Transcendental Argument in 1 minute (Versus Materialism)

Honestly believe Molyneux is deliberately missing the point. He and his supporters engage with low-follower accounts and low-tier replies, but when I state precisely and cogently what you’re arguing… Crickets.

the funny thing is... they do exactly what they accuse the believer of. Christian: how do you give an account for ur immaterial presuppositions in your materialist worldview? Atheist: I don't have to, they're just there. Materialism gives rise to immaterial things. lol

Stefan’s voice was 3x higher pitched than usual. That was his worldview being strangled to death.

I used TAG to refute materialism in an essay for my intro to philosophy course last year and got a C LOL

I clipped this part too -cannot be more clear👌 Who would have thought knowing knowledge about knowledge would make God so necessary..

my dad loved being around blacks because he was the smartest among them. there he could be the white king and his social anexiety and insecurity melted. he loved his fragile ego being stroked more than just about anything. you are very much like him. a very smart capable guy reduced in many ways by the alure of your ego happy meal (Christianity).

I'm a catholic but not the biggest fan of this argument, I prefer to go straight to consciousness ie that which we know of more than anything else. I feel like much of this can fall under pattern recognition which, since an AI can do I suspect isn't necessarily transcendental

The fact you have cognition at all is completely dependent on nerve cells protected by myelin which is made of cholesterol. These are materials that have form and purpose. Stop protecting your terroristic ideologies.

Jay I dont think you realize how much damage you have done to these groups: - atheists - jews - muslims - lds - and everyone else in the past 10 years. the funny part is the internet really did the plan B for you. absolute demolotion of worldviews. you have honestly closed worldviews and opened the eyes of those who have been seeking truth.

Knowledge requires: truth, belief, justification There’s is no good evidence for a god

These two cannot argue against eachother, you can argue against the validity/depth of “truth” in empiricism but fundamentally empiricism is using observations as evidence you are using the definitions of the terms involved these are two different domains.

there was nothing transcendental happening in Elephantine Island with the spin off canon of Bible Buy Bull

Says someone made up of trillions of atoms moving at a slow vibration constructing his material presence.

An idea is not a material thing, it’s generated by a material thing, as an abstract imperfect vision in one’s mind…dreams, are false constructions, that exist only in the mind, ideas exist in the mind too…the ways in which we perceive the flawless universe, are imperfect

You don’t need the transcendental argument to make/confirm empirical statements based on observing trial and error, you only need it to justify them in a rationalistic empistemological frame, empiricism and rationalism are different epistemic standards so don’t apply to eachother

And this whole argument you’re making is stupid because it undermines the premise that we can’t know anything for sure…if the universe is flawless, and we are flawed mentally, we only see the universe TO A DEGREE…so you’re creating a standard no one can meet, including you

The physical world = flawless…human interpretation of the physical world flawed due to finite intelligence and using lies to survive and etc…the laws of logic don’t exist, a universal dynamic doesn’t need a law, that’s our idea to call it that, the mind world

TAG in 1 minute: 1. Pick one disputed theory of knowledge. 2. Treat abstractions as spooky metaphysical objects. 3. Ask why materialists can’t find them under a microscope. 4. Call every epistemic “ought” a moral ought. 5. Assert that only God can “ground” all of this.

"Truth value requires some assessment of the good, or the true vs the false, and that you ought to choose the true vs the false." How the fuck does 2+2=4 mean people ought to believe that? Like a moral ought?

A law of logic would be, “a human can’t exist in 2 places at once”…but that’s just a human mind generated interpretation of the structure of the universe…we’re calling it a law…religion, a cops authority, rights, transgender, etc…exist in the mind world, not in reality

One isn’t right and one isn’t wrong one isn’t superior and one isn’t inferior, they have different uses

Ping @RSorman1

The idea of Santa Claus does not exist, in the universe, it’s human mind generated, as a vision in the mind, like a dream we can arrange existing colors and shapes and etc to communicate with ourselves…the laws of logic, don’t exist either, neither does god, etc…it’s the mind

“In the Christian worldview, it all makes perfect sense why those things exist” *opens Genesis and proceeds to read how God took 6 days to make the Earth and create Adam from literal dust on the ground* If you didn’t have a physical brain, you could not make any these arguments

You have this idea that the ideological world and physical world are separate…the brain generates the ideological world, for awareness and survival…it’s not in some “spirit realm of ideas where the laws of logic live”…our interpretation of the flawless universe, is in themind

But I do agree that the conclusion to strict materialism is unfounded and there are many examples to point that there are phenomena outside our ability to measure and in future the context of material/immaterial forces will be much more complex in relation to spiritual phenomena.

K Tone here. Sometimes, people will lie, steal and cheat just to protect their investment. Peace and Patterns. 👊

TAG assumes, rather than establishes, that logic requires an external ontological ground. Why couldn’t logical necessity be fundamental and ungrounded? Aseity. Logic need not be grounded in anything ontologically prior; its necessity may be fundamental. Causality.