Floyd FP
0:00:00
What's up, Floyd?
FloydFP
0:00:04
Hey, Evolution False, how can you use revelation as a standard when we have multiple attesting and conflicting claims of revelation? By what authority, or by what standard, do you determine that the revelation that you accept is correct and others are false?
Darth Dawkins
0:00:25
Because God says so.
FloydFP
0:00:27
That's begging the question. That's a viciously circle justification. Now, people are, without begging the question, can you answer my question?
Bystander.
0:00:38
Yeah.
Dart Dawkins
0:00:39
All appeals...
Moderator
0:00:40
We'll take a, remember what we did earlier with Matt Bell? We'll take turns, alright? So, Floyd, I'm going to hide you just while he's talking, then I'll bring you back while, you know, vice versa.
Moderator
0:00:48
Okay.
Floyd
0:00:49
Yeah.
Darth Dawkins
0:00:49
All appeals to a final authority would be circular. You're mic, Floyd.
Floyd FP
0:00:54
Right.
FloydFP
0:01:01
So you admit you don't have a rational justification for what you're claiming to be a justification. Now, for something to be authority, would you agree that at least two things are required. One, that that something actually has to exist, and then two, it actually has to be recognized as an authority. For example, Sam Hussein existed. He was once recognized as an authority, but later he was not. The United Nations, the United States, and not recognize his authority, and any authority that he claimed to have was ultimately removed. So can your God, can you demonstrate that one, your God exists, and two, that he's actually recognized as an authority?
Darth Dawkins
0:01:57
would have to be self-justifying. And if something is a final authority, there is no other authority to which to appeal to that would recognize it. So any ultimate authority is self-justifying. Floyd, you're muted.
Floyd FP
0:02:17
Self-justification is just another way of saying circular reasoning.
FloydFP
0:02:20
Again, you're just arguing a circle.
FloydFP
0:02:23
Now another point with an authority, you could have an authority, but that authority could be correct. For example, you could have a local police force who is an authority. They have the authority to arrest people, they have the authority to carry around pistols, stop people and so forth. But that authority, even though it exists and even though it's a recognized authority, could be a corrupt authority or could be a wrong authority. So again, by what standard, without begging the question, because that's all you've been doing over and over again here, can you determine that this supposed authority, which we haven't even demonstrated exists, is actually correct?
Moderator
0:03:21
Okay, by the way, Spoken and Dave, let's just give EF and Floyd, I don't know, a certain amount of time, and then I'll bring everyone back in. But let's just at least give them some time to explain their views.
Floyd FP
0:03:31
Thanks.
Darth Dawkins
0:03:33
Okay, I want everyone to notice that Floyd is asking for a justification for when a final authority speaks. That's an incoherent notion. There cannot be another justification from something that is a final authority. Where Floyd is correct, when the Christian God proclaims that he is the final authority, that is circular, and circular reasoning cannot be avoided. Floyd's justification for his ultimate authority is circular as well. So if Floyd objects to the circularity of the Christian God being the final authority because he says he does. Let's see if Floyd is consistent and employs circular reasoning. So Floyd, what is your final authority by which you determine anything is the case?
FloydFP
0:04:40
I don't see how using authority is helpful as a rational justification. Again, appealing to authority. Authority is simply an entity or a body of entities that are recognized to have some sort of power that others would not have. That says nothing about whether that authority is correct, can reveal knowledge, or even exists.
Darth Dawkins
0:05:27
Okay, Floyd, you didn't answer my question. Okay? So, Floyd, I asked you the question. Since you claim…
Moderator
0:05:34
I'm sorry. I just want to let him finish that last sentence.
Darth Dawkins
0:05:38
Oh, sure, go ahead.
FloydFP
0:05:39
So again, I don't see how appealing to an authority is an epistemic justification or methodology.
Darth Dawkins
0:05:49
Okay, good. I said, since you do not accept that the God of the Bible's testimony is the final authority because he says so, you reject it on the grounds that it is circular, what is your final authority by which you determine that anything is the case that would justify that it is true that would not be circular? Because if you employ circular reasoning, then you're going to have an arbitrary application over what circular arguments or reasonings you're going to hold to. So my question that I asked before, and I'll repeat it.
Moderator
0:06:31
You accidentally muted yourself.
Darth Dawkins
0:06:35
Okay, sorry about that. So my question that I asked earlier that you did not answer, I appreciate the response, but I didn't hear an answer to my question, is what is your final authority by which you determine
FloydFP
0:06:47
anything is the case, that according to your own policy should not be circular, Floyd? Well, it's only circular if you try to justify it. And I heard you specifically, you said, this is how I justify it, by actually appealing to this authority. So by actually attempting to justify it, you argue in a circle. Now, for my foundational beliefs, for my properly basic beliefs, I don't try to justify them. They're the starting points. They're the starting points from which I reason from. But do I actually try to justify them themselves? No. And you're correct. If I did try to justify my properly basic beliefs, my most foundational beliefs, I would be arguing in a circle. But I don't attempt to justify them. Thus, I'm not engaged in circular reasoning.
Darth Dawkins
0:07:45
So am I understanding you... you can leave Floyd up.
Darth
0:07:49
Okay.
FloydFP
0:07:50
Okay, I'll be back in a little bit, all right?
Moderator
0:07:52
Okay, good.
Darth Dawkins
0:07:53
So Floyd, is it my understanding then that you don't have a final authority by which you can determine that anything actually is the case in reality?
FloydFP
0:08:03
Well, I use my epistemic method, as everyone uses an epistemic method.
Darth Dawkins
0:08:09
I don't understand what that means, Floyd.
FloydFP
0:08:11
Well, epistemology in philosophy is basically the philosophy of knowledge.
Darth Dawkins
0:08:18
You know, what Floyd... I know all this academic stuff. Okay, so Floyd, you don't need to give me this academic presentation. I'm very familiar with these fundamental philosophical concepts. The question I asked you, Floyd, was this. By what means do you determine that anything is the case?
FloydFP
0:08:37
Well, I told you that I reason from my properly basic beliefs.
Floyd FP
0:08:41
Wait, but it is true that the only thing that...
Darth Dawkins
0:08:43
Hold on a second. Hold on a second. So basically, do you assume that your properly basic beliefs are valid?
FloydFP
0:08:50
Yes.
Darth Dawkins
0:08:52
Okay, is that secular, Floyd?
FloydFP
0:08:54
No, I'm not justifying.
Darth Dawkins
0:08:56
I simply assume. Okay, good. Then why should I pay attention to anything you said?
FloydFP
0:09:00
Oh, well, because you hold some of these beliefs. To deny them, you would actually have to use them. OK, Floyd, can anything happen? Can anything happen? No.
Darth Dawkins
0:09:20
OK, are there absolutes, Floyd? Define absolutes. That absolutes would be that not anything can happen.
FloydFP
0:09:29
Absolutes is not anything can happen.
Darth Dawkins
0:09:31
If there was an absolute, OK, what it would mean, I'm trying to think of a way so that everyone...
FloydFP
0:09:42
You mean exceptionalist, always the case?
Darth Dawkins
0:09:45
Okay. If the laws of logic are absolute, can the laws of logic change?
FloydFP
0:09:54
No.
Darth Dawkins
0:09:55
Okay, good. So if they're absolutes, those absolutes cannot change, right?
Floyd FP
0:10:01
Right?
Floyd FP
0:10:02
Correct.
FloydFP
0:10:03
Within the logical paradigm.
Darth Dawkins
0:10:07
So, you and I agree. Are there any absolutes in your worldview?
FloydFP
0:10:12
Things that cannot change?
Darth Dawkins
0:10:16
Are there any absolutes in your worldview, Floyd?
FloydFP
0:10:19
Well, I'm trying to clarify what you mean by absolutes.
Darth Dawkins
0:10:23
Yeah.
FloydFP
0:10:24
I think we already established that those principles of Aristotelian logic within the realm of Aristotelian logic do not change. They're not dependent on time and space.
Darth Dawkins
0:10:33
Okay. Floyd, are you asserting that it is the case that the laws of logic are absolute and invariant? Yes, I said that already. Okay, good. How did you demonstrate that that's the case?
FloydFP
0:10:51
Because for it not to be the case, it would be logically impossible. But you're assuming the laws of logic in order to prove them. Yes, I mean, one of my properties... But that's circular, isn't it, Floyd? I'm not justifying them. But you're using circular reasoning, which you mentioned earlier. No, I'm not. If I try to justify them... Okay, good. Well, I don't think you've answered my initial question to you, and that is, by what standard do you use to determine what you consider to be revelation over other people's claims of revelation? Because it seems that revelation seems to be very unreliable when you have all these different conflicting claims of revelation. So how can you, as a fallible human being, determine that your revelation is correct and other revelations are false? I'm still waiting to hear a non-circular justification from you and you haven't offered it.
Darth Dawkins
0:11:51
Okay, good. Well, if the justification that I offer you, that the omniscient, omnipotent God who reveals to me that certain things are the case, if that is unacceptable to you because you consider that that's circular, then I'm going to ask you, then what justification there is for anything? For you to say anything is the case, so far on this time in the chat here, you've made a number of statements that things are the case. Have you not, Floyd?
Floyd FP
0:12:19
Yes.
Darth Dawkins
0:12:20
Okay, good. Then on what basis should I buy your statements that something is the case. Like, for example, you stated that the laws of logic are absolutely true at all times and all places. How do you demonstrate that that's the case?
FloydFP
0:12:35
Well, that would be through retortion. For me to deny it, I would actually have to use it.
Darth Dawkins
0:12:39
No, but you're assuming it. That's circular.
FloydFP
0:12:42
Well, if I try to justify it again, I'd be
Darth Dawkins
0:12:45
OK, good.
Floyd FP
0:12:46
Floyd, I have one quick question.
Darth Dawkins
0:12:48
Hold on a second.
FloydFP
0:12:48
You keep repeating this thing over and over again. I mean, we both fully acknowledge, and I think I got you to acknowledge before, that at the ground level of all worldviews are unjustified assumptions. Except, I don't think you're willing to admit that.
Moderator
0:13:03
Is that true?
Floyd FP
0:13:05
I'm sorry?
Darth Dawkins
0:13:06
Is what you just said true? Based on the presuppositions of my worldview, yes. Okay, are your presuppositions true?
FloydFP
0:13:14
Yes, I assume them to be true.
Darth Dawkins
0:13:17
Could you tell me by what means you can ascertain anything is true, that it is the case, or you cannot be wrong? Again, those are my assumed starting position.
FloydFP
0:13:27
Those are my axioms within my worldview.
Darth Dawkins
0:13:30
Okay, good. So you just believe that.
FloydFP
0:13:32
You keep on asking the same question. You just reword the question of how do you justify properly basic beliefs. You simply reworded it another way and I've answered you a number of times. So I'd ask you to stop asking the same question
FloydFP
0:13:45
by simply…
Darth Dawkins
0:13:46
No, I will answer the same question because it's pertinent to the discussion. And I've answered it over and over again, so why are you repeating it? I didn't interrupt you and I would appreciate that you… Well, I'm telling you, I'm going to answer the same thing over and over again.
Moderator
0:13:57
I just want to jump in real quick. I just want to moderate real quick, but I hid you guys because I didn't want to, you know, try to talk over anyone. I do want to have Spoken and Fox and Dave be able to say something if they want. So I kind of want to, you know, have it open up to everyone now, please.
Darth Dawkins
0:14:15
Okay, so Floyd wants to have his cake and eat it too. He conceded that he can't really justify the beliefs that he is spouting. So all he can sit there and say is, well, I believe that. But that in turn is a statement that that is the case. But if he can't demonstrate that something actually is the case, how do we know that he actually has those beliefs? So everything that comes out of his mouth is meaningless because he has no ultimate authority to say anything is the case.
FloydFP
0:14:49
And you've done any better? You presented an ultimate authority which you cannot justify unless you argue in a circle.
Darth Dawkins
0:15:00
Am I in the same boat as you, Floyd? Yes, we're in the same epistemic boat. Excellent. That's when he just conceded, everybody. Yeah, I've said that a number of times in the past. He just said he just committed the two-quo-quay fallacy. He said you too. Right, Floyd?
FloydFP
0:15:15
It's a condition of our human nature.
Darth Dawkins
0:15:18
Floyd, are you saying that I have the same problem?
FloydFP
0:15:23
Well, if you cannot justify your foundational beliefs, then you do, by definition. Floyd, do I have the same problem? Have you demonstrated that without arguing in a circle?
Darth Dawkins
0:15:34
Floyd, I asked you a question. You said you have the same problem too. Now, is that true? You've demonstrated the case.
FloydFP
0:15:41
Okay. I asked you a question, Floyd.
Darth Dawkins
0:15:45
Yes, you've demonstrated the case. Okay, you told, when I told you, when I said to you that you cannot demonstrate that anything you say is the case. No, yes I can. That's false. anything that you say actually is the case in accordance with reality in such a way that you cannot be wrong. Based on my presuppositions and my worldview, yes.
FloydFP
0:16:07
Is that true? Based on the presuppositions of my worldview, yes.
Moderator
0:16:11
Let me cut in real quick. I know EF wanted to follow that up. I just want to maybe clarify a little bit. So it sounds to me, Floyd, that he's asking, yes, you have these presuppositions of your worldview, but how do you know that these presuppositions are actually true themselves?
FloydFP
0:16:30
Right, and I've answered that I don't know how many times over and over again. You don't know. Hold on one second. And unfortunately, if he's not satisfied with it, that's his problem.
FloydFP
0:16:39
But I'm not going to answer it any differently.
Floyd FP
0:16:41
Can you repeat it?
Moderator
0:16:42
If you believe it, you don't know. Can you repeat it, please, because I personally didn't hear it. I didn't catch that. I'm curious what your answer was.
Floyd FP
0:16:49
He said that there are assumptions, but if there are assumptions, then he can't know it.
FloydFP
0:16:52
Yeah, I've reached the bottom of my epistemic limits.
Darth Dawkins
0:16:56
Okay, here's the problem with what Floyd just said. I'm going to ask you a very precise question, Floyd, all right? It's going to be very clear, simple, and not loaded. Is anything that you have said true that comports with reality?
FloydFP
0:17:11
Based on presuppositions of my world view, yes.
Darth Dawkins
0:17:14
Okay, good. How do you demonstrate that that is true? Those are my starting positions in which I take for granted. How are you asking what your starting positions were? I said, is what you said here today true? I've answered that over and over and over again. Okay, good. But all you're saying is... I don't think we should move on from that. No, you're interrupting me, and I've been very...
FloydFP
0:17:37
I know, I've answered you a number of times.
Darth Dawkins
0:17:39
Over and over again.
Moderator
0:17:41
Yeah, let me just try to keep it more calm.
FloydFP
0:17:44
I mean, I'm just re-wording the same question which I've answered number and number ad nauseum. He's not willing to move on.
Darth Dawkins
0:17:51
Okay, I was speaking and Floyd was interrupting me, okay? And I think to be fair, the person doing the interrupted should be hid from the broadcast, not the person whose turn it was to speak well i don't know how much i think that's a little bit of a little of course not because you're box into a corner well you know i'm going to have to stand up every single time floyd says will these are my presuppositions floyd is actually stating that such and such as the case and what is he stating that such and such as the case that these are my presuppositions. He's making a statement that he has these presuppositions, that it is the case in reality that he has presuppositions. So Floyd is making a truth-valued statement, that it is the case that I have these presuppositions. But by what means do you demonstrate that that on. That actually makes sense.
FloydFP
0:18:48
Again, these are beliefs that are growing with us, so they're not learned. They're something we take for granted as human beings. To justify them would be arguing a circle which Evolution I'm willing to admit my epistemic limits. If he's not willing to accept properly basic beliefs, which we all go by, then that's his prerogative.
Darth Dawkins
0:19:19
But if we just can't have any common ground. This is a myth that the skeptics have that there can be or should be common ground. It's a myth of neutrality. Now, Floyd keeps on making truth-valued statements, but Floyd has admitted that he cannot justify his beliefs. But the moment he verbalizes that he has beliefs, he's making a truth-valued statement for which – so whatever comes out of Floyd's mouth, nothing that comes out of Floyd's mouth can be justified. So why should we accept – let me just finish. Give me ten more seconds. Floyd is admitting that he cannot – everything that comes out of his mouth is founded upon the foundation of a properly basic belief, which he cannot demonstrate is the case. Therefore, nothing he says can be demonstrated to be the case. I just have a question for you. You said that if someone doesn't want to accept the properly basic beliefs, that's their prerogative.
Moderator
0:20:31
Me, personally, I don't necessarily just feel like I should accept them. So what is your response to that?
FloydFP
0:20:38
Okay. Well, my response to you, MK, is do you believe that I exist?
Moderator
0:20:46
Yeah, I do.
FloydFP
0:20:48
Alright, and so you believe that there is a mind-independent reality in which there are other minds exist. Do you agree with that?
Moderator
0:20:59
Well, let me answer from the framework of when I was an atheist, okay? Not a Christian framework, which I currently am. So in the framework of atheists, to answer your question, do I believe that there's a mind-independent reality, I think your question was?
FloydFP
0:21:18
Yes.
Moderator
0:21:19
Yeah, I could believe that, but I would still doubt my own conclusions. I would consider that my conclusions could be incorrect, though.
FloydFP
0:21:30
Yeah, you provisionally accept it unless you have new reasons to doubt it.
Floyd FP
0:21:37
Well, I have a quick question. Like, what reasons would a person have to think that even though this physical reality may be real, but the people that they're interacting with are not necessarily independent minds, but yet just extensions of their own mind expressed outside of their external body?
FloydFP
0:21:56
Yeah, so what we're talking about here, you know, with Ellucian Falls, you know, bring up the myth of neutrality. Yes, if there are two competing worldviews, you really can't compare one against the other because they're separate. Although as Fox and Ono mentioned, you can't have common ground where you have overlapping beliefs. But what we're talking about here is we're talking about competing worldviews. assuming the presuppositions of it lead to knowledge and so forth. Now, given the presuppositions of my worldview, I believe I can have knowledge. Now, you're simply just doing what Evolution False is doing. He's doing an external critique in my worldview.
Darth Dawkins
0:22:46
Well, Floyd, I agree with you.
FloydFP
0:22:48
And questioning the very presuppositions of them.
Darth Dawkins
0:22:52
In fact, that's incorrect. I'm doing an internal critique of your worldview. You grossly misunderstood that.
FloydFP
0:22:57
Well, Floyd, you're not willing to accept my presuppositions.
Darth Dawkins
0:23:00
No, no, no. You see, again, you don't understand.
FloydFP
0:23:02
Are you willing to accept my presuppositions?
Darth Dawkins
0:23:04
You see, Floyd, I know that you actually think that you understand the presuppositional approach, but by virtue of what you just said, you indicated that you don't understand it because I did not do. I beg to differ. I'm talking now. I'm talking now. Floyd, you're interrupting me. This is what goes on in jail. It's fine. It's fine. Just calm it down for a second. And the person who had the floor just went. Good. Floyd made the erroneous statement that I'm doing an external critique. Actually, I'm not. I'm stepping into his worldview and asking him questions from within his worldview. Now, every time Floyd's speaking, he's making truth-valued statements. Now, Floyd is saying such and such is the case. It doesn't matter what the content is. But every time he says, well, these are my properly basic beliefs, well, he's stating that this is the case. Now, you can feel free to respond. Well, I'm not done. I didn't make my point yet. So every time Floyd makes the statement that something is the case, he's already conceded that he cannot demonstrate that something is the case, just a properly basic belief, but it's circular. But Floyd's reasoning is circular. Every time he opens up his mouth and says such and such is the case, he's employing circular reasoning. Now Floyd, tell me how you're not employing circular reasoning and please don't say, well it's based upon my properly basic beliefs. Because the fact of the matter is, your properly basic beliefs do not give us the basis to demonstrate that anything is the case. So Floyd, other than...
FloydFP
0:24:54
Sorry, go ahead and finish that last sentence.
Darth Dawkins
0:24:58
No, he said I can... Other than you just repeating the same thing over and over again, that these are my properly basic beliefs, other than your properly basic beliefs, what would demonstrate that anything that you say actually comports with reality?
FloydFP
0:25:15
All right, I'd like to first point out that Evolution False is completely wrong about the difference between an internal and external critique. An internal critique is when you accept the presuppositions of that other world view and then reason from there to bring out some sort of reductio ad absurdum. Evolution False is not doing that. He's not willing to accept my properly basic beliefs. He wants me to justify them. He's not doing an internal critique at all. He's completely false. Let me quote Greg Bonson say what a presupposition is? I'm going to put it up, I'm going to screen share right now. Greg Bonson says, a presupposition is an elementary assumption in one's reasoning or in the process by which opinions are formed. It is not any assumption in argument, but a personal commitment that is held at the most basic level of one's network of beliefs. Presuppositions form a wide-ranging foundational perspective or a starting point in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in one's thinking, being treated as one's one least negotiable beliefs and being granted the highest immunity to revision. Okay, this is Greg Bonson describing what a presupposition is. Okay, so if he's going to do an internal critique on my world view, he needs to accept my presuppositions and then determine from them some sort of reductio ad absurdum. He is not doing that. He is asking me to justify them. Now again, if my presuppositions of my worldview are correct, then I can know things.
Moderator
0:27:29
Now, assuming that they're correct, I just have a question. It's hard to get a word in, that's why I'm keeping you in. But here's my question. Is Floyd… Question as well, by the way. You have one as well?
Floyd FP
0:27:49
Yeah, after you.
Moderator
0:27:50
Okay, then we'll let you in, because it's hard to get a word in with you guys going back and forth. So, my question to you, Floyd, is my question to you is not a gotcha, I'm just curious, why do you even accept your own presuppositions?
FloydFP
0:28:07
Again, I described the characteristics of properly basic beliefs. They're unstated assumptions that are universally held. They're the ingredients of reasoning and rationality. If you did not hold them, you wouldn't be able to reason at all. If, for example, if your memory wasn't reliable, you couldn't remember, you couldn't even make a sentence because you couldn't remember the first words of the beginning of your sentence when you're honoring the end of your sentence. the valid nature of deduction, you would have to use that to deny it. So these are required ingredients that make up rationality and reasonableness. And again, this is not something taught to us. This is something that is just part of our nature. Your mother didn't have to teach you that there is an external world out there. Your mother didn't have to teach you that your memory is reliable. Reliable, but I just want to ask one follow-up.
Moderator
0:29:32
Spoken, do you mind if I ask just one follow-up? Oh, man, no problem, no problem. So, thanks for letting me interject here again or cut you off there. I have one more slide after this, by the way, from Greg Bonson. Okay, so yeah, I hear what you're saying. We just have to assume this stuff because that's just the way it is. That's how we naturally are. But to me personally, that doesn't mean that it's true. It just means go along to get along.
FloydFP
0:30:02
And that's the last thing I'll say.
Moderator
0:30:03
I would, I'm not just saying it to say it. I would like to hear what your response is to that.
FloydFP
0:30:07
Well, yeah, you've realized that we've now reached the end of our epistemic limits, that we're fallible beings with a first-person perspective in which we can perceive and reason from. That's simply the case of the reality we live in. Now, Evolution False was criticizing me for starting with assumptions. So, you know, basically saying, well, if you start with assumptions, those assumptions would be wrong, so everything in your world view could be wrong. So his criticism is that I have a worldview which starts with assumptions. So he's against that. Okay, let's see what Greg Bonson, a PhD in epistemology, has to say about evolution's falses claim right here. Greg Bonson says, no assumptions makes no sense. This is from his This is from his paper the problem of faith Greg Bonson says if there can be no Assumed starting point for a demonstration then no demonstration can get started or finished Depending on how you look at it and his presuppositional procedure. Dr. Greg Bonson says we must reason by presupposition There's no other method. So if EvolutionFalse is going to criticize me for it, he's going to have to criticize Greg Bonson as well.
Moderator
0:31:50
Okay. You're welcome. Spoken wanted to address this. So Spoken, I'd like to give you however many minutes is necessary for you to...
Floyd FP
0:32:00
I'm just going to ask him, I guess, a couple of questions. I don't mean necessarily a presentation time. One is kind of a clarifying question. Is it your assumption that there is no God?
FloydFP
0:32:12
No.
Bystander 6
0:32:13
Or excuse me, or a theory of religion.
FloydFP
0:32:15
That's not a foundation.
Floyd FP
0:32:17
No, I have a question. I just want to follow it up.
FloydFP
0:32:21
It's a conclusion that the Abrahamic God does not exist?
Floyd FP
0:32:29
I want to rephrase that. Instead of saying God, do you, or is it your belief that there is no creator of the universe, or that the universe was kind of like, the universe is here due to uncaused, or not maybe uncaused, but unguided processes?
FloydFP
0:32:48
Unguided, you mean at random chance?
Floyd FP
0:32:52
I would say random chance, but I would say, I think it's better to say, I mean random chance and unguided, same thing pretty much.
FloydFP
0:32:59
No, as far as I can tell, things are determined by the laws and nature of reality. They're not random or just by chance. They're determined by the nature of reality itself. So, like, nature, like, are you saying that nature at its, like, in my opinion...
Floyd FP
0:33:25
I mean, a simple example is when I drop this pen...
FloydFP
0:33:27
...universe began to exist. So, for example, when I drop this pen, it falls to the ground.
Darth Dawkins
0:33:33
And that's determined by the law of the nature of matter.
Floyd FP
0:33:40
Gravity. Do you believe that the universe began to exist or is the universe like eternal? Or does it have an infinite past?
FloydFP
0:33:48
Well, I can only go by what a physicist has to say. They say, and there's different models, and some suggest that something could have always existed eternally and I can accept that. I would think some sort of quantum level, something could have always existed eternally and through a change it could have brought about the expanse of the physical universe that we reside in right now.
Darth Dawkins
0:34:26
Okay, now this whole time, Floyd did not answer my question. His response was to filibuster and to give us a lecture and read us some quotations from Greg Bonson. You agree with those quotations? You're interrupting me. I'm gonna ask you whether you agree with them or not.
FloydFP
0:34:42
I would appreciate that you not interrupt me
Darth Dawkins
0:34:44
while I'm speaking, okay? Do you think you can control your mouth and not interrupt me? Thank you. I asked Floyd, and this is typical of what the skeptics do, when you ask them a very clear question, they will pretend like they're answering, but the response that they give does not specifically address the question. And this is what Floyd did. He was lecturing us about presuppositions. I asked Floyd, by what means can you demonstrate that anything you say is the case? And then he wants to ramble about properly basic beliefs, and then he goes into a lecture about Greg Bonson and presuppositions. Now, within the Christian worldview, the means by which we determine that anything is the case is the infallible revelation of the Christian God. That is what actually demonstrates the case. Now, you can call that a presupposition or not. It doesn't matter to me that that's the case. But I asked you specifically the question. I am not finished. I would appreciate that you not interrupt me that you are in a habit of doing. Now, I will ask the question again for a second time. Other than you verbalizing these are my properly basic beliefs, like a broken record. By what means can you demonstrate anything you say is actually the case that it comports with reality without resorting to saying, that's my properly basic belief? So did you understand the question, Floyd?
FloydFP
0:36:16
Yes.
Floyd FP
0:36:17
Okay, my turn.
FloydFP
0:36:20
Okay, notice what Evolution False did there. He offered his presuppositions to justify where he can reason from. But he criticizes me for doing that same exact thing. That's a double standard and he just showed his hypocrisy right there. Where he's willing to start, and he just said it right there, where he gave what his method is in which he reasons from. He appeals to his God and revelation. And he said, call it a presupposition if you like. Okay, but then he criticizes me for me offering the presuppositions in my worldview. Isn't that a double standard? I'll throw that out to the rest of the people. I'd like other people to respond to that. Is that double standard, yes or no?
Floyd FP
0:37:14
Floyd, a quick comment. It appears that evolution has a foundation for how he can have properly basic beliefs. Do you have a foundation for how it's even possible for you to have foundation, a properly basic belief? No, no, the properly basic beliefs are the foundation.
Darth Dawkins
0:37:31
the third time. I am trying to speak now. Please don't interrupt me.
Moderator
0:38:08
Hey, let me just say real quick. Hey, DF, it's just a conversation. If he's interrupting you in your opinion, you know, it's fine. There's no rush here. It's fine, okay? I mean, of course, I don't want to allow blatant interruptions, but give me a little bit of slack here, okay, please?
Darth Dawkins
0:38:33
Yeah, well, I expect the same treatment of the skeptics that is given to me. Now, Floyd, you still have not answered my question. Now, I'm going to repeat the question again, and criticizing me or my views or arguments is not an answer to the question. So I'll repeat the question for the third time. Other than you merely verbalizing, these are my properly basic beliefs like a broken record, by what means can you demonstrate that anything that you say actually comports with reality?
FloydFP
0:39:06
you. Okay, I start with my foundation, which I mentioned, and I reason there. So that is the method I use. I don't understand what that means. I said it over and over and over.
Darth Dawkins
0:39:20
What is the means? And that is the same answer you gave. What is the means by which you can determine that anything you say actually comports with reality?
FloydFP
0:39:51
By reasoning from my presuppositions and my world view.
Floyd FP
0:39:53
No, so you can't know anything, any of those things that you're assuming based off of that,
Darth Dawkins
0:39:58
right? No, what you're saying is your basic beliefs that you can't justify determine what the nature of reality is.
FloydFP
0:40:04
Well, no. I use an externalist justification for knowledge, as you do, as you just admitted.
Darth Dawkins
0:40:10
Okay, Floyd, do your unjustified beliefs determine what the nature of reality is?
FloydFP
0:40:19
Yes, we're forced to.
Darth Dawkins
0:40:21
Did everybody hear that?
Floyd FP
0:40:22
Whoa, Floyd!
Darth Dawkins
0:40:23
Did everybody hear it?
Darth Dawkins
0:40:25
Yes.
Darth Dawkins
0:40:26
He just said that my unjustified beliefs determine the nature of reality. We have that on the recording, everybody. I'll repeat it again. I'll repeat it again. All reviews start with unjustified assumptions. Okay, good. So Floyd, unjustified beliefs actually determine the nature of reality?
FloydFP
0:40:52
What did Greg Bonson say?
Darth Dawkins
0:40:55
No, Floyd, I'm speaking to Floyd, not Greg Bonson. Floyd, do your unjustified beliefs actually determine the exact nature of reality?
FloydFP
0:41:07
I reached my epistemic limits and I have to start with the hallucinogens.
Darth Dawkins
0:41:12
No, you're not answering my question. I'll ask you. Okay, so your unjustified beliefs, you have beliefs that are totally unjustified. Without organized circle, yes. Okay, good. So, I mean, this is amazing. I'm so glad that we got this on the recording. This is fantastic. I've admitted that in the very beginning. Okay, good. So, what he just said was completely irrational. He said… No, well, if I try to justify them, they would be. Floyd, Floyd, if I have an unjustified belief that the flying spaghetti monster orbiting Pluto exists, and I can't justify it, does my flying spaghetti monster demonstrate the nature of reality?
FloydFP
0:41:53
If those beliefs are correct, yes.
Floyd FP
0:41:56
No, that's not what you said.
FloydFP
0:41:58
Yes, I did. I said that over and over again.
Bystander 5
0:42:01
That's exactly the move that you make for God.
Darth Dawkins
0:42:04
Okay, here what you said is your unjustified beliefs. You have a... your unjustified beliefs...
FloydFP
0:42:10
I repeat it over and over again. I think it's my turn now.
Darth Dawkins
0:42:13
Okay, I'll be done in 15 seconds, okay? I'm going to repeat what he just said, because he's going to filibuster and lecture. actually determine what the nature of reality actually is. We all heard him say it. Thank you, Floyd. I heard you say it, man.
FloydFP
0:42:33
Okay, my turn now. You start with unjustified assumptions as well, as Greg Bonson pointed out. You too, Fallacy. me for a condition that you're under. Now let me go back to Greg Bonson one more time, because you don't seem to recognize a real presupposition of authority. No, it's not. This is something that's been known over. In Greg Bonson, in his Worldview Issues lecture, Basic presuppositions are held by faith. He repeats again, presuppositions we hold are by faith. A worldview is a network of presuppositions held on faith. Can you justify that Greg Bonson said that? Based on the presuppositions of my worldview, yes. Can you justify that Greg Bonson said that?
Darth Dawkins
0:43:27
Yes, using an external justification. You have unjustified beliefs that make you think that.
Bystander 6
0:43:35
Why?
Floyd FP
0:43:36
You can't justify it.
Bystander 6
0:43:37
I know. He's trying to answer.
FloydFP
0:43:39
I'm trying to answer. It's unjustified.
FloydFP
0:43:41
I'm trying to answer. What you're doing here is, again, this is a double standard.
FloydFP
0:43:45
You're holding me to an internalist justification for knowledge, which you don't even understand, Evolution false still doesn't understand the difference between external and internal critique. But evolution false himself holds to an externalist justification. Now, evolution false, are you going to hold me to an internalist justification for knowledge or an externalist justification for knowledge? If you don't know the difference, I'll be happy to describe it. Watch this, everybody. Okay. Floyd. everybody. Okay? Floyd? Is it?
Darth Dawkins
0:44:24
No, you need to answer my question. Floyd?
FloydFP
0:44:27
No, no, no, no. I answered your question.
Darth Dawkins
0:44:29
No, because if I ask you a question and you didn't answer it, I asked you.
FloydFP
0:44:32
No, I expect you to answer my question.
Darth Dawkins
0:44:34
Floyd, I'll be glad to answer your question. I answered your question.
FloydFP
0:44:38
Floyd, please don't interrupt me.
Darth Dawkins
0:44:39
No, you're going to answer my question. Please don't interrupt me. I'm not going to answer you unless you answer me.
Darth Dawkins
0:44:44
Please don't interrupt me.
FloydFP
0:44:45
No, you're going to answer my question.
Darth Dawkins
0:44:46
No, this is not going nowhere. I think EF is trying to answer though.
Moderator
0:44:50
He's not. He's not willing – he's started asking me a question. Either he's going to answer my question or not.
Darth Dawkins
0:44:55
So I'll repeat my question again. Hold on, Floyd. My question is, is he going to hold me to an externalist or internalist justification for knowledge? Yeah. And when he does, he needs to answer what he goes by, an internalist or externalist justification. Okay, yes. Can you answer it without a question for him, please? No, I will be glad to answer that question, but that question was proposed to me when he did not answer my question about Greg Bonson. So I will be absolutely willing to answer that. So I will restate my question. He put up a statement. He said, Greg Bonson said this. Now Floyd, can you justify that Greg Bonson said that? Based on the presuppositions of my world view, yes. Are your presuppositions justified? No. They're pre-rational. Then good.
FloydFP
0:46:02
then good, then you can't justify the term. So are yours presumptive? Hey guys, Spoken's been trying to say stuff, so I would like Spoken to be able to. Again, that assumes an internalist justification for knowledge. So my very next question to EvolutionFalse, and I demand he answer, is does he go by an internalist or externalist justification for knowledge. That's the very next answer I want to hear out of his mouth. Let him go ahead. Let him go. Okay.
Darth Dawkins
0:46:35
Yeah, the answer to the question is Genesis 1.1. In the beginning God created the heavens and earth. All wisdom and knowledge and truth that is is derivative only and by the living true God. That is the... Excuse me, excuse me.
FloydFP
0:46:53
You're not answering the question.
Darth Dawkins
0:46:54
I am answering the question. Please don't interrupt me, okay? I have not interrupted you. I have not interrupted you at all, and you have repeatedly and chronically interrupted me. that I gave you is God is the only external justification for any wisdom, anything that is the case, in reality, that is true. I have answered your question. Now, you told me that Greg Bonson write that? And if you say yes, can you please tell me the justification that he actually said that?
FloydFP
0:47:57
since you just admitted that you go by an externalist justification for your epistemology, I will assume that you're willing to grant me the same. Okay. So you appeal to your ontology, okay, of my worldview, because that's what we're talking about. Can I justify things within my worldview? Okay. In my worldview, there is a mind-independent reality. There are other minds. In my world view, we have the valid nature of deduction and we have the reliability of induction. Now, from those things, if those things are true, I don't need to know that I know that I know, because that would be an internalist justification which you are not using, and if you're going to do an internal critique in my world view, you're willing to accept any external justification that's not contradictory if you're willing to do an internal critique, which you said you were, although you still
Floyd
0:49:24
don't know the difference.
FloydFP
0:49:25
So if my ontology is correct, I'll give you 15 seconds, I can know that Greg Bonson wrote those things.
Darth Dawkins
0:49:43
No, I didn't ask if you could know it. I never used the word Bonson. Yes, you did. No, I did not. No, I did not. No, I did not.
FloydFP
0:49:51
Yes, you did. You talked about justification.
Darth Dawkins
0:49:54
No, I did not.
Darth Dawkins
0:49:55
Yes, you did. No, I did not. Yes, you did. Okay, what did you say that interrupted me? I never said anything about knowing or knowledge to you. So stop putting words in my mouth, because if you're going to assert that I said it, you're a holistic. How do you define knowledge? I did use the word knowledge, Floyd.
14
0:50:10
How do you define knowledge?
Darth Dawkins
0:50:11
How do you define knowledge?
Moderator
0:50:12
He said just, hang on guys, guys, hold on.
Darth Dawkins
0:50:13
He gets to talk, and then when I'm talking he interrupts.
Moderator
0:50:14
Yeah, go ahead, go ahead. You get your time.
Darth Dawkins
0:50:15
Do you see what's going on here? He talks, it goes on and on and on and on, and then when I start talking, he machine guns me, interrupting me. This is his method of operation. Now I asked Lloyd the question again and he goes off into this philosophical lecture as though it's an answer to my question. He's actually filibustering and dodging the question. He put up a slide and he said, is it the case where you cannot be wrong that Greg Bonson said or wrote this? I didn't ask you if you know it. I said, is it the case, does it comport with reality, that Greg Bonson said or wrote this? And what we get in response is not an answer to the question, we get a filibustering and a lecture about his ontology. He hasn't answered the question. Okay, one more second, ten more seconds. So I'll ask the question again. Floyd, can you demonstrate that it is the case that it comports with reality that Greg Bonson said that?
Moderator
0:51:17
Okay. I would like to open this up to other people, but in the meantime, EF, from Floyd's last response, it just sounded to me like he said he had an externalist justification, I think he said. Maybe I could have worded that incorrectly, but I think he said something like that. To what it reminds me, EF, is when you basically say that other people are giving themselves the authority instead of God. So I think you could have said that in that case, but I'm going to be quiet and I'm not really going to moderate too much now unless it gets way out of, you know, boiling over. But I would like everyone to be able to get a chance to speak if they want.
Floyd FP
0:52:08
So I'm going to... everyone's back now.
FloydFP
0:52:10
Yeah, so he's asking me... he's asking me if that comports with reality. Okay, it's a belief I have. It's something that I believe is truth and I go by the correspondence theory of truth. So he mentioned, he mentioned, does comport with reality, and then he asked for a justification. So what he's asking for is a justified true belief. Gee, what is justified true belief? Isn't that one definition of knowledge, yet, yet, Evolution False claims that he asked me nothing about knowing if that's the case.
Darth Dawkins
0:52:53
Well, you're not answering my question. You've yet to answer my question, Floyd.
FloydFP
0:52:56
No, I'm ripping apart your question.
Darth Dawkins
0:52:59
Do you need me to repeat the question, Floyd? No, no, I'm repeating it back to you. I'm saying how you're asking me. How can I tell? No, this is my time to speak.
FloydFP
0:53:15
Now, in...
Darth Dawkins
0:53:16
You're not answering my questions Lloyd.
FloydFP
0:53:17
Yes I am. Are you filibustering?
Darth Dawkins
0:53:19
No I'm not.
Floyd FP
0:53:20
But Lloyd, it seems to me that you, like you're just saying that you believe it's the case that he said these things, but you have no reason to actually, you have no way of knowing
Bystander.
0:53:31
that he...
Darth Dawkins
0:53:32
Other than you believing, here's the question.
FloydFP
0:53:33
Well no, I'm using an externalist... Lloyd, I don't care, I don't care... You still haven't let me answer.
Darth Dawkins
0:53:36
You still haven't let me answer. Okay, no, you...
Floyd FP
0:53:42
You still haven't let me answer.
FloydFP
0:53:43
So, again, this is my time. In your answering, you appealed to an external justification appealing to your ontology. And yet, when I do the same thing, you declare that that's unjustified. He's not answering the question, everybody. So if that's the case, if you can appeal to your ontology with an externalist justification for your claim, and then I do the same answer. Okay, Floyd, I asked you the question. Did you appeal your ontology? Floyd, I asked you the question. Floyd is attempting to avoid the question. I'm not avoiding it. I answered it. I've answered it time and time again.
Moderator
0:54:41
Hold on, hold on, hold on, please. Hey, EF, let's not, you know, talk about what he's trying to do. Let's just address what he's saying, okay? Let's just keep it simple, okay? So I'll bring you right back now. But please, none of the stuff about all of this like, you know, all that stuff. Please, just keep it to the content, please.
Darth Dawkins
0:55:05
Floyd, other than you believe it? Can you demonstrate other than your belief that it is the case that Greg Bonson wrote or said that and that comports with reality other than your belief?
FloydFP
0:55:28
Yes, by appealing to my ontology.
Darth Dawkins
0:55:32
Is your ontology based upon just your beliefs?
FloydFP
0:55:36
It's... a belief is... a belief is what you think is the case.
Darth Dawkins
0:55:41
Okay, so basically you can't demonstrate that Greg Bonson said... Yes, I can.
FloydFP
0:55:47
Outside of your beliefs can you?
Darth Dawkins
0:55:50
Outside of a mere belief, do you have any other way to demonstrate that it is the case?
FloydFP
0:55:54
What's the difference between a mere belief and some other sort of belief?
Darth Dawkins
0:55:57
Okay, well let's say for example that I was omniscient and I always spoke the truth. I could speak something to you and it wouldn't be a mere belief because I spoke omnisciently and I spoke truthfully to you. I could demonstrate to you anything that comports to reality above and beyond a belief. So setting aside just a mere belief that you have, other than just saying you believe it with varying degrees of confidence, is there any other means by which you can demonstrate that it is the case that Greg Bonson said that in reality?
FloydFP
0:56:31
Yes, if my ontology is truth, then I can know what Greg Bonson wrote.
Floyd FP
0:56:36
Don't you have to believe your ontology is truth?
Darth Dawkins
0:56:39
Your ontology is just you believing it.
FloydFP
0:56:40
Do you believe your God exists?
Darth Dawkins
0:56:41
Okay, Floyd is saying that...
Floyd FP
0:56:43
You're dodging the question.
FloydFP
0:56:44
No, I'm not.
FloydFP
0:56:45
I'm pointing out that I'm giving the same answer that he asked.
Darth Dawkins
0:56:49
No, what you're doing is you're filibustering by saying that you're
FloydFP
0:56:53
intolerant. I'm not filibustering. I've answered it over and over again. I'm sorry you don't like the answer. I've answered it the same way you've answered. No, what he's saying
Darth Dawkins
0:57:01
is you can't be for certain that he said that. Wait, wait, is certain? Is certain an ingredient?
Moderator
0:57:09
Real quick, real quick, hey guys, real quick. I want to let you answer his question, okay? But after you answer his question, I want to let him respond because I'm sure he'll want to respond. But then I want to let Spoken be able to speak for a little bit, okay? Because he's trying to say a lot of stuff, but it keeps getting stifled out. So, you know, you guys have a back and finish up your back and forth please, but I really want to open it up to some other people as well. Hold on, my computer is lagging a bit. So, all right, there you are.
FloydFP
0:57:49
Yes?
Darth Dawkins
0:57:50
Yeah, Floyd said that he can demonstrate that it is the case. My question was this to Floyd. Floyd, can you demonstrate that it is the case that Greg Bonson made such a statement other than just a belief that you have of varying degrees? Now, does everybody understand the question that I asked Floyd? And I'm going to tell you what Floyd said in response. He said, yes, I can demonstrate that Floyd, that Greg Bonson said something other than my belief of varying confidence by appealing to his ontology. But what did Freud say that his ontology was? His ontology is just varying degrees of belief. So what he's saying is, yes, I can give you a demo, I can demonstrate that it is the case that Greg Bonson wrote or said something other than my having varying degrees by belief by appealing to my ontology, and my ontology is a varying degrees of belief. So he's not answering the question.
FloydFP
0:58:49
That's how I understood it.
FloydFP
0:58:52
Knowledge, belief is an ingredient to knowledge. When you say you appeal to your God, that you're appealing to your belief. It's the same thing. When you say this is the case, it's no different than saying I believe it is the case, I think it is the case. When you're saying you're appealing to your beliefs, when you utter a sentence which you think reflects reality, that is a belief. So I don't see how you can object to a belief. The question is whether or not the belief is true or not. You know, appealing to an omniscient God who doesn't lie, that is your belief. So you're appealing to your own beliefs. Again, this is a double standard I'm hearing from you over and over and over again. So, EF, I want you, this is the next question I want you to answer. Are you not appealing to your ontology with an externalist justification for that ontology? Yes or no? Because that was my answer and we've gotten an answer out of you before that, yes, you do have an externalist justification. But I'm appealing to my ontology, I have an externalist justification, you're appealing to your ontology, and you have an externalist justification. What Spoken and EF seem to be objecting to is they want an internalist justification justification for me without realizing that they're not doing it for themselves. They're not doing an internal justification for themselves.
Moderator
1:00:36
They're doing it external.
7
1:00:37
Okay, so look, EF.
FloydFP
1:00:38
Yeah, they're doing it external.
Moderator
1:00:41
Okay, so EF, write that down and prepare an answer please. Okay, so EF, write that down and prepare an answer please. I want to let Spoken be able to address these topics please for some minutes.