Capp.KG WIPES THE FLOOR with Deconstruction Zone... | Theism Debate

[00:00:00]Uh, Cap, how you doing?

[00:00:02]>> Yeah, I'm doing good, man. Um, so the background says God hates you. Prove me wrong. Um, the first question I have is just, do you accept clarity questions in regards to your argument? Um, and then >> Okay. Yeah. So, the first clarity question is what exactly is meant by hate? Because obviously um there are different understandings of the term, right? Like we we can understand hate in this type of psychological understanding. There are like hyperbolic interpretations of the term hate. Um there are other interpretations of the term hate which are I'd say compatible with only benevolence. Um so what exactly uh do you take hate to be and then we can get into your argument.

[00:00:38]>> So hate I would say is like a disdain or dislike.

[00:00:44]Um maybe you would say the opposite of like. So if you like somebody the opposite of that would be you hate them.

[00:00:50]Although I would say hate is like um an exaggerated form of dislike. Would that uh be okay?

[00:00:58]>> Yeah. So, you want to say like there's this type of like deep attitude of like opposition or rejection towards someone.

[00:01:04]Um, that's kind of accurate. Yeah, I would say that's kind of the definition of hate that you're using. Perfect. So, now we can get into the argument.

[00:01:13]>> Okay. Uh, so, um, let me ask you a question. How could one know what are the the traits and the characteristics of hatred? I mean, how does one know if they're hated or if they hate somebody?

[00:01:28]So some of the under like what's known what's needed for hate is just that the agent has this type of strong rejection towards someone or something. Maybe they have the desire for this person to you know go away, no longer exist. Um for this person to stop doing what they're doing. Um maybe they're angry at someone. Um it's it's not about like um it doesn't always have to mean these things. It's more about how strongly you reject something, right? Because you can have anger and not necessarily hate someone, right? you can have this type of um you can you can kind of want someone to stop engaging in their type of behavior and um not like kind of hate them in this sense. So it's it's about I understand hate as the strongest possible form of disapproval or rejection. Do you agree with this?

[00:02:10]Like I think there's a symmetry breaker to be made between um the the type of hate that I'm talking about and um the type of understanding of anger or kind of like you know do do you agree that there's a distinction to be made there?

[00:02:25]I do think that it's a strong form of uh rejection. I don't know if I would say it's the strongest form of rejection because I think the [clears throat] English language is so flexible. It just doesn't seem necessary to add that carve out to it. But we agree it's a very strong form of rejection or disdain or dislike. Yeah.

[00:02:45]>> Yeah. And you can you can get the type of understanding of someone hating someone by, you know, maybe looking at certain actions that they take. um you have like a a difference between um hatred and type of this type of like justice or this type of like righteous anger. Um but we get we get the idea of hate from type of actions that the agent involves in and their external reflection of their mental state. So like if someone literally is just saying, "Oh, I hate you. Go away. I don't I don't want you to be involved."

[00:03:14]You might have a positive reason to say, "Well, that person actually does hate the other person." You know what I mean?

[00:03:18]Um, so it's all about kind of looking at and analyzing type of this type of psychological representation of the mental states there. Um, so the goal in mind for this conversation [clears throat] I know exactly where you're going. When I say hate, I'm just saying hey. Um, hate is referring to a disdain, an aversion, a dislike, hostility towards somebody.

[00:03:39]>> But you asked me a type of epistemic question which was how do you know someone hates someone else? I'm just laying those criteria out right now. So the goal for the discussion here is just um for you to establish that God fits this type of um definition of characteristic um in so far as like giving me an argument for the claim basically. So now that we have that out the way, we can kind of >> that's what I that's why I asked what do you think is indicators of hate? So for example, if somebody said uh this person over here hates, how could we validate the claim?

[00:04:13]Yeah, I guess you can look at um the type of reflection of the intrinsic mental states with the external actions, right? So um if someone has like a persistent rejection of someone, a type of desire for a separation, refusal to respect individuals, um maybe you want to say their like even their words, right? Like words are an external reflection of mental state. So if we talk about the words that someone says, if they say straightforward like I hate you, I don't have any respect for you.

[00:04:40]maybe they say, you know, disrespectful things. It seems like that also can lend prudence towards the claim that the person hates someone else, right? Um so the goal for the discussion, and this is kind of where I was going, um was for you to demonstrate that God does these type of things or somehow satisfies the definition of characteristic. Um I'm specifically looking for an argument for the prompt. Um I I don't want to do the thing where we did like the kind of Socratic method question like bogging down in questions. I just want you to lay out the argument and we can discuss from there.

[00:05:10]Yeah, the argument is basically under the standard definition that we use of hate um God would fit the category, right? So if uh hating something means that you um uh disdain uh somebody, if hating somebody means that you um act in hostility towards uh somebody in would say in an undeserved manner then I would say that you are acting in hatred.

[00:05:40]So, for example, hostility is one of those things that could be justified or unjustified, right? If somebody hostile to uh say an invading army, we would say that well that's justified, right? It's an invading army. If somebody's just hostile to somebody who uh just, you know, accidentally stumbled on the wrong land, that's a whole another situation, right? So, I think hostility is like undeserved uh violence, right?

[00:06:05]>> Um hostility is undeserved violence. It seems like that's kind of baking in these type of axiological understandings of what's proper um in regards to your reactions to certain actions. Um do you have an account of by the title?

[00:06:20]>> I'm just using the definition. I'm not using philosophy. The definition of hostility is a state of deep-seated ill, unfriendliness or aggression, opposition towards people or ideas.

[00:06:33]>> To be clear, you are using philosophy.

[00:06:35]So, I'm going to dismiss your question and address the claim you just made.

[00:06:38]You're using the definition.

[00:06:40]>> Well, I'm just using the definition. I don't want [clears throat] you to do this. You interrupt me because I've let you interrupt me. So, >> I'm going to interrupt you because you're you're trying to avoid the fact that I'm just using basic definitions and you're trying to like run away from the basic definition of the word.

[00:06:53]>> So, let me explain why my critique is relevant because I've let you interrupt me several times and I haven't said anything. So, are you willing to let me get the thought out? Like 30 seconds at least or maybe even 20. Just like get the thought out.

[00:07:02]>> Do whatever you need to do. So you made the claim that you weren't using philosophy when you are using philosophy especially in regards to this type of talk about um deserved right you said um you know we can kind of evaluate God's actions and acting in hostility towards someone in an undeserved manner now the underlying assumptions there's some underlying assumptions there right which is just that there's a coherent account of what's deserved and what's not and that there's these type of axiological or moral understanding.

[00:07:30]>> You're trying really hard to get ahead of my argument.

[00:07:32]>> I'm not finished talking. Did I say that God does anything um that is like undeserved yet?

[00:07:37]>> You said God >> that's what you're trying to do right now. Right now you're trying to run an argument basically assuming that based on your philosophical assumptions about God, everything God does do is now deserved. And you haven't even heard my argument yet.

[00:07:51]>> That's not what I said. I said that specifically your account of um hatred and the type of actions that can entail hatred um presuppose some axiological understandings of the term deserve. So what I want you to do is give some understanding of the type of actions that are deserved and which ones aren't or at least some type of symmetry breaker between deserved actions and undeserved actions and so far as actions that are proper in response to someone else's actions and then from there we can talk about that further maybe. Um but nowhere in there did I say talk about God. Yeah, I'm not specifically talking about God yet. I'm just questioning the underlying understanding of um what you take there. Now in regards to um me trying to get ahead of your argument, I'm not getting ahead of your argument. I'm giving what's called a metam level critique. So, do you have that?

[00:08:34]>> I have what?

[00:08:35]>> Yeah. Well, >> you did you actually just want to hear my argument or do you want to try to get ahead of it?

[00:08:40]>> Were you listening to what I was saying?

[00:08:42]Because >> Yeah. Did you want to hear my actual argument or do you want to get ahead of it?

[00:08:46]>> I'm not trying to get ahead of your argument. I explained why I'm not.

[00:08:48]>> Sounds like I'm going to ask it.

[00:08:51]>> I'll just cut it. I'll cut I'll just make the whole thing go faster by just giving you like the the basis of the argument. The basis of the argument is based on uh like simple uh God fits the definitions right so God acts in great hostility and unjust uh violence towards human beings which means he literally fits the definition of uh of hating human beings also in the Bible he just says that he hates some people in fact he says he hated Esau although in this particular instance he means he hated Esau the the nation you know the people of Sier uh before Esau was even born right so the the Bible uh just already tells you that he does hate some people.

[00:09:26]I'm just extending it and saying actually I think he hates you too.

[00:09:30]>> Yeah. So there's a couple of things to bring into question here. The first one is do you have an account of the actions commit also? Yeah. I think it would be beneficial to ask for syllogism. Do you have this in syllogistic format? If not, I will just ask you questions about the informal argument you gave.

[00:09:45]>> I can put it in a syllogism if you think that's going to be helpful for you.

[00:09:48]>> Um we we don't need to if you don't have it. Um >> you just said that you wanted a syllogism. I don't mind putting it in a syllogism. I'm saying it would be beneficial if you have one on hand, but if you don't have one, we don't need to, you know, waste time. I'll put it into his. Don't worry, I got lots of time.

[00:10:02]All right, so we'll do P1. In fact, I'll put it on the screen. Give me one second. Get it up. We'll get it up here on the screen. I didn't add it to my screen yet, but it's not doesn't take very long to add it up here.

[00:10:18]Trying to add a browser to the screen real quick.

[00:10:32]I guess we're not going to add a browser. It won't let me add uh items to my scene while we're live. Oh well.

[00:10:37]Anyways, I'll work on that later. Uh P1 is um uh we can just start with the definition. You want to start there. We would say um eight uh is we can even say defined by um undo hostility towards another. We agree with that.

[00:11:05]>> Uh yeah, we can we can uh have that be premise one for now. Yeah. So uh premise number one then I I I think is is fair and uh and simple. Uh hate is defined by undue hostility towards other. Premise number two is uh God uh displays uh undue hostility uh towards uh others. And then the uh the conclusion obviously would be that uh God hates we'll say at least uh some people. We can work on the God hates you once we get through this. So um the problem you're going to have is you're going to disagree with premise too I assume.

[00:11:48]>> No, I'm not actually going to disagree with that at all. So the first problem I have is just that the argument just seems straightforwardly uh formally invalid.

[00:11:57]>> What's about?

[00:11:59]>> Yeah. Yeah. So, validity just talks about the structure of the argument, right?

[00:12:02]>> Yeah. What's wrong with the structure?

[00:12:02]>> What logic are you using?

[00:12:04]>> What's wrong with the structure?

[00:12:06]>> Um, yeah. Well, if you're using propositional logic, >> we're just going to need you to to say what you think is wrong with my structure.

[00:12:11]>> Yeah. Well, yeah, I'm going to explain.

[00:12:13]So, if you're using propositional logic, you you don't have an inference role there. Not only do you not have an inference role, if we plug it into like a truth tree where there's like we just test the validity, >> didn't we already?

[00:12:25]Didn't we didn't we run like 15 minutes of this nonsense last time we did a syllogism and >> I've never discussed with you but >> I'm pretty sure this already. So if we plug the argument into a truth tree in propositional logic you have P Q therefore S which obviously is invalid right. We can just look at the >> I mean you're just mad that I didn't use the word if.

[00:12:45]>> Uh it's invalid though. Like it's >> Yeah, he thinks it's invalid because because I didn't use the word if. No, it's invalid because there's no >> I just plugged it into an AI model. It says it's deductively valid in substance. Oh, >> wait. Do you want to see the >> I know I know it's very it's very difficult for you to understand that to have a valid argument, you don't need an if statement. I get that a lot of the infant rules are built around if statements. You actually don't need that. Um premises have implied ifs.

[00:13:12]Obviously premise one uh if hate is defined by undue hostility towards other and God displays undue hostility towards other then it would mean that God people >> you're actually just a waste of space kid you got to grow up job tell you study something real in school I have no idea what you're doing with your time but uh you're you're a waste of space