Oxford definitions :
Idiot - A person of low intelligence.
Intelligence - The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
ARGUMENT FROM PHD AUTHORITIES LAUGHING AND WRITING AGAINST TJUMP P1) TJump is a stupid atheist who values authority for he constantly appeals to the consensus or opinions of PhD's because he thinks an appeal to authority is valid (as long as they are an authority) P2) IF tjump was not an idiot, then PhDs would not laugh at him and actively write articles against his theories
P3) PhDs DO laugh and actively write articles against his theories
C) thus, Tjump is an idiot
ARGUMENT FROM DOUBLE PHD ATHEIST BERNA
RDO KASTRUP P1) If Tom Jump was not an idiot, then double PHD and CERN researcher Bernardo Kastrup would not laugh at Tjumps ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. P2) double PHD and CERN researcher Bernardo Kastrup does laugh at Tjumps ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
C) Thus, Tjump is an idiot
Defense for P2
Bernardo: You can not get a high fi system to produce images by adding more speakers, making sound more complex does not make it visual….no complexity of more of the same kind can produce something that is of a completely and fundamentally different kind at an ontological level.
Tjump: You are just begging the question, and committing the composition division fallacy. You are just saying “ you can keep adding bricks but you will never get a wall because that is of a different ontological kind”
Bernardo: HAHAhaha “no” do you sincerely believe that what you are saying now defeats my argument? Tjump: yes because I believe your argument is the exact same thing (timestamp: 18:00)
ARGUMENT FROM PHD ATHEIST ALEX MALPASS BLOG ARTICLE AGAINST TJUMP’S THEORY
P1) If tjump was not an idiot, Noted atheist PHD Alex Malpass would not write an entire article dedicated to showing the contradictory and idiotic nature of Tjump’s moral theory. P2) noted atheist PHD alex malpass did write an entire article dedicated to showing the contradictory and idiotic nature of Tjump’s moral theory.
C) Tjump is an idiot
Supplemental defense for P2
Alex Malpass reserves his person-specific Blog articles on his website literally called “use of reason” for only the most egregious forms of idiocy such as TAG, Darth Dawkins, Jay Dyer, Sam Harris etc. Tjump is featured among this list of people who need to be publicly shamed for their idiocy and warranted a person-specific blog article.
Further, Tjump and Alex went at it in the comment section and these are some of the quotes Tjump: “None of these seem to be issues for my model at all. “ "
Alex: “You didn’t understand “ you aren’t following the nuance of the issues here. “ you didn’t grasp the dialectic here.” “ I doubt I will puncture your ego enough for this to sink in, but that’s delusional man. Snap out of it. “I’m happy to end our conversation here. Good luck on your philosophical
https://useofreason.wordpress.com/2019/11/12/tom-jumps-moral-theory/
ARGUMENT FROM PHD MATHEMATICAL PHYSICIST DR. FRANK TIPLER P1) If tjump was Not an idiot, world-renowned PHD mathematical Physicist Dr. Frank Tipler would not say Tjump was “ incapable of understanding elementary logic or elementary physics” and that “he was demonstrating it” and that tjump was “ not capable of rational thought”
P2) World-Renowned PHD mathematical Physicist Dr. Frank Tipler DID say “tjump was “ incapable of understanding elementary logic or elementary physics and “that he was demonstrating it” and that Tjump “ was not capable of rational Thought” C) Tjump is An idiot
ARUGMENT FROM TJUMP NOT BEING ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE KRIPKENSTEIN RULE FOLLOWING PARADOX OR NORMATIVITY IN LOGIC AFTER 8 HOURS OF FREE LECTURES BY DR. RICHARD BROWN
P1) if tjump was not an idiot, Tjump would be able to understand the Kripkenstein Rule following paradox and normativity in logic and how it applied to him after PHD atheist Richard Brown tried to explain them to him for 8 hours.
P2) Tjump was not able to understand the rule following paradox and normativity in logic after 8 hours of a sympathetic atheist phd trying to explain them to him
C) Tjump is an Idiot
Defense for Premise 2
In the months after this discussion tjump still claimed “in order to disagree with Richard brown I would have to understand what he was saying”
ARGUMENT FROM APPEAL TO AUTHORITY HYPROCRISY
P1) If Tjump can credibly reject these examples as forming a valid inductive inference to the best explanation as to his idiocy, then he would reject similar instances of his own use of inductive inference to the best explanation via the testimony of valid authorities.
P2) Tjump does not reject similar instances of his own use of inductive inference to the best explanation via testimony of valid authorities
C) Thus Tjump can not credibly reject these examples as forming a valid inductive inference to the best explanation as to his idiocy
NOVEL TESTIBLE PREDICTIONS
1. Tjump will continue to call people of much higher intelligence than him "dumbass" 2. Tjump will claim all of the PhD Atheists cited here (the class of authority he normally cites himself as proof) are all wrong about him being an idiot, and in-fact they were just mad that HE was right ( Dunning–Kruger effect)
3. Tjump will continue to be called an Idiot by PhD atheists for the entirety of his YouTube career which currently stands at 10.9k subs after many years.
4. No one in the future will take Tjump's moral theory seriously, nor his epistemic theory, nor anything he has ever said.
PROBABILISTIC CASE THAT TJUMP IS AN IDIOT
Now I ask the audience, what is more likely, that all of these PHDs (there are many more examples in his catalog of interactions), most of them fellow atheists , are all wrong about Tjump being an Idiot, or that Tjump IS INFACT an idiot? I leave it to the crowd to decide what is more probable.
Bayesian Calculation
Probability of : Tjump is an idiot
based on : Many PhD's think he is an idiot after speaking with him at length P(Tjump is an Idiot) = 50% (just as likley as not likley)
P(Many PhD's think he is an idiot after speaking with him at length|Tjump is an Idiot) = 80% (this evidence is very expected if it is true that Tjump is an idiot)
P(Many PhD's think he is an idiot after speaking with him at length|¬Tjump is an Idiot) = 5% (this evidence is very unexpected if it is false that Tjump is an idiot)
P(Tjump is an Idiot|Many PhD's think he is an idiot after speaking with him at length) 99.3789% (0.99378882)
P(Tjump is an Idiot|¬Many PhD's think he is an idiot after speaking with him at length) 16.7364% (0.16736402)
Even at a charitable prior probability that the chances that Tjump are an idiot are only 50/50, and given very charitable odds that the evidence is only 80% expected on the hypothesis being true, we still get a probability of 99.3789% that Tjump is an idiot, given the evidence above and all of our background knowledge.
**Honorable evidence mention
THE ARGUMENT FROM JOE SCHMIDT OPTING OUT OF TRYING TO EXPLAIN SKEPTICISM AND PREDICTIONS TO TJUMP
P1) If Tjump was not an idiot, he would have been able to understand basic problems of skepticism related to his epistemology (and his foundational claim to be able to distinguish imagination from reality)
P2) Tjump was NOT able to understand basic problems of skepticism related to his epistemology (and his foundational claim to be able to distinguish imagination from reality)
C) Tjump is an idiot
Defense
Joe Schmidt is not a PhD but is a child genius and will have one shortly, and already has done much to laugh at and explain why Tjump is of low-intelligence (idiot), by showing he is not good at acquiring and applying knowledge and skills (intelligence) (Timestamp 35:00)
Tjump loses to woman
.png)
