument follows from the laws of logic as I mentioned above, which once again I'm assuming to be true. And that isn't a problem, because you agree that these laws are self-evident and thus the more "correct" or more natural to accept as true.
" "...in your worldview. However, many other world views have non-existence as an axiom. " Then that worldview logically fails if non-existence was an axiom, they wouldn't be there to ponder the question. "
Not at all. These worldviews have already come up with ways to debunk this rebuttal. See, there is a flaw in assuming that existence is a requirement in order to be able to ponder. In fact, it is even fallacious to actually pretend the action of pondering behaves anything like it does in our worldviews.
"1. Self-evidence is real. Otherwise you would have no argument to make."
I never self-evidence is real, I said it is subjective, which makes it totally meaningless and irrelevant.
" We all make our arguments..atleast logical ones..on self evident truths."
Correction: on OUR self-evident truths. See, to some people, the idea that the Earth is round is self-evident. To many others, however, it isn't. Same with the existence of God.
"Even you disagreeing with me, you don't go by anything that is an "irreducible primary"?"
I assume the basic laws of logic, but I don't claim they're necessarily true by virtue of themselves.
"Because by that logical you could be wrong and have no argument to stand on."
So could all claims be. This isn't a rebuttal of anything and I'm not sure it contributes to your argument at all. I COULD be wrong, but I've yet to be proven so, and since I'm assuming the axioms of logic, people either need to show to me that the axioms objectively are false or that my argument doesn't follow from the axioms of logic.
"Axioms, by philosophical definition are not subjective, you only contradict yourself by trying to contradict an axiom."
They literally are though. And you haven't provided proof your claim: the dictionary definitions you provided actually help my argument LOL.
"Just try using your line of reasoning on your own arguments, you will hopefully see how it easily falls apart."
No, I've used my line of reasoning on my own arguments for years, in hundreds, perhaps thousands of debates. It's not for nothing I'm arguing this.
"Did you not say this: (unless you go and edit your own post), "Perfection is impossible because omniscience is impossible" ..."
Yes. I did claim this. And the word BECAUSE is NOT A CONTRADICTION, it is a causal-justification relationship. I hope that was merely a brain fart, because this really is a stupid claim you make here.
"You hinged one upon the other, so why not stop presuming straw men, apply your same "logical" reasoning to yourself, and stop lying on me?"
I'm not lying on you. I'm not the one who claimed I'm being insulted when I'm not.
1
-
Ananta Sesa das 1. I never claimed individuals have no free will, I merely claimed they would not in the hypothetical case of an omniscient god existing, which is logically impossible, implying this is not the actual case.
2. Adequacy is different from perfection. Individuals misuse the term perfection to mean adequacy. Perfection is, once again, a concept of objectivity.
3. Omnipotence is impossible because it is self-inconsistent, hence, a contradiction which can be dismissed as a fallacy and thus an impossibility.
4. Omniscience is also self-inconsistent, so omniscience is impossible regardless of the impossibility or possibility of omnipotence.
Omnipotence is impossible because an entity cannot choose to be able to choose to be omnipotent due to the logical necessity of being able to choose to be omnipotent in order for the property of omnipotence to be satisfied.
Omniscience is impossible because it can be proven that within any randomly given collection of propositions, at least one of these must necessarily be unprovable due to infinite regress, and I explained by showing that truth requires a subjective definition. Because such claims are not provable, there is no certainty in asserting their truth, thus there is no knowledge but belief, with shows that at least one proposition must be believed by the omniscient entity, showing the entity is in fact not omniscient. This is obviously a contradiction, so omniscience is impossible.
Thus demonstrated (Q.E.D).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"That is not what the record shows."
This is evidently false. I have looked at the record, and you provide no evidence of your claim, precisely because it is false.
"There were many people that came up with a counter that you used jargon to answer."
No, no one did. Show me 1 single quote of someone besides yourself who did more than once and I will concede. Of course, you won't find one.
"Also many of these people did not understand you either. Hence them not pressing their case."
No, they understood me, and this is evident because everyone offered a counter argument at least twice before giving up. They stop pressing their case because I showed they were wrong, not because they did not understand. They would not have tried counter-arguing had they not understood.
"Also many of those that did press it you deflected with jargon, until someone who Knew the jargon disproved you handily. Did you concede? Nope."
Show me the quote in which someone disproved and I will concede. But i have read the conversation time and again, and I know for a fact no one has disproved me. Again, here is your chance to show me the quote where I was disproved and I will gladly become Christian again.
"Once that happened you engaged me directly even though I had made no comment."
Not true. I engaged with you because you responded to my argument. The evidence is right in the thread, actually. Stop lying.
"You just wanted to fight."
First ad hominem.
"It is not about what is right or logic or spreading reason."
For me, it is. For you, it isn't, because you demonstrate you don't care about logic or reasoning all that much. You're not willing to let go of your faith and open your mind to facts. But this has been about logic all along. My argument literally is based on formal logic.
"Your just trying to prove to yourself that you are the intellectual superior to those around you."
Second ad hominem.
"Your just trying to prove to yourself that you are the intellectual superior to those around you."
Third ad hominem.
"In summation, I told you why I do not want to argue with you,..."
...you did, and your reasoning is wrong and full of feces. Simple.
"...you do not respect me."
...because you do not respect me either, nor do you respect anyone commenting on this thread. I have freedom of speech. By telling me to not respond to your comments, you infringe on my freedom of expression, hence disrespecting me. So I have no need or obligation to respect you.
"I then offer to cordially debate, you basically call me deficient, you do not respect me."
I didn't call you anything. You made that lie up. All I said is that it isn't my fault you didn't understand my argument, and you accused of not speaking on plain English even though I literally am speaking plain English. On top of that, you blatantly lie about "what the record says" and deny that you started this. Also, fourth ad hominem.
"It is called ad hominem & it is your favorite fallacy."
You've used more ad hominems within this one comment and the previous than I've used within my last few responses to you. If anything, it is your favorite fallacy. In fact, declaring that it is my favorite fallacy is both an ad hominem of itself and a straw man as well.
"You are not entering into this with good faith...."
Sixth ad hominem, or maybe seventh. Also, I did enter here with good faith. Hence why I engaged with everyone here. You're the one who refuses to engage with me. So, I think it may be you who came in good faith, but it is not my position to declare this.
"You are not entering into this in an intellectually honest way."
Neither are you.
"You are educated, but it has not given you wisdom."
Eighth or ninth ad hominem. Also, irrelevant. You don't have any more wisdom than I do. Wisdom isn't real.
"You claim seventeen years of faithful service to God, is that one to seventeen years old?"
I claim seventeen years of faithful service to God. i was a pastor. The age range here is irrelevant though. Straw man.
"What part of writing to you is productive?"
All of it, because I listen to people. Maybe you're not willing to listen, but personally, I am.
"All you have to offer me is hate & all I have for you is pity"
I have no hate to offer. I don't hate anyone. I just want to teach you the reasoning behind why omniscience is impossible, but you refuse to listen either out of fear or for some reason you hide from me. Trying to teach you something doesn't make me hateful. Nor does it make you hateful either.
1
-
"I looked over it. You are wrong & it is all there if you want to read it."
I read it all, and I know I'm not wrong.
"Odd that you missed the part where I did not want to argue with you because, I am not a philosophy major."
You only chose to stop arguing after you failed to persuade me with your flawed arguments, but rather than admitting this was the reason, you claimed you lacked sufficient scholarly education in philosophy to argue with me. Which is okay, but it is not an excuse. Most people commenting in YouTube are not scholars in philosophy either. So your point is lame.
"I do not want to argue with you but you insist on doing so."
If you truly wanted to not argue with me, you'd have stopped engaging and responding a long time ago. You've not chosen to stop though.
"This is proof that your last two posts to me, after I told you I do not want to argue with you, are at least against my wishes if not with intent to harm."
Ad hominem. I also have no intent of harming anyone. You can stop creating false assumptions.
"If that was true, would you not seek people that can understand what you said or make it accessible to any reader by teaching the principle?"
This is precisely what I've done. Once again, everyone in this comment section has understood everything I've said, and my arguments are fairly accessible. Perhaps you can't understand them, but it is irrelevant whether you understand or not: if everyone else understands, then this is proof it is accessible.
"Instead you choose to come after someone who told you they cannot understand that level of philosophical discussion."
No, I came at you because you actually told me to shut up and stop responding to your comments, which you have no right to do.
"Then you claimed the thread as yours."
I did not.
"Saying I could not comment to anyone on it (not verbatim) without engaging you."
Not what I said, and the fact that you refuse to provide verbatim quotes for the sake of twisting my words makes you dishonest. You're a real hypocrite, and yes this is an ad hominem, but still a true claim.
"This is the thread started by SirBagicious, not you."
It wasn't started by you either. I came to this comment section before you were here, and you responded to me and to the entire thread even though no one was talking to you.You use double standards.
"Make your own comment thread, then you might have a claim."
Make your own comment thread, then you might have the right to not engage with everyone at once.
"Otherwise it is clear who I was speaking to, & that is not you."
No, you were talking to EVERYONE including me. That is literally how comment sections work. Everyone has a right to respond. It's called free speech. Maybe that doesn't exist in your country, but it exists in mine. Learn to respect that.
"Let me state this plainly, your a bully. Your need to seek out a clearly weaker target in your area of expertise. This shows your inability to compete within it or a perceived inadequacy within yourself to your peers in your field."
And this claim shows you're an idiot who likes to make personal assumptions about people without any logical justification only so that you can feel better about yourself. I'd give you respect if you respected me, but you clearly fail to do so. But regardless, I do have the capacity to compete within my own field of expertise, and I do so everyday.
"If you did, you would choose to make what you said accessible or you would only speak with similarly skilled individuals who could fully appreciate your endeavors."
I made it accessible. It isn't my fault you didn't understand it if everyone else did.
"For your own good seek help of a certified clinician."
You are a person who hallucinates with a man in the sky who does not exist, and who somehow has magic powers and has infinite knowledge, all of which can be proven to be impossible, and whom by the way you have never seen or heard because he literally is immaterial. You're essentially comparable to a moderate schizophrenic. You need the clinician much more than I do.
Have a nice day .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"morality's subjective nature has an objective qualitative factor, (i.e.
reality). In other words, human behavior (objective reality) sets the
tone for morality."
There is no objective qualitative factor in morality. There is universal moral agreement which is practical, hence allowing us to ignore the subjectivity of morality, because humans only adopt the pragmatic set of assumptions which make morality practical for our anthropocentric purposes of survival. However, this still is arbitrary and subjective to our own discretion.
"I think the notion that "one has to know they're omniscient in order to
be omniscient" is problematic when applying it to a eternal being."
No, it isn't problematic, because being eternal and being omniscient are completely unrelated and irrelevant to one another.
"That being we call God has a rational mind, and we know this in part
given our understanding of our material environment or creation."
1. Humans define rationality.
2. It is impossible to conclude any properties about an immaterial being based on an immaterial world. Non sequitur fallacy.
"But from a purely creative material standpoint, God knows everything relative to that."
This argument suffers from a flaw, since it assumes that God created the material universe, which is false. God could not have possibly created the universe because due to the very nature of the universe itself, it can't have a cause.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Intelligence - the kind were displaying in this mere discussion - is the product of an another intelligent agent(s)"
Intelligence is the product of coding, which can be done simply by storing chemical and thermal information on particles and waves. Life is not a requirement for intelligence to begin to exist, and by extension neither is intelligence itself. We know this from the Stanley Miller experiment.
"We can't apply these material attributes to a being, I believe, is immaterial and eternal."
It is special pleading because both the immaterial claim and the eternal claim are unjustified. In fact, it may be possible to argue that both are actually impossible, but I have yet to verify this with an argument myself.
"Unfortunately we have no way of pinpointing or measuring when such a phenomena may occur."
Then there is no reason to believe such a God exists, nor is there reason to think God is the cause of anything. You're not making much sense here.
"We can't anthropomorphize the universe."
Claiming the universe is everything that is not an anthropomorphization of the universe, it's an ontological claim, and a semantic one. It's true by definition.
"By contrast human civilization ties God with ethical constructs."
This is ad hoc and unjustified. There is no reason to think God is moral.
"Thus we conclude God is a being with a mind. "
No, in that case we define God as having a mind. Words are labels. If something doesn't have a mind then it possibly cannot be God. That's part of the definition of the label itself.
"It can't be predetermined if humans exercise accountability."
If humans exercise accountability, then God is not omniscient.
1
-
1
-
1