Kel vs Whyfun | Gods existence

debate, bro. Your topic. He debates theology.

Do you agree? Do you agree with like um God's existence or no? Yeah.

You do? Okay. Um you want to debate that?

Sure, bro. Use my new argument. The one I'm All right.

So, you have an argument for No, it's not a new argument. It's something that was made like 30 years ago by it was made like over Oh. Oh.

Oh. Oh. That's fine.

That's fine. All right. Um, it was maybe a thousand years ago, but I'm using it, man.

Yeah. Yeah, that's that's that's okay. Um, you want to give the you can just portray the argument.

I'll watch. Yeah, I'm putting it in chat. So, just in case you can't follow it, this is put in an arisatilian a whatever possesses property by degrees must derive that property from that which possesses it in maximum degree.

Final premise. Um things in the world possesses properties such as goodness, truth, and nobility by degrees. What do you think truth is?

Correspondence. You say correspondence with reality or some sort. Yeah, I don't agree to that theory of truth.

Okay. I agree with the pragmatic theory of truth. Okay.

Yeah. No, no. I'm just saying that what your criteria of truth is, I'm not going to actually agree with.

So I don't care what you argue. Are you dumb, [ __ ] [ __ ] we're going to argue about it. We don't need to argue about it.

What's the point? If we grant your theory of truth, then what? That's not what I mean by Okay, then you're going to grant my theory of truth.

You're going to Okay. Do you grant um instrumentalism as well? I didn't say I did grant that.

I said even if I grant it, then it's not going to get you anywhere. So, my point is it really is. I say truth, I just mean some sort of correspondence.

What do you think a property is in this case? possessing this property that degrees must derive the property from that which possesses it in a maximum degree. What do you think that property ought to be?

Well, there's different types what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a pure perfection. Do you know what pure perfection is?

Let me let me let me try to pure perfectionist. I don't care see Hold on. Hold on.

Hold on. Hold on. I'm just looking upon what he's saying right now.

Hold on one second. You better shift this [ __ ] back to theology. What the [ __ ] Yeah.

No. No. I don't agree to any of this.

Okay. Obviously, I don't agree to Okay. I don't agree to the great Jason.

I don't. Yeah, I know. But I told you.

Yeah. But listen, do you know what a pure perfection is? Yes or no?

Do I know what a pure perfection is? You want to give your definition? Go ahead.

Yeah. Pure perfection is something which is not limited by its concept or by its essence. So if we say like advice to Yes.

Like an example of this would be like beauty. Beauty in and of itself is not limited. But when we conceited by the subject it adheres in or intelligence could be an example.

Like if I say like well intelligence the way it subsist in a dog wait I'm say intelligence the way it subsists in a dog cannot be as great as intelligence as it subsists in the human but as but it can be greater in aliens for example or just other beings that could possibly possess it higher. So it's not limited in concept. It's limited about the thing in which it adheres in.

Yeah. So like for an example, ontology is just going to be limited within the thing it adheres like metaphysics, right? Yeah.

It references metaphysics. Yeah. Okay.

So all right. So I understand that. But that's why I'm telling you I don't agree to any of those criteras.

Huh? I don't agree to those um criteras. That's what I'm saying.

You don't think that they exist? No, I don't agree with the gradation in which you actually present like goodness and [ __ ] Well, I just you Why don't you So you think that when I say a human is intelligent and a dog is intelligent, I mean in the same sense. What are you talking about?

That's not what I'm saying. That's not what you're saying. Then there's a gradation.

I'm talking about the gradation in which you're trying to necessitate a cause relationship to the maximum. Well, when we speak of you said you disagree with gradation, so we're going step by step. So right and this is going to be calm down calm down let me say this me establishing the fact that there is these pure perfections which are only limited by virtue of the thing in which it's subsistent then there is this sort of rudation that's first what I'm trying to establish well no no no that's what I'm saying when you're speaking about the no you're trying to use the Thomas Aquinus account which I'm obviously going against this the gradation of properties in this case is just going to be something that's going to be telling the existence of maximally perfect being like God, right?

But this is the problem. I just think it's going to be more of an equivocation fallacy. And the problem is is saying that when you're speaking about the argument, um it assumes um things like heat or goodness vary by degrees.

But if they're going to be um maximum, then that's just going to cause the degrees below it, right? But I'm just saying that not all properties that degrees must be ex must exist due to the perfect form of that property. For an example, I believe that tallness can come in degrees, but this doesn't imply the existence of a maximally tall being.

So that's what I'm just saying. So when causing these other things, this is just going to be a platonic realist form, which I don't agree to. Well, okay, dude.

We're going step by step, bro. Uhhuh. And we're going I gave a calm down.

Calm down. Calm down. You have ADHD.

You're bouncing from point to No, you're a little bit of a stupid [ __ ] ass. Wow. I got Listen, that was not helping you.

I'm sorry that did not hit. It would have actually hit if you would have actually [ __ ] with this battle. But it's okay.

It's okay. Keep going up. Now that now that we're done like going across the whole argument, we can get back to the point I was trying to prove to you which is one that there is gradation and two this gradation cannot be um so it must because there is this gradation then we must say the thing either has this property in and of itself or gains this property from another.

But we can't say it gains it from itself because the same thing as the reason for its negation can't be the reason why it has its contradiction. Okay, your core assumpt listen your core assumption that you're basically saying is that the degrees of properties like goodness to them nobility and things require a maximally perfect source of those properties. What I'm trying to tell you that the degrees of quality can exist without referencing a maximum or perfect instance.

So that when I said the gradation, I'm attacking the gradation implying this maximally great being. You don't understand that's a nonseal. What are we good?

Yeah. Am I like tweaking or does he not understand it? We're getting there.

Like we're Do you not understand? Like we take steps to get to an argument. We don't just arrive there right away, dumbass.

I think he was dumb. Oh, you dumb. I know he's critiquing the major premise, but first we just went over gradation.

Now I'm explaining to him how this how they must derive it from something else. They gain this perfection from something else because the same reason for its negation aka its essence cannot be the reason in which it has the property in the first place. You're saying so hold on hold on let's break that down.

You said the same reason it has the o you said the same reason it has it properties. No, the same reason for its negation can't be the same reason why it has the property. Like if if I say this thing A negates B, then A cannot um cause B because it neg it's the negation of it.

Okay. And what does this mean? So dark matter.

So then this thing cannot have of itself. It gets it from another. So it can't get it from another source because it would have to be So it gets it from another source.

Yeah. So it has to get from another source. Why?

You have to gain it from another source. Oh my god. Oh my god.

Perfect source. Okay, so there there's a couple critiques I can give to this. Oh my god.

You're a [ __ ] All right. No, just because he gets it from Listen, just cuz he gets it from another source, this doesn't have to be a maximally great thing. We're getting there, dumbass.

And then and then hold on, you're a dumbass. Hold on. You're a dumbass.

And also just because like I said it gets it from another source in this case you're going to now be trying to go against it boot contingency. You dumb [ __ ] Anyways, you said I'm going against a brute contingency. Yes, because you're now saying that it can't be brute um it can't be like this brute contingent fact.

What am I saying can't be a brute contingent fact? Cuz you're trying to say that it has to be derived from something else. So you're saying that it cannot be like this contingent packed?

Yeah, that's okay. Yeah, I gave my reasoning for that. Are you going to like negate it?

I just negated it multiple times and I explained why it's a nonsequ. You said well it doesn't have to lead to a maximum great being. You didn't explain why it doesn't have to gain it from another cuz I just I gave was the fact that since it's the reason for its negation.

It can't be the reason why it has the property in the first place. Oh, are we good? You can't be the source.

Did I not abruptly just did I not abruptly just went against this already? What did you say against this? Oh, are we good?

Okay. Just because you're not tracking. I'll help you out one more time.

Okay. I want to track this. So nonsequal.

It's going to be a nonsequal because like I said, obviously the premise assumes a gradation of the property in itself and it's going to necessitate the cause relations for a maximum. But I said the degrees of the property do not logically require the single source for an example because we have things like um how would we say this like temperature which can be varying in degrees but they're not just going to be caused by like a maximum of something cuz a maximum doesn't have to actually be um reduced. So the potentiality the potentiality of this maximum doesn't have to be reduced to any actuality or have to actually exist in any sense.

Ryan, how many times did I tell this? Ryan, what have I been repeating? Like the whole just give up, bro.

Just continue to not like Ryan, have I not been saying we're getting there like the whole debate, bro? Like I don't know why he keep trying to like move on the truth. I think that was relevant.

Yeah, it's very relevant. It's not, but I was the what's it called? Correspondent.

Yeah, I disagree with that. Yeah. Why he asked you why it was true earlier?

We don't even need to get into that cuz it's not relevant to the argument. We don't have to we don't have to talk about we don't have to talk about truth in the sense of um of pure perfection to it doesn't matter. No, no, no.

Y derailing too bad. What? Y'all are derailing.

Are you dumb? This dig is derailing. Okay, Chase, listen.

No, no, I think he's actually [ __ ] dumb. Life, you're actually ass that like you keep derailing like he'll you'll argue that you just derailed to a point that he did not win over yet. So it's like Oh my god.

But he used it within these premises which I'm li they have he has ADHD bro these [ __ ] can't like stay on one point for a second bro. All right here's just going to be my main critique. I'm just like I'm just going to say that the premise is going to get lost.

Listen hold on stop the premise assumes that the gradation implies the viation from a maximum but this is just going to be conflating the comparison within causation. For example, like I said, temperature for an example. Objects have varying temperatures due to the energy transfer, but this does not make a derivation from a maximum temperature or like like something that's like absolutely hot or like the height difference for an example.

We can just say that in height we can arise like genetic um any type of environment for an example, right? But this mean that it's going to be talking about the not like the most polished being in this case. So in these open and closed scales we would be saying that many properties like goodness may lack a definitive maximum.

So that's why I'm saying I don't agree that there has to be some maximum derived. So no I I disagreed with this only pure perfection is not a pure perfection. Oh my god.

Did you not did you not understand? We're talking the pre the major premise is talking about pure perfection. Oh I'm about to cook this [ __ ] Okay.

Define perfection. One more time. Watch this.

I'm about to cook him. Yeah. It's something which is not limited in his concept.

In in the case that's not in his concept. Why? In the case of it being Why?

Why? What do you mean why? I don't agree to that.

I'm agnostic. Why? What?

I'm agnostic. So I'm telling you why would we actually appeal to this criteria? Why would What did you just say?

Won as being something that's language is not limited to it concept. Do you think wildly we appeal to this criteria is what I'm arguing. That's why that's why it would appeal to these semantics.

That's why. So wait, hold on. Do you believe that this is going to have like objective criteria to pay perfection?

Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

I don't agree to that. I don't agree with independent existence. You don't think that things exist?

No, cuz I No, no. I believe that they exist only in this principle from a graph cuz I'm I'm just going to go under a pragmatic um theory of truth and I'm going to agree with instrumentalism. So, like I was trying to say, this is what I was trying to get to earlier what the [ __ ] truth point is.

I don't believe that exist. I don't I don't believe that you're trying to say that this has independent existence, but I only think that it only exists in this crazy. Yeah, I only agree that it's going to be indispensable from a graph.

So, it's going to be something that can be causally graph. It's going to be something that's going to be teological within a graph. It's not going to actually have this independent existence of social.

like all the forbidden kill economics and you start bringing up like 84,000 different things. I'm going to be valuing utility. I'm going to be valuing utility over metaphysical commitment.

Get off. That [ __ ] is not helping. No, this so like listen.

I've been writing this [ __ ] down. So this is my So wait, answer the question. Like from what I from what I'm getting from your thing, do you think that there's other things that exist independently?

Do I believe that anything exists independently? No. No.

That there's things that exist. Wait, nothing existent. I don't agree with the existential quantifier.

No, nothing independently. I don't agree with nothing exists independently. No, I don't believe anything exists independently of the graph.

Of a graph. What do you mean of a graph? Okay.

So like I was trying to say let me help you out a little bit. So let me take this philosophical approach. So when we're speaking about the philosophical of pragmatical we're establishing truth, necessity and reality in such a way is is practically indispensable and indistinguishable for um pragmatical applied systems.

So cultural realists would have to tend to agree to such things in the sense that they establish reality not as this objective criteria but as this function of utility. So that's why I'm saying I don't agree to this objective. So reality is just a function of utility, right?

No, but that's not all I define reality as in a sense. Wait, do you think do you think you exist? I believe I exist yet.

No, like independent like independently. No, I'm saying no. No.

I'm saying remember I'm not trying to talk about my independence in this case. I'm talking about in the sense that when you speak about mind independence, I'm saying that all of this is just going to be within um something that could be reasoned or grafted out. So it existence is just going to be in this book.

Oh my god. So when I asked you though said do I exist, you said do I exist independently? Yeah, mine independently.

And I'm telling you that the existence for pragmatism says that existence in this case means functionally real within a framework. not independently out there. So, no, I believe that Does that answer my question at all?

I believe that everything I believe that everything we speak of is just going to have to exist functionally real within the framework. Everything into this framework is going to have to exist. Functionally real to the framework.

Yes. So, is that a yes or a no to the question? I'm confused.

Um, well, like I said, no, I just want to make sure we're not going to get any wrong answer. So to exist is to be importable into some like intelligibility to do explanatory predictable modeling work within a framework. So yes I do believe somehow bring this up to patience.

You said what repeat what you said existence is this is pragmatism. So existence for pragmatism is just saying that you're going to um existence means functionally real within a framework not independently out there. So you're functionally real in terms of a framework.

Huh? You're functionally real in a framework. You're functionally real within a framework.

Yeah. What does it mean? What do you What do you mean by real in that case?

Damn wife says it's unlocked. It's okay. It's okay.

What do you mean? That's okay. That's okay.

Listen. to exist fundamentally real is that just basically saying that to be usable within a system or thought or action for explanation, prediction or modeling. So when something exists, it's not because it's an independent out um entity out there or like this independent ontological commitment that you're going to basically be importing.

It's going to be this thing that's going to be imported into intelligibility. So it's just going to be playing as like this meaningful role within an inquiry. So anything that's just going to be having utility is just going to be valued in utility.

Now, like I said, obviously I'm going against God, but listen, I want to say something. I agree with God, but that's your definition of God. That's your criteria of God.

I believe that God exist only something that's going to be utility in the sense of I can grab him in a way in which he governs these indispensable from utility. So, no, I agree with God, but I don't agree with your definition of God. I don't agree with the God that you're presenting.

So, no. Yeah. So, yeah.

Yeah. Yo, so first of all, I have a few questions for that view then. Do you think this framework is something which exists independently?

Do I think the framework exists independently? Yeah. So you're saying you can graph it onto a framework and what's the criteria for this intelligence?

Hold on. Hold on. What do you Is it intelligible to your mind?

Is it intelligible to some other mind or do you Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.

What do you think? Hold on. I'm going to instrumentalism.

I don't think you're actually understanding me. What do you think I mean by a framework? Just be so honest.

There's no what definition? Hold on. I don't know why Van's talking.

Will you tell me what you mean by framework? Go ahead. I just explain it to you.

All right. A system. A framework.

Okay. A framework in a pragmatic sense. It's just going to be a coherent system of concepts, assumptions, and rules and um maybe even goals we use to even make sense of the world.

So when we're giving like a guiding or a structure explanation, it's lens or like a toolkit in how we interpret and engage with reality. So what do you So you want my definition of reality cuz you're speaking about like this form of existence. You're actually just trying to limit it to like my independence or um um correspondence.

My dependence. But this is why I'm saying or or correspondence. Correct.

Um, but I'm saying that reality is just going to be equaling the set of pragmatically indispensable elements for organizing reasoning, prediction, and modeling. Um, or explanations. So, like I was trying to say, I still am going to value utility over metaphysical commitment.

All right, I'm back. I got Wait, is anybody recording that [ __ ] Yeah, I've been recording. I got spam repeat what you said.

Yeah. Yeah. So, hold on.

It's fine. It's fine. It's fine.

So like I said, reality is not all that exists out there, but it's just going to be this indispensable um thing that's going to be um for making sense of the world and our frameworks and practices. Meaning reality is the totality of all constructs, frameworks or entities that are pragmatically indispensable for coherent reasoning, explanation or interaction. And this would all be graphed.

So anything that you try to give me right now, even if you try to give me a count of all that, it's going to be within the graph. All of this is going to be having to applying some variables. Anything that you try to argue for God would have to basically everything have to Yeah.

Yeah. Everything you're gonna have to say is going to have to basically be um having some utility or usefulness in supplementing your point. So all of this is still going to be indispensable from utility which is just going to be going back into my pragmatic um theory of truth.

So no matter what you do, you're actually just going to be going right back into my point. Any thought you give, anything you do, you're going to be losing this. I'm just explaining.

So to be so to be clear your definition of exist is something which you can graph onto a framework right my definition what are you denoting when you say something there so like I was trying to say so like it can be like this thing like possibilities for example possibilities exist meaning um it will be functionally real within a framework in the case it's importable into intelligibility to do some explanatory predictive power so in this case intangibility for for Who you said? Tangibility. Is that what you said or did I No, just to understand it in general.

So like possibilities. How do we understand possibilities? Do we think possibilities have this independent objective criteria of existence?

Well, um a pragmatist would say no. We wouldn't actually agree with that because we'll just be thinking about possibilities in the case of labeling it as this consistent um criteria which is just be indispensable from any framework in which we try to understand how they can actually speak about different um criteras in which a variable can um under speaking you're speaking of these frameworks and things when you when you talk about these frameworks. Mhm.

Cuz then your semantics of existence even make sense to me. But if we say Yeah. Yeah.

Are you trying to I'm saying when we talk about these frameworks, these frameworks, do they exist inside of a mind or not? That's what I'm trying. You're asking if they exist within a mind?

Yes. Are they some mind independent criteria? Like I said, hold on.

Hold on. Hold on. I'm going to make this very easy for you cuz I don't think you're actually understanding.

You saying I'm not understand. It's a yes or no question. How would it stop?

Yes or no. Stop. It's not going to be yes or no.

I don't agree with that. Listen. Stop to the wall in the middle or something.

[Music] The wall of excluded middle chill out. Chill out. Chill out.

Middle is going to also be um it's going to also be something that's just going to have to be grounded within utility. But listen, that's not the point. You can think that.

But is it When you speak about a question, hold on. When you speak about a question, yes or no? I don't know why you're trying to over talk me.

It's not going to help you. When you speak about a question, you're talking about it has to be yes or no. It has to be strictly defined to binary terms, but you're just limiting the um possibilities.

I would just say that's a false dichotomy cuz I can give other possible answers to that [ __ ] thing without directly saying yes or no. So, no, I don't believe it's going to be a yes or no question, you dumb [ __ ] But that's okay. I'll help you out.

So when I'm speaking about um primotes in this case and how they're going to be existing within the instrumentalist case, we're going to have to define things like truth, necessity, and we're going to have to define things like um reality as well. So since I define reality, I'll explain truth. I'll explain my truth.

Do you want to I mean do you want to argue about it? You ready? You dumb [ __ ] You dumb.

You stupid [ __ ] I'm about to kill this [ __ ] on what I mean by tooth angles too. Oh [ __ ] Let's go. Mike Tyson.

Okay. You ready to answer the question now? Oh yeah.

I'm I'm ready. We can go up on this. I just want to talk about truth.

Do you hold your need to actually establish that question? Listen. Hold on.

No, I said that it can still be accepted within my hypothesis. There's no problem with that. Listen, it's accepted as an action.

Correct. And it's accepted proposition if I put forward the proposition that it exists independently. If yes, then it's true.

If no, it is false. This is an icon tracking. Look at this tracking.

Hey yo. Hey yo, hold on. Tran.

This [ __ ] is ass right now. Hold on. Listen.

He just said that. Oh, because if I didn't answer yes or no directly to his question. This is just going to be denying some law of excluding middle because law of excluding middle is saying that something has to either be true or false.

But no, if I say yes to something, that does not mean that that has to be true in a sense. And no, it's not going to be representing falsicity. You dumbf.

It's not going to be the same comparison. When I say it's not the only possible answer, it's like yes or no. Like if I were to say, "How's it raining today?

" Um, I mean, how's it raining today? I don't have to say yes. I don't have to say no.

I can give these other It's not a binary question, dumb ass. There's binary and non-binary questions. No, you're trying to say it's binary, but I don't agree as binary cuz I can give these other possible answers with no contradiction.

I'm [ __ ] I mean, you're saying you're saying you didn't do that, but that was the middle of my dumb ass. Hold on. example nonbinary question.

So a example of the binary question would be there's either things are e yeah I can say things either exist or they don't exist and I could ask you this in a form exist no say they don't exist yes we say they do exist it's not yes or no binary question yes or noary listen just because the outcome can be having yes in it will be reduced to some yes that does not mean that it's only possible mean yes or no you dumb [ __ ] justification I can give a justification on the how and this is another possible answer that can be posed to your [ __ ] question so I can actually derive the set of [ __ ] you dumb oh [ __ ] that's going to go to when we go into like um he laughed bro but yeah I was going to say even in basian accounts when we can actually appeal to bullying logic. We have uncertain truth like we have we can have uncertainty and it could just be that at the very level we don't know whether or not a proposition is true or false. Did you understand?