EXPLAINING T.A.G. TO A SLOWBOI! @JayDyer @AnswersInAtheism @amidtheruinsOVERHAUL
Summary
TLDRLe script discute de la subjectivité des visions du monde et de la nécessité d'une base objectif pour le savoir et l'éthique. Il illustre comment une déclaration universelle de vérité est auto-contradictory lorsqu'elle est qualifiée de subjective, et soutient que l'existence de Dieu est essentielle pour justifier ces principes fondamentaux. Le débat explore également les conséquences de l'absence de Dieu sur la possibilité de connaissance et met en avant le rôle de Dieu dans l'intentionnalité et le sens de l'univers.
Takeaways
- 😀 Les visions du monde ne peuvent pas tous être subjectives, car cela conduirait à une contradiction logique.
- 🔍 Il est impossible de soutenir que toute vérité est subjective sans tomber dans une contradiction auto-réfutante.
- 🤔 La discussion sur la subjectivité des visions du monde mène à l'examen de la nécessité d'une base objective pour le savoir et l'éthique.
- 🧐 Un argument transcendantal est avancé pour soutenir l'existence de Dieu en tant que fondement pour les principes de la connaissance et de l'éthique.
- 🌟 La conversation met en lumière la distinction entre les visions du monde qui sont subjectives et celles qui sont objectivement justifiées.
- 📚 Les trois domaines fondamentaux d'une vision du monde sont l'épistémologie, la métaphysique et l'éthique.
- 🔄 L'argument est fait que sans Dieu, il n'y aurait pas de base pour les principes de connaissance, ce qui rendrait le savoir impossible.
- 🤷♂️ La discussion soulève la question de la nécessité d'un être divin pour justifier les principes logiques et mathématiques.
- 🌐 L'existence de Dieu est liée à la possibilité d'un univers ayant un but et une intentionnalité, contrairement à un univers sans Dieu qui serait sans but.
- 📉 La conversation débat de la coherence d'un monde où tout serait subjectif, ce qui rendrait le savoir et la vérité impossibles.
Q & A
Comment le script aborde-t-il la question de la subjectivité des systèmes de croyance?
-Le script soulève la contradiction d'affirmer que tous les systèmes de croyance sont subjectifs, car cela impliquerait une vérité objective, ce qui est auto-défiant.
Quelle est la position du personnage sur la cohérence des systèmes de croyance?
-Le personnage soutient qu'il est impossible de croire que la vérité est subjective, car cela mènerait à une contradiction absolue.
Pourquoi le personnage croit-il qu'il est impossible de prouver l'existence de Dieu en utilisant un argument transcendantal?
-Le personnage explique que sans l'existence de Dieu, il serait impossible de justifier philosophiquement les principes de base d'un système de croyance, comme la connaissance, l'éthique et la métaphysique.
Quels sont les domaines mentionnés dans le script qui constituent un système de croyance?
-Les domaines mentionnés sont l'épistémologie (doctrine de la connaissance), l'éthique (droit et faux) et la métaphysique (ce qui existe et ce qui n'existe pas).
Comment le personnage définit-il la relativisme et pourquoi pense-t-il que c'est un faux raisonnement?
-Le personnage considère que le relativisme est un faux raisonnement car, bien que nous ayons tous des systèmes de croyance différents, cela n'implique pas qu'ils soient tous subjectifs. Il y a des principes communs qui ne sont pas relatifs.
Pourquoi le personnage pense-t-il qu'il n'y a pas d'infini de possibilités pour les systèmes de croyance?
-Le personnage soutient qu'il y a un nombre limité de points de départ pour tout système de croyance possible, et que cela ne permet pas une infinité de systèmes de croyance.
Quelle est la position du personnage sur l'objectivité de la connaissance et de l'éthique?
-Le personnage soutient qu'il est nécessaire d'avoir une justification pour la connaissance et l'éthique dans un système de croyance, et que cela ne peut pas être fondé sur la subjectivité.
Comment le personnage aborde-t-il la question de la possibilité de la connaissance sans Dieu?
-Le personnage soutient qu'en l'absence de Dieu, il n'y aurait pas de base pour justifier les prétentions de connaissance, car il n'y aurait pas de principe pour expliquer des choses telles que les lois logiques ou les principes mathématiques.
Quelle est la conclusion que le personnage tire sur la nécessité d'un être personnel pour justifier les principes de la connaissance et de l'éthique?
-Le personnage conclut que seul un être personnel, comme Dieu, pourrait justifier et expliquer les principes de la connaissance et de l'éthique, car d'autres options ne fourniraient pas une justification suffisante.
Comment le personnage aborde-t-il la critique selon laquelle son argument est circulaire?
-Le personnage répond à la critique de l'argument circulaire en disant que son argument est basé sur l'impossibilité du contraire, ce qui est une forme d'argument de réduction ad absurdum.
Outlines
😀 Discours sur la subjectivité des visions du monde
Le paragraphe 1 explore l'impossibilité de considérer toutes les visions du monde comme subjectives. Il est expliqué que si toutes les visions du monde étaient subjectives, alors la déclaration même que toutes les visions du monde sont subjectives deviendrait une vérité objective, ce qui est une contradiction. Le texte soutient que pour avoir une vision du monde cohérente, il est nécessaire d'avoir une base pour le savoir et l'éthique, et cela mène à la discussion sur l'existence de Dieu comme fondement possible de ces principes.
🧠 Analyse des éléments d'une vision du monde
Le paragraphe 2 d'un script de vidéo traite des éléments fondamentaux d'une vision du monde, tels que l'épistémologie (théorie du savoir), l'éthique (droit et faux) et la métaphysique (ce qui existe et ce qui n'existe pas). Il est suggéré que si Dieu existe selon la vision du monde chrétienne, il y a une raison et une base pour croire aux principes de l'épistémologie, de la métaphysique et d'éthique. Sans Dieu, il n'y aurait pas de base pour le savoir, et les revendications de savoir ne pourraient pas être justifiées.
🌌 Impact de l'existence de Dieu sur la connaissance
Dans le paragraphe 3, le débat porte sur la cohérence de la connaissance dans un monde où Dieu n'existe pas. Si la vision du monde est basée sur l'absence de Dieu, connaissance ne pourrait pas avoir de sens, car tout deviendrait incertain et subjectif. L'argument soutient que si Dieu existe et est une entité personnelle, l'univers a un but et une intentionnalité, ce qui rend la connaissance possible. En revanche, si l'univers est sans but et sans intentionnalité, la connaissance ne peut pas exister.
🎉 Interaction avec le public et conclusion
Le paragraphe 4 est une partie plus interactive du script qui semble être une transition vers la conclusion de la vidéo ou un appel à action. Il y a une mention de 'Chad nerds' et un moment de connexion avec le public, probablement en ligne, avant de conclure la discussion sur la vision du monde et la place de Dieu dans celle-ci.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Sujet
💡Connaissance
💡Éthique
💡Vision du monde
💡Subjectivité
💡Objectivité
💡Contradiction
💡Mormonisme
💡Métaphysique
💡Argument transcendantal
Highlights
The necessity of having a consistent and coherent account of knowledge and ethics in one's worldview.
The impossibility of claiming that all worldviews are subjective, as it would be a self-defeating statement.
The argument that making a universal claim about subjectivity contradicts the notion of everything being subjective.
The introduction of a black atheist who challenges the notion of God's existence.
The claim that without God, it would be impossible to justify one's worldview philosophically.
The assertion that worldviews are not subjective but rather based on basic commitments within epistemology, ethics, and metaphysics.
The argument that different worldviews do not entail relativism.
The explanation that a worldview consists of shared principles rather than individual subjective beliefs.
The challenge to prove God's existence using the transcendental argument.
The discussion on how God's existence provides a basis for knowledge, ethics, and metaphysics.
The claim that without God, there would be no basis for knowledge claims.
The argument that linking the justification of knowledge to God is not a circular argument but a reductio ad absurdum.
The assertion that there are a limited number of starting points for any possible worldview.
The explanation that a worldview is defined by basic commitments to epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics.
The discussion on the impact of choosing between an intentional or non-intentional universe on one's worldview.
The argument that if the universe has no purpose, then knowledge is not possible.
The conclusion that subjective truths cannot justify the existence of objective knowledge.
The humorous ending where the atheist pretends to be a Mormon, highlighting the diversity of beliefs.
Transcripts
you got to have some account of
knowledge or ethics in your worldview so
the question is well who has a
consistent coherent account of knowledge
and ethics let me give you another
example of why it would be impossible to
say that World Views are all subjective
if World Views were all subjective you
couldn't say all worldviews are
subjective because that would be a
nonsubjective truth claim that would be
an objective truth
Point okay so it would be self-defeating
it's impossible to actually believe the
truth is subjective because do you do
you understand that if you say truth is
subjective that proposition itself is
self-refuting
no it's not five it is because you're
saying you're making a universal truth
claim that all truth is subjective you
can't make a universal claim if
everything is subjective well we can
make claims without well you can make
claims all day LA but they're not
justified claims they're contradictory
claims just cuz we're not certain about
something you can nothing to do with CT
it's not about certitude it's about a
Flatout contradiction you can't say
everything is subjective because
everything is a universal quantifier
about all states of Affairs at all times
it's a universal claim and that's not
possible if everything is
subjective I had there's a black man
atheist black science atheist man who's
talking smack hopefully he'll
come usually when I put sneo and Tate in
the title it brings Muslims but I don't
know I don't know what we're going to
get
today we
got R
roig what's up
dude got to unmute man come
on
unmute rig do you want to talk you have
to unmute
yourself okay
whatever better than you here's the guy
talking smack here we go what's up he's
going to set us
straight bro you just you just predict
that yeah dog what's up
bro what's up dog how you doing man
yo what up how's it going good you're
GNA set us straight to disprove the
existence of God is that what's up oh no
I'm I'm I'm from the church of latterday
saints so I'm a Mormon are you trolling
you're joking no I'm like a I'm dead ass
I'm like a Mormon so like you sound like
a black dude though they don't really
like black dudes in
Mormonism yeah but like you know I just
try to be different I'm just trying to
be like you're trolling you said that
you could you said follow the her you
know what I mean uhhuh yeah you're
trolling you said that you didn't
believe in God so now you're a Mormon
you're joking yeah okay um so how can
you prove God's
existence the transcendental
argument okay so can you elaborate on it
yeah without God's existence it would be
impossible to give a philosophical just
justification for one's
worldview that's how tag goes
aren't world view
subjective no I mean that would be a
self-defeating position if you believe
that worldviews R all
subjective so you don't think we would
have different world World Views we got
the same World Views having different
worldview doesn't that doesn't entail
that they're all subjective that's a
nonse so you think all World Views are
the same no at root everybody has a
worldview but not everybody has the same
world view but that doesn't mean that
everybody's worldviews are the
same yeah so they're not the same so
right but that doesn't entail relativism
so you understand that relativism will
be a false conclusion from the fact that
we have our own worldviews because
they're things that we all share in
common right so for example you got to
have you got to have some account of
knowledge or ethics in your worldview
so the question is well who has a
consistent coherent account of knowledge
and ethics let me give you another
example of why it would be impossible to
say that worldviews are all subjective
if worldviews were all subjective you
couldn't say all worldviews are
subjective because that would be a
nonsubjective truth claim that would be
an objective truth
claim okay so it would be self-defeating
but how does that link to God well
because if we're going to have to give
an account for our worldview and that
what what I believe a worldview is is
some basic commitments within the
domains of epistemology which is the
doctrine of knowledge ethics are right
and wrong and metaphysics what exists
and what doesn't so those three things
make up a worldview and we either have
an account for that worldview or we
don't if God exists in the Christian
World VI then there's a reason and a
basis for believing in the basic
principles of aist ology metaphysics and
ethics if there's no God there is no
basis for having knowledge at all you
couldn't justify your knowledge
claims Okay but well I could go into all
of that but I'm how do you link it to
God you could link it to anything how
how do you specifically just link it to
God literally anything not anything can
give a justification so there's all
kinds of things I could say therefore uh
potato chips right but potato chips
doesn't provide any justification for
the principles that I'm utilizing like
logic like reasoning uh like
mathematical principles Etc all those
things that are necessary to have a
coherent worldview they're not justified
by me just saying anything there's some
kind of being that gives an account for
them and grounds them and that's
precisely what God does God is the type
of being who would ground and give an
account for those types of things but
again you're just assuming that there's
a being that that's accounting for that
I'm not just assuming it I'm making the
argument it's a transcendental argument
has an actual form to the argument but
it's a circular argument cuz how how do
you prove that not circular circular the
argument is it's proven by the
impossibility of the of the contrary
that's a reductio
argument no it's not because there could
be other possibilities you just don't
know of any and you just assume it's God
there could could be other possibilities
could there not be there can't be other
possibilities because it's set up in a
disjunctive in an or you say there can't
or can there cannot be because the
argument you know that because because
there's a limited number of options
where as to where you can go in in terms
of a worldview for example no there is
not you're all knowing so so you
wouldn't be able to tell tell me if you
it doesn't require omniscience to make
that statement I can make that statement
because there's a limited number of
places that you can go to begin any
worldview any there's not an infinite
number of starting there is not an
infinite to what what you could link it
to and that's what I'm I'm saying
there's not not a limit to where you
could link it to you could link it to
being a god you could link it to being
anything else it could be linking it to
anything else will not do the work of
justification because you need a certain
type of being to ground the things that
we're talking
about what's that justifica what
justification is a principle in
epistemology it's giving an account
Justified true belief for the
how do you know nothing else could
justif justify what you just said
because there's a limited number of
starting points for any possible
worldview there's not an infinite number
of worldviews in terms of starting
points what Define worldview I already
did it's the the basic commitments to
the principles that we have in terms of
epistemology metaphysics and ethics
that's a
worldview so for example let me let me
give you an example let me give you an
example let's say let's take ethics
since you mentioned that there's not an
infinite number of possibilities between
knowled for example ethics either being
uh objective or subjective
right okay so there's not an infinite
that's an either or that's a disjunctive
so there's not an infinite number of
possibilities in that question so
therefore the way you answer that
question will determine a large portion
of your worldview after that that's why
I don't have to refute every single
worldview but you can justify your world
view by not deting the other ones
because you're just you're just assuming
your world view is Is Right without
knowing all of the other World Views
again I don't have to refute every
single worldview because there's a
limited number of world views from the
vantage point of starting
points so how do you know your world
view is correct because it's the only
one that gives an account for the basic
principles that I
listed epistemology what
metaphysics and ethics right so you need
all three of those things to have a
worldview they they're all kind they all
kind of go together so if I can argue
that for example that Universal Concepts
mathematical principles etc those things
can't be reduced to matter and if God
exists then it makes sense why there
would be those things why there would be
immaterial things like laws or uh laws
of logic uh laws of nature Etc so in
other words it's two different competing
worldviews and the worldview where God
exists those things make sense the
worldview where God doesn't exist
ultimately knowledge doesn't even make
sense it's not it's not coherent at all
there is no possibility of
knowledge there there couldn't be any
other possibilities where this this
could still be a
thing well I mean you're welcome to
argue something to what's your position
agnosticism you're not a
Mormon no I'm joking I'm not I knew you
were joking
no but how do you prove that it's a
personal being then right so for example
this this was other question I was going
to ask if you were to talk about
metaphysics like there's only certain
number of options that you could choose
for say the universe being intentional
or non-intentional or to use the Phil
philosophy terms theological or dis loic
if it's drological then the universe has
no purpose it's purpose less if God
exists and God is personal then the
universe has purposiveness it has an
intentionality because the God who
created it and it's directing it to some
end is personal so that's another
example of how if you choose a
nonpersonal absolute uh uh metaphysical
principle or if you choose a personal
one that will have a huge impact on the
kind of worldview that you have and
whether knowledge is possible so what
you just said was there there should be
a purpose otherwise there
it doesn't make sense no like like I
would frame it this way if there's no
purpose in I'm trying to make it simple
right purpose right so if God is not
personal then there's no intentionality
and purpose in the universe and if
there's no intentionality purpose in the
universe then knowledge is not
possible
Right how is knowledge not possible if
there's no purpose because everything
would be per purpose less and so what
you think has meaning or has
directedness doesn't really have that
it's all just purely
subjective well that that works fine
with my worldview okay well if
everything is subjective then knowledge
is not possible and you can't even say
that all knowledge is subjective as we
talked about
earlier well we we can look at
subjective truths in the community we
don't have to look at it as drastically
as you're looking at it in the whole
universe well but again it doesn't
matter whether it's the universe or
whether it's the community like there's
nothing that makes something true
because the community says so or thinks
so that doesn't make things true can't
can't the community be wrong about
stuff yeah I would concede to you that
truth is subjective but no but I'm
arguing it's not subjective it's
impossible to actually believe the truth
is subjective because do you do you
understand that if you say truth is
subjective that proposition itself is
self-refuting
no it's not f it is because you're
saying you're making a universal truth
claim that all truth is subjective you
can't make a universal claim if
everything is
subjective but I but you can't make but
if I'm saying everything's subjective
it's still
subjective every you're not justified in
making the claim because you're limited
as a finite being that's a What in in in
logic is called a universal quantifier
when you say everything why well we can
make claims
without well you can make claims all day
long but they're not justified claims
they're contradictory claims just
because we're not certain about
something you it has nothing to do with
cert it's not about certitude it's about
a Flatout contradiction you can't say
everything is subjective because
everything is a universal quantifier
about all states of Affairs at all times
it's a universal claim and that's not
possible if everything is
subjective okay
[Music]
well you're right you
won okay all right well I'll see you at
the Mormon Temple ceremony next week
good job dude 30,000 Chad nerds 30,000
Chad nerds 30,000 can you hear me nerds
40,000 on you
live 30,000 chat nerds are we live
[Music]
n
[Music]
oh
[Music]
30,000 Chad nerds 30,000 Chad nerds
30,000 can you hear me nerds 40,000 of
you live
Посмотреть больше похожих видео
Severo julgamento | A Imitação de Cristo | #09
The Meaning of TAG
Passa depressa a glória do mundo | A Imitação de Cristo | #16
l'Islam et son prophète Muhammad sont-ils crédibles selon la Torah ? Où sont les preuves ? Rav Chaya
Christianity's Fatal Error
Vigiar no começo da tentação | A Imitação de Cristo | #48
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)