Deconverted Man | Response to Arguments Against Atheism (MadeByJimbob) PART 1 @DeconvertedMan | Uploaded April 2024 | Updated October 2024, 3 days ago.
OV: youtube.com/watch?v=yqvoszaVTGQ
So it begins...
.... he responds: youtube.com/watch?v=mfncPxhWZ7Y
#apologist #faith #god #atheist #atheisem #logic #skeptic
His "argument"
p1: effects of physics are neither more true or false then other effects of physics
p2: thoughts, evaluations and propositions are effects of physics
c: evaluations (effects) and propositions (effects) are not more true or false than other evaluations (effects) and propositions (effects).
P1: Incoherent. Why? Because that is not how we use words!
Equivocation - p1 and conclusion use true/false in different ways.
Objective truth value of physical effects, vs truth value of thoughts, evaluations, and propositions. These are different contexts (categories).
Possible Red Herring:
Truth or falsity of physical effects to the truth or falsity of thoughts, evaluations, and propositions.
Balls and cups! This is the word play I was talking about.
Possible Sweeping Generalization:
Just because thoughts, evaluations, and propositions are effects of physics does not necessarily mean they are all equally true or false. (or nether true or false that statement is incoherent as stated)
Possible Category Error:
Treating physical effects and thoughts/evaluations/propositions in terms of truth or falsity.
While both may be influenced by physical processes, they are not in the same category...
BUT - the claim is that the claim of the materialist(1) is guilty of everything being in one giant category under physics.
I have no idea if that is or is not an actual argument that anyone would actually make.
Because, of course no such person is in his OV - rather he constructs the person making the argument in full to then argue against.
In other words... a construct strawman.
Also! If his argument is sound (it isn't) then that negates his argument... and that means that his argument can not be sound.
Why? Because in formal logic a self-referential paradox is not allowed.
(volition of non-contradiction)
Therefor, his argument can not work under any condition ever. Woops.
OV: youtube.com/watch?v=yqvoszaVTGQ
So it begins...
.... he responds: youtube.com/watch?v=mfncPxhWZ7Y
#apologist #faith #god #atheist #atheisem #logic #skeptic
His "argument"
p1: effects of physics are neither more true or false then other effects of physics
p2: thoughts, evaluations and propositions are effects of physics
c: evaluations (effects) and propositions (effects) are not more true or false than other evaluations (effects) and propositions (effects).
P1: Incoherent. Why? Because that is not how we use words!
Equivocation - p1 and conclusion use true/false in different ways.
Objective truth value of physical effects, vs truth value of thoughts, evaluations, and propositions. These are different contexts (categories).
Possible Red Herring:
Truth or falsity of physical effects to the truth or falsity of thoughts, evaluations, and propositions.
Balls and cups! This is the word play I was talking about.
Possible Sweeping Generalization:
Just because thoughts, evaluations, and propositions are effects of physics does not necessarily mean they are all equally true or false. (or nether true or false that statement is incoherent as stated)
Possible Category Error:
Treating physical effects and thoughts/evaluations/propositions in terms of truth or falsity.
While both may be influenced by physical processes, they are not in the same category...
BUT - the claim is that the claim of the materialist(1) is guilty of everything being in one giant category under physics.
I have no idea if that is or is not an actual argument that anyone would actually make.
Because, of course no such person is in his OV - rather he constructs the person making the argument in full to then argue against.
In other words... a construct strawman.
Also! If his argument is sound (it isn't) then that negates his argument... and that means that his argument can not be sound.
Why? Because in formal logic a self-referential paradox is not allowed.
(volition of non-contradiction)
Therefor, his argument can not work under any condition ever. Woops.
