Nihilist v Presup

[drogulus]

     This is delicious. Professional apologist Matt Slick argues with master nihilist megatroll Godless Girl about knowledge.

[steve ridgway]

This is delicious. Professional apologist Matt Slick argues with master nihilist megatroll Godless Girl about knowledge.

LOL, meanwhile the dust devils wander across Mars without a care in the world .

[Daverz]

Ugh, presups make me physically ill. 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sye_Ten_Bruggencate

[drogulus]

Ugh, presups make me physically ill. 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sye_Ten_Bruggencate

     Didn't Sye Ten get into some kind of trouble? I have a vague recollection to that effect.

     Some presups are quite personable, but the cult does seem to appeal to some pretty noxious individuals. It seems to be baked in in some manner.

     GG is a singular creature. She shouldn't exist but does. I'd like to talk to her some time but I'm a little scared of her.

[DavidW]

I don't know about those two youtubers but I do like the Genetically Modified Skeptic.  He has a calm manner and doesn't rely on straw manning or other debate tactics.

https://www.youtube.com/@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic

I think that a lot of these debaters are really just trying to score points with their own crowd instead of engage in intellectually honest and open conversations with empathy and an open mind.

[Daverz]

I highly recommend Gutsick Gibbon:

https://www.youtube.com/@GutsickGibbon/videos

She really knows her homonid evolution, so there's some dense informational videos in addition to the debunks. 

Also, Paulogia, who is just very calm and thoughtful:

https://www.youtube.com/@Paulogia/videos

[drogulus]

I think that a lot of these debaters are really just trying to score points with their own crowd instead of engage in intellectually honest and open conversations with empathy and an open mind.

    My experience has been that you can find people that are empathetic and open-minded among the atheists and agnostics. I guess I just have to put up with it.

I highly recommend Gutsick Gibbon:

https://www.youtube.com/@GutsickGibbon/videos

She really knows her homonid evolution, so there's some dense informational videos in addition to the debunks. 

Also, Paulogia, who is just very calm and thoughtful:

https://www.youtube.com/@Paulogia/videos

     I follow both of them along with Genetically Modified Nice Guy.

     Paulogia is extremely Canadian and I find it hard not to hold it against him.



 

[Florestan]

I think that a lot of these debaters are really just trying to score points with their own crowd

Amen!

instead of engage in intellectually honest and open conversations with empathy and an open mind.

Well, if they had empathy and an open mind, they wouldn't engage in such futile debates in the first place. Neither party can or will convince the other one and they only serve for perpetuating mutual mistrust, suspicion and hate.

[Jo498]

I stopped after about a minute. She doesn't understand what he says. (Admittedly he doesn't explain very well.)
Divine knowledge is not like human knowledge (fairly plausible), it's immediate, so the application of "justified true belief" doesn't make much sense here. For god there is no "belief" (he cannot not know something, so there is no distinction between belief and knowledge) and he doesn't have to go through justification steps to verify or ground beliefs in more fundamental ones; everything is immediately known to him. God is *not* like a superhuman AI doing the same steps as humans only better and faster.

In fact, after a bit of reflection, even humans must know some things not as justified true belief, otherwise one would quickly get into infinite regress. Cf. Carroll's funny Tortoise and Achilles text about the "justification" of modus ponens. There are some things that are a) evident and more importantly b) necessary for the game of justification to get going in the first place. These are at least some basic rules of logic (like modus ponens or that "A & B" implies "A") and probably also some non-formal bits of knowledge (like "I exist").

[drogulus]

I stopped after about a minute. She doesn't understand what he says.

    She misunderstands him perfectly, and that's to her great credit.

In fact, after a bit of reflection, even humans must know some things not as justified true belief, otherwise one would quickly get into infinite regress.

    Exactly so. The thing is, GG doesn't accept JTB at all, while Slick is too addled by dogma to realize that GGs questions don't betray her ignorance as much as his own. When Slick foolishly proclaims that divine knowledge is different, GG asks for the common property, something Slick needs to answer if he is to avoid equivocation. Instead he makes a claim that GG is making an argument, which is entirely false. The resultant commotion gave him an excuse to bail.

    GG defines knowledge in a way no one could have it, while my view is knowledge is more behavioral and navigational and only propositional after the fact. Knowledge how is prior to knowledge of. You can trace this back to James and Peirce. Knowledge, they'd say, is that upon which we're predisposed to act. It's anti-dogmatic and anti-foundational.

    One could go to a healthier presup formulation of properly basic belief (like the cogito), but the catch there is it has to be genuinely basic, and no theistic belief is that. They are all built up from a mass of priors.

[Florestan]

I stopped after about a minute. She doesn't understand what he says. (Admittedly he doesn't explain very well.)

The big irony is that both of them believe in predestination (either divine or materialistic) and deny free will, yet they try hard to change each other's mind and behavior. 

[drogulus]

The big irony is that both of them believe in predestination (either divine or materialistic) and deny free will, yet they try hard to change each other's mind and behavior. 

     Questions are not arguments. GG isn't trying to change Slick's mind. She wants to show what's in it. She did and Slick had to catch a bus, which he often does.

     

[Florestan]

GG isn't trying to change Slick's mind. She wants to show what's in it.

She and you might very well be the only people in the whole world who care about what's in his mind. 

[drogulus]

     I disagree with GG that the failure of rationalist definition decides the case. Truth consists in action plans and predictions confirmed. In that sense human knowledge is a layer built up on behavioral knowledge all living behaving things have. That's how I'd approach GG if I had the nerve.