Then don't do then the the the the, the, the, the,
the, the, the, the, the the the don don't think the
don don't do the the theft the the the the the the the the the
the don don't don't think the do the the the the, the, the,
the, the, the, the, the, the the the the
don't then the the the the the the doting. Kaya, y'all, what's
up, y'all? What's up? Yeah, y'all feel me? Y'all feel
it, y'all, y'all, y'all feel it. I feel it. I
need an alien the work for me. I need it alien to work for
me. I need an alien the work for me. I need an alien
to twork for me. Yeah, that's I need an alien on coin bas
I need an alien to trade for me. I need an alien to trade
for me. Make games, no trades for me. I need aliens the
trade for me. Hey, my girlfriend, that's the way for me.
I need an alien to twirk for me. Proboscos little Parker aliens on talker.
I need an alien the word for me. I need an alien to
twork for me. Need aliens the word for me. HI need an alien
the word for me. I need an alien. Hi need an alien to
twork for me? Alien girlfriend on corny base, make the trades, get
base, get the third base with aliens. Lonely houseman, need an alien
in the based Men need is alien to work for me? Need a aliens
work for me? Y'all feel that? Am I the only one feeling that?
Proboscus lip pucker Aliens on talker, I don't know, It's just freestyle,
man, What do you want? What do you want from you?
How y'all doing the night? A lot of a lot of things happen.
It's just too much stuff happened to even keep up with, you know what
I mean? Too many every day, just the craziest news stories. Everybody
in, everybody in the chat feeling this abduction reduction. I'm gonna try not
to cough. I've got my coof drops. I got all kind of coof
drops. Are you? Are you all doing? We're going to find your
best AI boyfriend girlfriend for you? Unlock new achievements? Are you lonely?
You need to unlock a new achievement? Everybody hit like and share what's going
on? There's nothing else to do on on Friday night, right, I
mean, we got all kinds of aliens that can get y'all in the mood.
We'll get this dude. He's not even doing nothing. Remember this one.
There we go. That's what I'm talking about. Party night. It's
Friday night, party night. I need an alien to work for me.
Uh huh. I need an alien that's worth for me. Uh huh.
I thought we'd have fun tonight, a little bit of fun. I don't
know, this probably won't work, but I was gonna move for karaoke.
You'll wanna move for karaoke? What song did you wake up thinking about today?
Of course this never works because as soon as you try to play karaoke,
it's like copyrighted content. Well, how do you get to how do
you go to a karaoke bar and sing and it's not copyrighting content? The
copyright police, Interpol, that'll be busting down all the doors of the karaoke
bars. Come on top of the world. This is what I woke up
singing. But is it gonna work? You know what I mean? I
want to just sit around and sing. That's really what I feel like doing
tonight. I remember one time I did us live stream where I try to
just do karaoke songs. Karake songs, Krooka songs, and it had like
a million super chats. I got like five hundred dollars from doing a karaoke
stream and then it was like thirty copyrights on that video. So I might
could do it and then just take the stream down put it on rock Fin
something like that, right, you know what I mean, y'all want to
of course we could just do karaoke stream on rock Fin. That's also a
possibility. I think I'd get away with that. I know, when Jamie
and I did our mom core dad core song, we somehow got away with
played a bunch of us and we're not just singing tonight. We're gonna talk
about aliens, We're gonna talk about the Tucker clip, We're gonna talk about
all. I gotta get in a fun mood, though. I just all
this stuff is so ridiculous. You just can't take all this stuff too serious,
you know what I mean? This is a classic book. I mean,
we're talking all of the essays of the Collins brothers for the last fifteen
years, thousand pages, and it has within it its own alien psyop book
three hundred pages right here in the middle. So that's a classic. Everybody
be sure and getting voke in the beyond. But I mean, are y'all
not just feeling this? Y'all not feeling it? Let's see, I got
my caroque here if you send me super tests off qu come on. But
I try to tell you so, but I guess you didn't know. That's
the saddest story goes. Maybe now I got the float because I knew it
from the star. Maybe when you broke my heart that I had to come
again and show you that I'm real. You love me all those times I
said that I love you, Yes, your side chid hi, even though
you know I die for you. Yes, I cry here, I cry
hurt here it is, Come on him, my gosh, here I am
once again brit talk about the world. So I'm back up in the game
and I'm always not in things. I lost my place. Now I'm back
to run the show because of what they did. You know what's wrong and
all the nats, the things you've done. I lost my places. Come
on me, she said, she never turned on me, but you did.
But you did. Hear it? All this pain you said, I
never feel, But I do what I do, do do Come on?
Hold on, don't you know? Here I go. Don't let them go
out, let them go right? I know? Mark, I mean Jay
Jay, Mark Burns, Mark Hackard, Mark Hackard. Okay, I'll stop,
I'll stop. Who are you? By the way, she said she'd
never turned on me, but you did? But you anyway? What y'all
think about that? That was fun? Top of the world? It is
too real? I got a super chat out of it. Do we get
any copyright stress? Look, we somehow made it through that, so hell,
I might just keep doing that all night? I mean, I don't.
I just mean that song over and over and over. What if I
trolled y'all and I did a live stream that was just the all night long?
Is a sound too low? It's always hard to get these levels right.
I think Scott's staffed from Creed doing Matt Morrison or whatever his name is.
That I would be a good version. I'd be a better version.
Actually. Thank y'all for the cheers, the adulations, Thank you for the
vanities, Thank you for all the vanities of the vanities from people in the
audience better than most. I wasn't even singing serious here? What if I
was singing for serious y'all? Have heard some of my other songs where I
do sing for serious. Some people got blown away. So you know,
I'm just clowning around right now. What if I've turned on the serious juice?
What if I flip the serious button? Then what you can super chat
with super chats? I mean with stream labs one more time, y'all joking,
right, y'all joking. Well, I'm gonna try to play it.
I gotta try to play it in sync. I'm not gonna do the whole
song again. Right, come on? When I try to tell your songs,
but I guess you did. That's the sadestalgic goes. We already have
one's enough. Come on, y'all, y'all, y'all had enough of that.
Let's do care What if we could do karaoke night? I can do
this one. And I took a bunch of cough related stuff. Right,
you're like, what you what drugs? Is he on? It's called coffee.
It's called it's called coof drops. That's when I'm on. I think
we can get away with this one. Y'all know this one? Y'all want
to hear that one karaoke or get serious? It's the audience choice tonight.
What do y'all want to do? Try karaoke? Come on? Who Yeah,
I'm also set still I've got like the Vatican coup for like five years
now, and I'm still I can still do it. I mean, we
busted out with Aliens Torkin. We went to freaking Mac Morrison. I mean
we did. It's been twenty eighteen since I did a coroque stream, and
I think this audience deserves it as a Christmas present. We're gonna get serious
to worry y'all. Everybody wants carrot tonight. We can try it, although
I don't know if it's gonna work because the you know, the the copyright
algorithm is gonna will attack, you know what I mean? Uh, here's
a good classic I can sing. People say, I'm no good, crazy
as loom. Y'all know that song. See if it works the moment a
friend becomes a real friend. What you people see, I'm no good,
crazy as a loom. I get stoned in the morning and I get drunk
in the afternoon, kind of like my whole blue chick town to like to
lay around in the sheep. I don't got no money, anybody damn show
got in me because I ain't asking nobody for nothing if I can't get it
on my own. If you don't like the way I'm living, you just
leave this long hair cuts a b along, hit your man on talking on
TV, putting down the rock and Roll wants me to send a donation because
it's worried about my sold sitting. Jesus walked on the water, and I
know that is true. Sometimes I think that preacher man. I like to
do a little walking too, because I ain't asking nobody for nothing if I
can't get it on my own, if you don't like the way I'm living,
and just leave this long hair cont going along? What's up with the
super Chance? Shout out to Rob Brain, Shout out to rock Brain,
Shout out to Christal, Shout out to Kenyon, Super Chap, shout out
to be a man. This part is called the Super Christy twenty three.
It's all about aliens tonight, Baby, you don't like the aliens landing?
Leave the long hair saying a particular alone said the chants leaving, So y'all
nobody wants to y'all know about Tennessee. A poor girl wants to marry a
rich girl wants to flirt. Rich man goes to call age and a poorer
man goes to work. A drunkard wants another drag of wine, and a
politician wants to both. I don't want much, nothing at a oh,
but will take another too. I ain't nobody for nothing if I can get
it all my own. You don't like the way I'm living, and just
leave this long hair and red neck along? There we go. See y'all
like that one? Mm see the Superman. The super chats always come rolling
in. When I started singing, started yelling, star yelping, mak him
stop, send him money, mak him stop. People in the other room,
yelling to the people watching and listening, mak him stop. Please send
him fifty dollars. It'll shut him up. Yeah, you send me fifty
dollars, I'll shut up. I had an idea. Here's another one I
can do. It's kind of hard, though, Oh, y'all know that
one I met one more. Everybody's being torture with us. Turn it off.
Oh you're might go again. Let's see if it works. This is
my favorite character croak song. It works? Oh, I guess the only
version there is? Y'all know, this one because someone ropean I do know
the words, well, I gotta have a version with the words. I
don't want purple rain. I know there's a karaoke version because I've done it
before. Hmm. I'm trying to redeem myself because we had a karaoke last
Christmas at a party and I did pretty good. But I messed up on
one song and it was the one song and I just I just totally failed.
I just collapsed and crumbled. I like knocked it out of the park
with like four karaokes and then I came to my favorite and I just I
just messed it all up. It was just a huge, just a big
old mess man. So I'm trying to redeem myself because I want to I
want to nail pink Kashmir. You know what I'm saying? Who here we
go? It doesn't have the words. What's the use of the karaoke with
other words? That's stupid. Let's try a pink Kashmir karaoke. Y'all got
some more requests. What do y'all want to hear? Whitney Whitney Houston.
Y'all want to hear uh uh Verry White m h so none of none of
these have the words. I mean I kind of know the words, but
yeah, anyway, Oh, if I go, we can falling in love
all over. Oh the second move is you just pray, don't get burned.
Oh this fire inside of me. Don't nobody realize anyway? We already
got Now we got four hundred people. Dang, dang, four hundred people
with the karaoke party, and we can't even do we can't even do freaking
Prince. Now, y'all want to hear uh? Somebody said bury mantal,
y'all want to share? Share karaoke? Prince karaoke? And what's our options?
Everybody knows raspberry beret? Though, what do we scream at each other?
I don't like. I'm not a big fan of when doves cry,
you know what I mean? Do we have any wood grain gripping? I'm
a hood. I don't know if I get away with singing that one?
Am I getting trouble singing that one? I know a lot of Prince,
and there's a lot of prints song as I can do. But baby,
you got some making you a goat off pink. Let me try another way,
ask her. I'm not gonna ask her, are you in a lum
here? No? No, I'm married to Tim shaving me Tim. So
there's a whole bunch of karaoke virgins and no words. So the only reason
I need the words is because I won't get the spots because I'm not used
to it Spotify now, I guess they took it down because there used to
be pink Kashmir. Can somebody put a link to pink Kashmir freaking karaoke song?
H Anyway? Do we want to go on and get Let's get to
aliens? Right? I'm worldly? What does that mean? You here to
preach to me too? Worldly? He's a center man for daring to know
the lyrics to long Haired country Boy. Y'all want me to sing Cream nineteen
ninety nine? Should we get to the serious stuff? What happens when you
start a live stream and you're supposed to be talking about serious stuff and then
there's I don't have any inkling of being serious, but I put all these
serious topics. I do like Raspberry right though. That's that's pretty good song.
I mean people get mad about that though if I sing it. Not
that I care, But y'all want some more rap? We gotta we gotta
rap heavy audience, right, do I do? We can falling a love
all over some never you just pray it, don't get the kid can't never
mint all right, we gotta get serious. Enough of this nons it's too
much nonsense. We got to talk about the real stuff. We had alien
twerking. That's good enough. That's enough for y'all. So come on,
did y'all see the big conversation that went down between me and Rollo and James
Sexton, the famous lawyer man, the famous lawman, the famous law man.
This sounds like it sounds like a line from a from a I don't
know, John Wayne movie or something. The law man Jim Bob Andrew talking
about chopping it up, talking about destiny. I'm not talking about fate.
I wish we were talking about fate. It would be a better world if
we were just talking about fate and not blue haired destiny. But that was
an interest. We'll get to the aliens. Don't worry. We got all
night to talk about aliens. Thank y'all for those generous super chats. That's
very super. Y'all are super people. Come on, mm hmm. This
is how we do it. Mm hmmmm. This is how we do it.
I saw the sign somebody said, we need to hear you do ace
of Bass. We're like ass of Bass. That's what I would. That's
my band. I'm gonna start a band. That's what's gonna be called.
Watch you think I'm joking. It's ass of bass and are We're only gonna
put out Booty CD Booty Booty Bass, Booty CDs, y'all. A lot
of kids don't even know what that is. And by the way, remember
remember this. We're gonna revisit a little bit of this, remember this classic.
I uploaded this to Twitter and then I accidentally deleted it as soon as
it went up, which was an idiotic thing to do, but I will
re upload it. Yeah, remember booty bass. In the nineties, there
was the trend. I guess it's still a trend because I hear dudes riding
around with subwoofers and uh twin woofers and metalw woofers and whatever all the woofers
are. You know this is This still goes on. I don't think it's
as big though as it was in the nineties. But people would bring their
Base CD to school, right and then the Base CD. It all looked
like this right here, tech master, peb bass, I want more.
But it was for the dudes that had the you know, woofers, so
that they could play riding around. See they don't even see that, manure.
Here we go, base Quake, base Quake, Base CDs and basically
the music's awful. It's just bass. But it's for the dudes that there
we go. Look at all that. That's it. This is what it
looks. This is what the nineties were like. You go to high school
and your friends like, oh man, you get the new Bay CD.
Even the white dudes, not just white dudes. All the white dudes had
ladies of bass. How could there be chicks and there's no bass. There's
no women with women don't have bass. See women trying to step into my
domain and Bay CDs nineties bas mix. Let's see if we can find one
royalty free and it's all just here we Miami bass. Yeah, like that's
not right, du it's gotta be really low based ten minutes and nineties base.
No. Anyway, I never had a woofers and all that stuff,
so I never really understood. Maybe it was supposed to. I don't know,
like does it turn girls on. I'm trying to figure out, like
is it just peacock and you're just trying to get attention? Look at look
at the speakers Like that, dude, I spent my Walmart paycheck on five
thousand dollars speakers. Brother took me six months saving up wasting my money on
stupid ass Base. I'm not talking about supersonic, just Base, just just
they were just generic. It's like they came out of a factory line.
Just Base, just Base. I want more pace. But if you grew
up in the nineties, you remember Base CDs. So we're talking about aliens,
though, what was that to do? Anyway we're talking I don't know
how we got to that from destiny. But so this was an interesting conversation.
I'll play a little couple bits of it because we got, as you
might imagine, Andrew steered the conver I'm not fussing. I'm just stating what
happened. Andrew steers the conversation away from destiny to God's existence. So it's
just interesting to be able to be in this situation where I get to talk
to people you would never expect, right about all of these metaphysical topics.
We got into other metaphysical issues, and James and I had an interesting back
and forth. We'll hear this part. There's quite a few good gags and
jokes on the way as we watched a bunch of TikTok videos. Then we
got to a bunch of clips of Destiny swimming in a pool and being fed
treats. Yes, there, never take a low shot. I held off
until it was the right moment. Unlike Andrew just doesn't give a fuck,
I don't. And by the way, there's one more I have to look
at real quick. Here we go, what is this fucking that's that's me
coming out. But it actually gets way worse than this. It's not just
his girlfriend feeding him like a dolphin, which I guess it's supposed to be
funny. I'm debating whether I should play the other clip. I don't think
our audience would find. But so I've never watched anything from Destiny. I
don't know anything about Destiny other than when he trolled Tristan in their debate and
didn't show up to debate in good faith, which I tell I told Tristan
that's probably what was gonna happen. That destiny is not really a good faith
debater. But there's a certain clip that I'm trying to find. I don't
see it, but regardless, here's what we have is basically, this is
a throutfle situation. So that's the ex girlfriend there, that just or the
ex wife, and this is the this is before they got together and they're
in this fun throutble situation. You see. That's two guys. Okay,
So so that is what we're talking about. The conversation, however, progresses
to other topics which I'm gonna play a little bit and comment on because James
is a prominent lawyer who's been on quite a few pretty big podcasts. He
was on Lex Friedman and then we all kind of had this conversation about ethics
and God's existence and whatnot. So the reason I'm playing this so is I
actually thought the way that I encapsulated the argument here in a very common atheist
question and objection is worth repeating. So we're not going to watch all this
if you really want to watch this whole thing, which is largely just largely
just clowning around and joking. Right, So, and destiny has pretty much
gone after everyone in our sphere, so that's I think, and even adjacent
spheres of people and everyone on this podcast. So that's sort of the background
here. But I do want to play the little exchange between mister Sexton and
I because it was actually a good apologetic example here, and she could have
been dudes on the side until people need to say, Okay, this this
way of doing something isn't working, so the opposite of it must be our
salvation are what we like. We romanticize that our grandparents are the greatest generation
of be able to make no compromises. But also, my partner should companies
flood the record show, I'm not an atheist if you want to know about
a perfect compliment to who you are, all right, So I'm just trying
to find the part where Andrew shifts the conversation away from destiny to uh theism.
So that's the part I wanted to play. Jay being with the person
who you probably have monogamy with, because you would say, hey, this
is what I will. Doesn't this bring up the whole the whole point really
kind of to you know, to to our arguments in the past. Rollo.
If you are married but you're acting in all of the ways a Christian
marriage would be enacted, which you are right, faithful to your wife,
faithful to you, you're handling your obligations as a husband. She sees used
the head to your household, all of the different you know, all the
different variances which are there. It seems like you're kind of following the infrastructure
anyhow, you know what I mean. And so if that's the case,
I would feel like that's a point. I'm not a I just hope,
I just like to filet the record show I'm not an atheist. If you
want to know what about I know it's the last chapter of my fourth book.
So there's a secular argument to be made for you know, for for
this, I mean even if look if if, if you don't so here's
where it gets good. Right, So mister Sexton's is gonna say, He's
gonna say, well, let's just have a purely secular argument for you know,
loosely Western biblical morals, the Ten Commanders. Right, he makes this
argum, why don't we just have a secular because why do I have to
choose a theist you know, rounding or a theist response, Why don't I
just say that if this works, then I'll use this ethic right because it's
it's it's useful, it's utilitarian. And I'm playing this because I hear this
all the time, So you're gonna hear me give a basic response as to
why that doesn't work, and hopefully it'll it'll click with everybody why I'm playing
it and why that may why my response makes sense. I think I made
it very sixcinct and very clear. So here we go. If you don't
believe in God, there are a million reasons to follow the Ten Commandments.
You know. It really is not just a function of like I defy.
I've never followed the argument of you know you you you, we would have
no morality if we didn't have religion. I don't buy that. I rate
and plus I want to which is none. I brought you on specifically tonight.
I did this to you, James, because Jay Dyer here happens to
be one of the finest Christian apologists. I'm playing it earth. By the
way, this was not planned. I had no idea what to expect.
I didn't even know that Sexton and Roll over coming on. I thought it
was me and Jim Bob and and Andrew is gonna be riffing and making fun
of videos and stuff. Not that I don't mind it, it's just that
I wasn't expecting any of this. I had no idea who was coming on
his stream. He was like, hey, you want to hop on and
celebrate the Christmas stream and I said yeah. So this was just kind of
out of nowhere. And he believes in the opposite, that that morality can't
actually really exist absent you know, God, and that the secutor argument doesn't
work. And I've been kind of waiting to see what this exchange would be
like forever, so I just kind of wanted you to maybe lay your case
out for that real quick. Well j yeah, well I didn't know.
It wasn't planned, so it's not planned. That's I would say that,
like I was talking about earlier when the guy asked, could you summarize your
argument in under a minute, Like, it's true that what James is saying
that person could definitely choose the the principles of the Ten Commandments to you know,
live a life that benefits them so that they can flourish, so the
society, you know, functions in a moral way. That's true, but
in terms of like logical argumentation in philosophy, we usually we usually talk about
grounding because there's a difference between just a pragmatic sort of acceptance of the things
because it works, versus is it coherent? Can you actually demonstrate a basis
for the ethics beyond just kind of a pragmatic Well it works for me,
it's a subjective thing. I like it. Going beyond that and saying that,
okay, but how does this work? How is it possible that there
is right and wrong? So the argument is out of the domain of like
subjectivity and pragmatism and in to the domain of whether there's a coherent account for
the ethics. Does that make sense? Yeah, it does. It makes
so once again, as you can imagine. The point here we always have
to stress is that in philosophy there's this thing called justification and it's not more
specifically in epistemology, which is a branch of philosophy. A lot of people
think, and I think James probably thinks this as well. I'm not knocking
them to stating because this is typically what people think. They think that,
well, philosophy is this thing that kind of you know, spurgy, people
do who go to university, and it's just its own kind of world.
It doesn't relate to the rest of the world, you know, the world
of law and politics and whatever else. Right, But what they're failing to
understand is that once you engage in rational debate and discourse, no, you're
actually in the domain of philosophy, even if you don't know it. And
that's the hardest thing to get people to understand, is that you're in the
domain of philosophy even if you don't know it. And what I tried to
do is make an analogy to law to James right, because you know,
if I'm driving down the street, I'm subject to the law of traffic,
even if I don't even know what the local traffic laws are. Maybe there's
ordinances about how you know you can't I don't know, make a left turn
in the downtown you know, Court Square area, and I do it,
but I didn't know that ordinance. Well it doesn't matter, Like I'm still
subject to the ordinances even if I don't know them. So likewise, in
the domain of ethics, or excuse me, in the domain of philosophy and
pistemology, if you make a knowledge claim, you claim to know something.
You're subject to the rules and laws of thought, whether you know them or
not. Thus you can't irrationally make moves or non sequiturs right that don't work.
It's kind of like chess, and I make a chess analogy here in
a second, where I say that just because you don't know all the chess
rules, like, you can't come to the chess board and say, oh,
well, I brought uh, here's my check and here's my monopoly man,
and you know, I stick all these different things on the board and
start doing whatever you want, or flip the board over and say I want
those violate the rules. So most people just simply don't understand that there's such
a thing as laws of thought. Rules of thought, that's all logic is.
And they're not arbitrary. Their laws and rules that reflect actual metaphysical principles
because they directly relate to the true and the false, the good and the
bad. So that's where I was trying to kind of introduce the topic here
in this discussion, and hopefully you'll notice that. And here's what's interesting is
that he was a great guy to talk to. We had a great three
hour interaction there, really smart guy, but I still don't think he understood
what I meant by justification, because I think a lot of people when they
hear that word, they think of it in sort of the colloquial sense,
right. They think of justification as like, I'm justified, and what I
say to you because I have the right, you know, something like that.
What we mean is giving good reasons for beliefs, and they have to
be good reasons in the sense of being coherent with the rest of our beliefs
and the rest of our reasons for our beliefs, So it can't just be
any old reasons. I believe two plus who's four because I had a dream
and in my dream Bill Cosby appeared and said people follows evils Abel Tuo plus
us four. So therefore that's why I think two plus suits. That's a
bad reason, even though it's true, it's not a good reason. So
justification is just simply giving good reasons for our beliefs, because we want to
have some reason for our belief If we don't have any reasons, then our
beliefs are completely irrational. That doesn't make me a rationalist. This just makes
me rational two different things. Rationalism is a system or kind of all encompassing
philosophy where everything is exhaustively explainable and definable in some you know, worship of
reason sense, that's rationalism, not the same thing as being rational. It's
two different things, just like having an idea. It's not the same thing
as idealism in philosophy. And when I say idealism, I'm not using it
in the colloquial sense. I don't mean idealistic twenty year olds who believe that
they can instantiate world socialism. No idealism, the philosophy that all that exists
as ideas like Plato, like Hegel, That's what I mean. So we're
like two or three levels removed from from pop normal discourse. So people don't
even know what we're talking about. When they hear the words, they think
we're using the words in the colloquial sense, right, like person in theology,
Right, all you're talking about is just a dude. It's not what
person is. And theology it's more much more nuanced than that. It's charitable
and nuanced. So let's see how we replies to the basic encapsulation that I
gave that things need to be to have good reasons behind them, not just
any old reasons. That's me. I think. I don't know that it
gets us any further though in terms of the logic of it, because I
think ultimately you you could look at it purely as a societal function, right
You could just say, well, these are the principles around which an ordered
society should be put together. Or you could look at it even from just
a a a broader experience of the self. Right, So if you look
at, for example, like how Judaism views Hell, you know it doesn't
view Hell as a place. It views Hell as a state of being outside
the grace of God, and of of of that that you are in hell
when you sin, meaning that you you you make your life into hell by
sinning. So in that situation, even if you I think, you take
you know, theology out of it, If you take, if you it
could be an atheist could say, yeah, I see how I feel when
I'm hurtful to others. I see how that has a blowback repercussion effect that
causes when I hurt someone, it causes them to be more inclined to hurt
someone, and therefore it devolves and moves us in a negative direction. As
opposed to a direction where people can thrive and be happy. So I don't
know that again. I mean, I think when we start with a religious
principle, it's always much much easier. I think whatever that religion would be
is, it's because it's a it's irref you can't argue with it. Like
I can't possibly say to you, what would you accept as proof that God
doesn't exist? Like there's no answer to that for you, I assume.
So there's a couple of assumptions that I'm sure you guys have already seen here
unproven sort of assumptions or not demonstrated yet, assumptions that somehow theology is antithetical
to rationality and reasoning, which is just simply not true. Of course,
we don't think that, but everybody, everybody post Enlightenment and post Schleiermacher,
post Kant, they have thought the world has thought that reason is antithetical to
revelation or to theology. And we of course have a totally different paradigm that
the only case for reasoning is theology. The only grounding or justification for reason
itself is divine revelation and theology. So it's flipped backwards. The way that
most people think of it, and I'm sure you perceptive, beautiful Jason Elysis
chad Nerds in the audience also recognized the assumption that society can choose these things
to work and for the good to work, to do what the good for
the for the common good, the good of what what is that? Because
now we're in the domain of ethics and meta physics and so ultimately what we're
going to see is that the account given is utilitarian. And I'm not knocking
people who think that. I mean, that's just sort of the you know,
it's the zeitgeist we live in, it's the air we breathe is utilitarian
ethics and other things kind of connected to that, like consequentialist ethics. Right,
these are all you know, post atheist, post Enlightenment, post revolutionary
thought versions of ethics connected to things like empiricism, connected to Jeremy Bentham,
connected to David Hume. Right, what's our ethic going to be if there's
no God, Well, we'll just pick the most maximum amount of happiness for
the maximum number of people, and that becomes the good of course, happiness.
What does that mean is that pleasure of principle does that mean, if
we're in a rat maze where uh, you know, the rats hit the
coom button and they're all just comed out, but they're happy all day.
Well, that's the perfect utilitarian society if we're talking about a happiness principle.
Right. So it's just it's just moving the can back a step. I
love mixing up my metaphors. Right, it's kicking the problem down the road.
It's moving the can back a step. Right, So it's just one
step back. But I think a lot of people who are educated, very
intelligent people like mister Sexton, they see things like the good, an appeal
to the common good, an appeal to what works or what is pragmatic or
utilitarian. They see that as kind of like a higher level appeal, but
they ignore or they don't want to get into the next logical question, which
is, well, what is the good? What is it mean to have
utility? Utility for what? I assume you have faith in God and proof
denies faith to some degree. So I don't I understand the point of view
you're you're positing. I just don't I think there is secular morality. I
think that it is as difficult to articulate as your reasons for believing in the
existence of God. It's well, of course, the fact that there is
secular morality was not the question. We know that there is secular morality.
The question is as I posed already, But yeah, but how do we
give an account for it and justify the belief in that? And so the
response was, well, theology is difficult, and given an account for any
kind of ethic is difficult, but secular ethics exists. Yeah, but that
wasn't in question. The question was the justification for its existence. That there
is something in you that knows what is right and knows what is wrong.
You have a moral instinct or you have And again, instinct is a problematic
word, right, Like Neil Postman was one of my mentors at n YU,
said, you know, instinct is just the word we put on for
something we don't understand. So it's the equivalent of saying, you know,
hey, why didn't the sun rise today? Oh, because today's sun does
not rise day and accepting that as a logical argument. But I do think
there is something within all of us, and whether someone wants to call that
God's light or whether someone wants to just call that a moral sense. I
think that exists and that can be a compass point for people, just like
faith in God. That was longer than a minute. Sorry, Well,
it's true that people have a moral sense, but why why would there be
an innate moral sense? And I'm sure he would say, well, it's
just an evolutionary kind of thing that developed to help society, you know,
make it and move, you know, have the next generation, right,
because if you don't have these more norms, then the species won't survive.
Yeah, but that doesn't give an account for whether it's right or wrong.
I mean, maybe it's bad for us to have that. Maybe we shouldn't
have a moral center. Maybe having a moral center is what holds us back
from conquering and taking over. Right, maybe we give a Nietzschean response.
Now I'm not saying that he believes that, but I'm saying that, you
see how already it's just completely kind of blown past the question that was asked,
Can I get can I be the one that's in between both of them?
Sandwich way, I don't really absolutely get in the center there to give
you the okay, well, in this relationship, because because section is going
to be doing a show with me, soon. By the way, I'm
gonna have to give him ship because he's a left winger and I'm gonna I'm
gonna call him the Molina and you the destiny of the relationship here anyway,
go ahead. I was just kidd I'm so I'm more masculine of the two.
I know, I'm not saying something anyways. I for those of you
who don't know, my fourth book is actually titled Religion, and it's about
the confluence of red pill and religion really intersexual dynamics, right and goes into
political stuff, social stuff, you know, religious stuff as well. And
so the way that I sort of approach this is that I look at it
in the sense of how like red pill is the theory and like game is
the practice, and really that's really game dynamic or like game theory, game
game dynamics is what it is. And so if you've got if you've got
hypothesis and you have theory, and then you take that and you put it
into practice, like people always say, well, the the red pill is
so just to kind of set the stage to where that's going, he's going
to give a utilitarian account of ethics as well. So that's where he's going
with his response. All it's big on explanations, it's big on like rolla
lose. He talks and talks and he just all he does is talk and
it's all theory and he just you know, but that's because it has to
be comprehensive. And then there's putting that those ideas into practice. And I
think that when I look at things like say like religion, for example,
I see that as a sort of a confluence of best practices that has to
be based on a certain foundational lyricre truth or a hypothesis like this is what
we believe and therefore this is the doctrine, this is the path of the
practice that we put it into and one is incomplete without the other. So
you can't just have nothing but like, oh, this is just the way
we do it, and we don't question why we do it this way.
It's you know, I forget what the saying is like tradition is just like
truth that nobody remembers why we do these things anymore kind of thing. And
I think that when you're looking at at from James perspective, here is like
you don't necessarily have to have sort of this like religious or this moral uh
foundation to actually live a quote unquote ethical, moral morality, whatever, a
good life, to practice best practices that work for him. Like you said,
you know, I murder as many people as I want to, which
is a zero, because that's best practices for James. Right. But we
can also say, well there's a moral foundation for that, and that might
that might also be true as well. But really what happens is you're looking
at the best Like religion tends to be best practices, social conventions are best
practices. You can even think in terms of like political ideology, Well,
this is what we conservatism or progressivism. They both think the right. They
both think that those are the best practices and that everybody should adopt those things
so they can live a more productive, more and more full or more unquote
happier content life as a result of sticking to those practices. But those practices
have to be based on something that is like a good predictive framework. I
think, like in praxeological terms, we would say, well, we have
enough data here that we can build a predictive framework around that. Okay,
if we can do that, what are the best practices according to this predictive
framework? It doesn't have to be one hundred percent accurate, but it has
to be eighty nine percent accurate. It has to be accurate enough so that
we can actually use this and make it make it useful to people as opposed
to just sitting around. By the way, props of Jimbob who just kind
of like kept sipping the bourbon or whatever, it was getting more and more
buzzed. So like by the end of this conversation, and by the way,
Jim Bob actually does jump in because I get really tired. This is
like the third hour of blabbern on here meet me me yapping. So I
kind of checked out and I handed off to Jimbob, and he did really
good asking questions. By the way, so Jimbob has more and more grounded
himself in good argumentation, and so he's he's getting pretty good at invading TikTok,
especially when he when Jim does his TikTok invasions, they're quite humorous.
But Jimbob got more and more buzzed and was just kind of like just it
was like buzzed apologetics. It was a lot of fun. So if you
do want to watch this full thing, it's a three hour conversation we had.
You can go watch it over here on my rock fin there it is
right there. Jimba was a hoot that whole day. Absolutely who do you
who? And so then Roller will finish up this comment about utilitarian ethics,
and then I think it's either Mer or James next, and then we'll move
on to other topics after this, and just you know, navel gazing and
just contemplating a theory all the time. It's just like if you have those
two separated, if you have just doctrine, you have just practice, and
you have just theory, and you have just you know, just like the
basis kind of like the whether it's your your scripture or whether it's the religion
itself whatever, is like the motivating you know, source of truth. Though,
if you if you separate the two of those, then you have sort
of this disconnect because one informs the other and it's sort of this circle.
And I think just from a logistical like a logic based system, you kind
of have to have those two. So when I look at religion, I
look at it as sort of a list of best practices. Now you can
add faith to that, and you can add metaphysics to that, and you
can add metaphorical truth to that as well, but that doesn't necessarily take away
from the core objective truth that it might necessarily be based on. So my
question you guys, is, are you familiar with the concept of metaphorical truth,
because metaphorical truth, I'm just gonna see if I can paraphrase Brett Weinstein
here, there's a saying or there's this old folks tale that says, like
a porcupine can shoot its quills. Right, well, porkepine can't actually shoot
its quills, but you want the kids to stay away from the goddamn porcupine
because you get a porcupine needle in you, it's gonna hurt like hell.
So it's better for you to believe in the metaphorical truth that if you get
close enough to a porcupine, it's gonna shoot its quills at you. Objectively
speaking, that's incorrect and not true, Like all snakes are poisonous, they're
not, but it's best to behave and it's best practices to believe that the
porcupine can shoot its quills. It's a similar thing for like, well,
we don't eat pork, we don't eat shellfish because because the Lord said,
no, no, unclean animals. No, whether you're Muslim or you're Jewish
or whatever, don't eat these animals because you'll get treaconosis and die. Well,
now we know that we can cure pork and bacon taste good, and
so we now know what the objective, like latent purpose of that particular prohibition
was. So you're looking at the truth versus the best practice, which is
don't eat these animals because you'll probably die if you eat these animals. So
I look at it in the sense of like, there's the core truth and
there's a core hypothesis, and then there's also the best practices that go with
it. Does that make sense? It does? Yeah, I mean,
listen, I get it. I'm interested. I'm interested in hearing Jay's thoughts
on that. Yeah, I would say, yeah, I think there are
metaphorical truths that you know, religion, allegory, symbolism conveyed to us.
Definitely, I think. But I'm making a more precise point to what James
was saying when he talked about the again, the pragmatic basis for why he
might choose the ethics of the ten Commandment. So I understand the motivation and
understand why you would say it helps you to flourish, and it's just not
all the other baggage isn't needed. But I was making a more specific argument
that is in the domain of logic, which is that anytime we assert something
or believe that something exists, then and this is specific to philosophy, so
I'm not trying to be like a philosophy douchebag, but kind of like you
know, if I asked you a law question, you would say, well,
in the domain of law, he kind of got to do the rules
of law in the same way. In the domain of philosophy or logic,
there's certain there's laws and rules that kind of have to be followed, like
the laws of debate, for example. So even though we're not in a
formal debate, even in an informal exchange, there's still kind of It's I
think the game of chess, right, there's laws to the chess board,
and I can't come and like just flip it over and say, ah,
I won because I flipped it over. Right, there's laws that dictate it,
which I would argue are kind of invariant, their immaterial. They are
the case. So any exchange has to follow these rules, these laws,
this would be the laws of logic. These would be things like informal fallacies.
Right, I can't just come to the debate and s apout a bunch
of fallacies and say, ha I won no, I'm not following the rules.
So likewise, if the question arises about say, ethics, and what
are these ethical values? Where are they? How do we derive them?
What's the justification for them? That's a very specific kind of philosophical term and
argument that anything that we posit that exists or that we believe in, we
need not just any reasons, but we actually need good reasons for why we
believe in them. So my argument was that morals in the Ten Commandments,
these kinds of things that they make sense in a world where there is a
god. There not a god, even though you might choose I like how
I like how Jimbob is basically on a boat and he's just he's he's rocking
more and more like the more whiskey that goes into Jimbob, the more Jimbob's
like about to tip over. Everybody in the check getting tipsy, everybody in
the chack gaining tipsy. Jimbob is getting tipsy right right, watch, I'm
watching Jimbob not even listening to my argus then, for you know, subjective
pragmatic motives, there's not really any basis or epistemic justification for believing in those
things or saying that they exist. So you might like them, you might
prefer them, but what's the actual argument in the sense of like justified true
belief, you know, grounding for why you would believe in the ethics And
if it's if it doesn't meet those criterion, then what happens in philosophy is
that we say it's really just an unjustified assertion and it doesn't count as an
argument. Does that? Does that make sense? Yeah, it totally makes
sense. And I so so I brought out what I thought was kind of
the clearest, most precise argument that I could make about what I was trying
to say, and jim Bob's over there just kind of like enjoying the buzz,
right, that's just cracking me up. But I still don't think James
really well. I think he understood where I was going because he says something
like, oh, you're going towards uh, you know, Plato and the
dialogues of Mino and all the dollar with the Socratic dollogue mino or whatever.
U. So I don't remember any of stuff, which is fine. I
mean it was an impromptu discussion anyway. It wasn't like a planned debate.
But it looks like the stream is I might have to switch to the La
n connection because it's lagging. So let's see a theological standpoint. But over
the span of human history, there have been thousands of gods worshiped by societies,
and so any one of them would say theirs is the one true God
and the moral authority that they, you know, claim their God has asserted
in whatever manner, whether it's the Quran or the Bible or the Talmud or
you know, the damapata or whatever thing somebody says that they're I'm up pulling
that damapata over here. I'm sitting on my I'm sitting on the patty read
my damapata, smoking on some pata, right, damapata. I mean what,
I don't even know what that is. But I'm gonna look dumb because
it's like, no, I don't know the world religions. Actually I'm not.
I'm not a scholar world religion religions so I think that. But yeah,
I mean, this was a really bad argument too, because and I
think I pulled, I pull I point this out in the next response,
I'm like, well, the fact that i'm to people disagree over something is
irrelevant to what's turned bols right, that's actually a fallacy. So what we're
learning again is that, like I think somebody in the chat said, you
guys are basically just talking two different languages pretty much, right. So there's
a little bit more a couple more minutes, and then we'll we'll move on
to to the fake and the grays. There is the is the basis of
their their God's voice being heard, and the underlying logic upon which their morality
is built. I just think that's I mean that you know, that's saying,
well, it's built on something, but it's built onto something so amorphous
and so totally unfalsifiable that okay, like it's it's does it's that it's not
really built on it. It sounds like it's built on something, but it's
not actually built on something. I mean, one of my favorite you know,
I'm not I wouldn't consider myself an atheist, but one of my favorite
things that I think it was a debate between Stephen Colbert and Ricky Gervais where
Ricky Gervas said something along the lines of, well, you know, there
have been thousands of gods throughout human history, and you believe in one of
them and don't believe in twoy nine hundred and ninety nine of them, and
so we just disagree about one. Like we just disagree about one god,
we're in agreement on the other thousands of gods, you know. And so
I think that's where we get into Those are multiple fallacies at work here,
right, Because first of all, it's kind of a it's a form of
appeal to the masses, right, as if the fact that a lot of
people disagree about something therefore makes the position itself false. Just transfer this to
anything else that's not controversial, right. Imagine if we said, okay,
a lot of people disagree over tuplusu equaling four, would their disagreement or the
number of people with that disagreement have anything to do with whether tuplessuit equals for
no, of course not. So that's one element of this there Also,
it might be a version of parts whole fallacy too, because the argument is
basically saying all of the things in this class of things are false, and
so I'm just saying that one more thing is false. But the question itself
is what's true and false? So you can't from the outset assume that none
of those things exist, and therefore the thing that's in question, I'm just
gonna include it in the class of things that don't exist. Right. It's
begging the question because that's the thing in question. And it also assumes that
all theistic positions are equivalent. They're not. I mean, I mean,
it's like saying, I mean, I could do the same type of argument
with atheism. Most atheists have bad argumentation. Therefore, I'm just going one
step further and rejecting all of atheism. Right, would an atheist accept that?
Of course not. That's not an that's a non sequitur. You can't
say it's all true because there's a lot of bad atheists and bad argumentation.
Yeah, exactly. That's why what you said is a fallacy. It's not.
It's a terrible argument. It doesn't work. A challenge here is that
it you know, the first premise, we're not coming from the same first
premise. That's true, But I would argue that's a fallacy, right,
But what value would that argument have? No, I'm saying what you argued
is relying on a fallacy, right, Well, and I would argue what
you're arguing is relying on a fallacy, which is that there is any omnipotent
Yeah. First of all, what he argued actually was a fallacy, and
what I argued, even if he disagrees it wasn't a fallacy as I point
out, or basic core concept of faith that should be given any value for
the purposes of an argument. Well, what fallacy would that be? The
existence of an omnipotent creator deity from which morality stems. Yeah, that's not
a fallacy, right, So that's a position. A fallacy is a violation
of the laws, rules of thought, and logic. Right. So there's
formal and informal we're talking about here, informal fallacies. So you might think
that my belief in God's existence is false or in metaphysical principles or whatever,
But that's not a fallacy. Fallacy is things like ad hominin too quoke way
right, affirming the consequent Those are fallacies. And his argument was a type
of appeal to box popular appeal to the masses, appeal to numbers, appeal
to you know, ninety nine percent of gods are false, so therefore the
other percent is false. It's a form of appeal to masters. That's a
fallacy. But nothing that I said was actually a fallacy. And maybe maybe
I did make a argue a fallacy, or all right, maybe I did
argue fallaciously. But he confuses fallacy with he thinks that a fallacy is just
a position that's wrong. No, that's not, again, showing that people
don't know what justification is. They don't know what the laws of logic are.
Well, that's not a fallacy. You might think it's false, but
I'm saying specific fallacies. Yours was an appeal to the fact that a lot
of people disagree. Right, So it's a kind of a it's a formative
appeal to the masses, which is a fallacy. But we haven't just we
haven't determined yet whether God exists or doesn't exist. But even if he doesn't
exist, it's not a fallacy. I might have a bad argument, but
my belief in God itself isn't a fallacy, right God, I haven't done
classical philosophical argument a long time, but there be no math on this test.
Yeah. And the reason I stop, Yeah, I mean, let's
think about this, like, uh, like FDA says in the chat if
nine and ninety nine, people believe that there's a different answer to tuplus two
equals four, And I say, well, I'm just gonna go one step
further and say that I reject all arithmetic because almost everyone right believes in the
two plus two doesn't equal four. You see how silly it would be.
Right, So it's confusing categories. It's resting on a combination of different types
of fallacies. And it's also not understanding that the difference between having a belief
and giving arguments for that belief. Right, So having a belief is not
a fallacy. Fallacy would be giving bad arguments for that belief. Yeah.
Look the reason, and there's gonna be it's a crucible. It's gonna be
a little bit of debate, but it is. Yeah, it could and
forth. The reason I stopped doing those kinds of arguments is that it felt
like it was a way of trying to make something sound much more mathematically precise
than what it would be if you actually were just speaking of it in a
I mean, look, I think we're understanding fail as a word comes to
take its place, right, that's Wickenstein. So I get it, like
I understand from a I guess I could study up on my classical philosophy and
we could try to have that discussion. But I think ultimately, like matters
of faith, if it's your core concept and we we don't agree on that,
you're going to have a difficult time we're going to have it. Which
he's actually correct there, which is why we argue presubpositions and transcendent augmentation because
ultimately it does come down to our governing paradigm positions, right, our worldview,
our fundamental beliefs in ethics, epistemology, metaphors. That's what it comes
down to, and that's why we end up debating paradigms and world views.
So that party actually is totally correct about and I think he realized that if
this this conversation was going to continue, it would have to be you know,
going into that in that in that domain, into the paradigm level.
And we were already like almost three hours into it at this point, so
we ended up calling it a night, But Jim Bob did continue on interacting
with and debating with Rollo, asking questions about not a formal debate, just
kind of back and forth exchange about you know, utilitarian ethics and so forth,
and what is the good? And how do we know the good?
So you watch the rest of that conversation there. I had a lot of
people saying, hey, comment on what was it Ben Shapiro. I can't
imagine this being a debate that goes very far. But I've had probably fIF
ffty people say what about cosmic skeptic and Ben Shapiro? So is there a
highlights of this? I mean, let's try There's an eleven minute video about
free will and then there's a full let's I guess, let's try this.
Let's see what happens here. I don't know if I'll be able to stomach
this whole thing, right, I mean, I feel like this is going
to be tough. But we'll listen to some of it because so many people
requested it. Let's hear and let's see if the argumentation is any good.
I don't have high hopes. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. You know,
the thing with Ben Shapiro is that he has a history I think of owning
the college libs, which is like anybody with any philosophical knowledge could own any
college lib right. I mean that's like super low hanging fruit. I'm not
saying it is totally pointless to go after low hanging fruit. But has Ben
Shapiro actually debated anyone substantial that I'm not aware of? It? May?
I think maybe Wiam Lane Craig or something. I guess that counts. But
we all know that all these people very selectively choose who they will debate because
there's a lot at stake, I think, right, I mean, I
think Ben Shapiro is big enough a name that even if he lost a debater
or to it's not going to do anything right. But for a lot of
people, you know, people are when are you going to debate Sam Harris?
Where are you going to? The Dick Dawkins that will never have up
and dummy? Like those people are never going to have a debate with me.
I would have that debate, but it's just not ever gonna happen.
There's way too much for them to lose and absolutely nothing for them to gain,
right, Because I'm this is still you know, we were still on
the come up over here, right, We're not big time. We're still
our star is still rising, dog, So what's the point of debating a
dude with one hundred thousand followers if you've got you know, two million,
five million, six million, whatever. There's no advantage to it. So
it's like people have no idea how things actually work. Right now, It
did actually work when people asked Matt dollahunty like a hundred times or more over
a span of three or four years, right, eventually he did agree to
a debate, and the same thing happened with stuff On al in you so
many people ask stuff On to do a debate that it actually just happened,
right, So over time, I think people will maybe agree to it if
you're kind of in the same like rough domain, right, like Stefan had
a much larger audience, But we're kind of in the same you know,
adjacent circles of argumentation and debate. I don't know anybody in cosmic skeptics circles.
I don't know anybody in Ben Shapiro circles. So I mean this kind
of a debate would never happen. I mean it would be a very long
long shot, right, Yes, if there is no God, there is
no free will, But I think that's because of the truth of the latter
of those statements that I suppose the biggest criticism that I've made of you in
a video response that I made to the atheist illusion, and this show does
seem to have an extraordinary capacity for putting me face to face with people that
I've been talking smack about online. So thanks again. By the way,
I should say it's a great video and neverybody should watch it. If they
haven't, well, I'm going to put that, put that in the description.
I think that that glowing. So wait a minute, if I talk
smack about Ben Shapiro, does that mean does that mean I'll get a face
to face debate? What if I did the whole debate? What if I
did the whole debate doing the impression of Vin Spirol, Like, what if
I did the whole bait that way? I think then it would be very
logical, be very plausible. Definitely. Could I do an impression of Vin
Spiro to his face? And then what I get on Daily Wire? Is
that something that we could guarantee all this happened, Dawson. The principal disagreement
that I think I had with you, Ben, is that there was a
subtle or not so subtle implication in my view that yes, with no God,
there's no free will, but somehow having God can solve this problem.
I mean, you said a moment ago that you don't think you can establish
God's existence through reason alone. But assuming that you do believe in the existence
of pretty well, wouldn't you love to see Alex O'Connor come up against Tag.
I mean, this guy would completely collapse into a soy puddle, which
he already is. I mean, I think he's given up veganism. Remember
when he was like all championing veganism. I think he was chosen, by
the way to be kind of the Dawkins successor. I think they did a
podcast together, so you know, Richard was like a succession you my child
be success on right, So Dawkins has an offspring gobblin here in this character.
But first of all, again, this guy would melt at Tag.
He wouldn't last five minutes with that kind of an argument. Be so with
Ben Shapiro too, by the way, but uh, I'm worried that Ben
Shapiro is not going to bring out the biggest guns that you can when somebody
says there's no such thing as free will, because this is the repeat of
my debate with JF and we know how that debate went. Everybody remembers that
one. So if Ben Shapiro's equality debater, I would look for him to
bring that nuclear strength argument out. But most of these people I hate to.
I mean, this is what you guys are presented with as like high
intellectual stuff. And for people that like you know, father deacon, doctor
and anis or people like myself, people that studied this stuff in college,
uh and grad school and whatever like for it's it's funny because and I don't
mean it in an arrogant way, like this stuff is really low tier.
And I again, okay, that's why it's popular. Sure, that's why
these do So it's it's sad though, because the level of the discourse that
happens in the popular sphere is so low tier that it's really just a disservice
to everybody. And that's the sad part. But you can't really talk about
If you talk about that, then people think, oh, you're just sulky
and jealous. You're jealous about so calm, or you're jealous a bitch a
Piro. It's like, I mean, imagine if you a lot of you
guys are musicians out there, right, and you got guitar bros that are
like Ingveay Malmstein and they can do freaking algorithms on their guitar somehow, right,
And when they hear you know, Katie Perry's songs or something like that,
or like a I don't know, like a Garbage pop song, right,
and then the audience, the popular people are like, that's the most
crazy Austin pops on ITLD. And then the Ingveay Malmstein guitar genius or person
is over there and they're like or the classical train musician is like, that's
not even music, right. Even if the classically trained person is not that
good at music, they can still recognize and say this is this is low
tier stuff, man. So for those, it's the same thing in philosophy.
When you look at this stuff, you hear this stuff, and it's
like, it's amazing because like the level of argument they're having is the kind
of thing that would be had in a philosophy one on one class. Everybody
who's been in a philosophy one on one class, there's gonna be some like
super low tier debate about determinism and free will, okay, which is again
it's like what the kind of discussion you have in philosophy one on one?
But I mean, the public is just so like out to launch, and
I mean again, it's like the I'm just gonna say it very simply for
you, guys. The people that are presented to you as sophisticated public intellectuals
are intentionally given to you because it's low tier stuff. That's what I'm trying
to say to you. And if you doubt me on that, I can't
help you because it's a fact and you're probably never gonna get it, so
just forget it. I think it's a real thing that you have. Yes,
And simultaneously saying that if there is no God, then free will makes
no sense. Yes, that does read to me like an argument for God's
existence, such that in order to to to either say that there is free
will, in order to say that there is free will, one must believe
in God. And that does strike me. I mean, to slightly curve
that, or to kind of stand off the rough edges there, I would
say that the argument I made is an argument for something extra natural. You
can call that God or not God. But but the thing that I make
in the argument for is that you cannot get from a material of Darwinist universe
to free will. That is not possible. So I know that the way
you solve that is that you Okay, so I would disagree with this idea
that what I call what I called it is above the natural, Well,
that would be supernatural. It is whether you call it supernatural or not,
well, that would be supernatural if it's above the natural. But yes,
so the next So that's a little weak already. But then to move to
the point that really a Darwinian mechanic, mechanist universe, would you remove the
possibility of free will? And this reduction as a naturalist account, that's correct.
So hopefully he can sustain this argument say that there is no free will.
That's right. And what I'm saying to you is you don't act that
way. I hear this all the time. People's now that is true.
That's actually oftentimes a way that we argue in TAG is that we point out
that a lot of atheist argumentation says something, they act as if they believe
that, but then they don't actually believe that. I do think it's a
powerful rhetorical point. It's a good moral point. But in their worldview,
they can just say, yeah, but I don't have to live according to
I can live contrary to what I actually think is the case. Right,
So I think there's value in calling this out, but it's limited in its
usefulness, and there's a lot stronger directions that you can go. So I
hope he continues to press in a stronger way. But it does have a
good rhetorical value to point this out. Say, Look, you may say
there's no free will, but you don't act as though that's the case.
I suppose that I'm just confused as to what it would look like for somebody
to act as if they believe there was no free will. I mean,
the very argument that there is no free will that I subscribe to, at
least one of the various forms that it takes, is a sort of Schoppenhowry
in view that you can do as you will, you just can't will what
you will, and that you are essentially just a bio. Well, I'm
very I doubt that he's actually read Schopenhauer, but even if that were the
case, let's listen to what he claimed. It was again view that you
can do as you will, you just can't will what you will. So
I can do what I will, but I can't will what I will.
Well. Number one, Remember he's a determinist, so you're not actually willing.
So he's probably going to bite the bullet and say that, Yeah,
free will is an illusion, it's illusory. But I'm going to continue to
live in my illusion as if I have free will. So that's probably what
he's going to say. And of course that's not going to do him any
good because it's not going to give you any account of ethics at all.
He's gonna have to surrender ethics. Remember this was a guy who a year
or two ago was vehemently arguing that veganism was a universal ethical requirement. Remember
that's the goober we're talking about here. Essentially just a biological machine reacting to
its internal and evolutionary drives. That's what's happening. Now, You're just a
biological machine reaction to reacting to internal drives. Now he's given, on a
silver platter a complete dismantling opportunity for Ben Shapiro. So hopefully Ben Shapiro has
caught that plate of dismantling feasting that he just offered up, because just like
my debate with JF, he doesn't even understand the atheist makes a fool of
himself. He doesn't even see that all of his argumentation has just been negated
and canceled out and disqualified by that proposition that he just put on a platter,
because now it means that everything he's saying is no longer an argument,
but merely a determined chemical reaction and process. Did you catch that? Because
he now believes in a disteleological universe, a universe with no purpose. Therefore,
there is no such thing as truth in falsehood in a chaotic, meaningless
purpose universe, and so therefore none of his decisions are truth directed. None
of his propositions are truth directed. They are merely the irrational effects of a
chemical reaction and a chaotic process that is determined. So he did not actually
choose the true over the false, because there is no choosing and low IQ
atheists like, but he still chose even if it's determined. He's still well,
he still chose the true. He didn't choose anything. There's no he,
there's no he there choosing, but still we're determined to true. No
he wasn't. There is no he, There is no choosing, There is
no true because you've equalized the true and the false, the good and the
bad, they're all just what is Call that nihilistic if you like, that's
a separate question. But as to the question of how this would make one
act actually if it's a nihilistic I think it's not a separate question. It's
the very thing in question, dummy, the idea that this might cause us
to sort of lay around in bed all day or something, the very mechanism
that I think is responsible for eliminating the possibility of free will, that is,
the drives that make people do what they do. Like I say,
do exactly that make people do what they do. They make them get out
of bed in the morning. Why do you get out of bed and go
and make your breakfast if there's no free will? So you go and get
breakfast because there's no free will and something is driving you to do that that's
outside of feel control for sure. So the so to get back to the
nihilism point, which you kind of put aside, so that that means that
this conversation is essentially worthless in any sort of real sense. I mean,
yes, there we go. Ben Shapiro's corrector. This is the very point
that was made to JF in our debate. Uh so he's on the on
the right road here. I'm a little surprised, not that I think.
I don't think Ben Shapiro is a dumb person. I think he's a smart
person. So I'm not saying that he can't do a good debate. I
mean we've all heard him owning the you know, twenty year old college you
know goobers, which again, anyone with half a sense of reality and truth
and and you know an IQ above you know, room temperature can own those
people. But he is going down the right road of argumentation that I would
go down. So he gets a point for that. Actively, we were
driven here by lutionary biology and environment to have this conversation. Everybody who's watching
this is driven by evolutionary biology and environment to have a particular reaction to that
thing, and ever round the cycle goes. That seems like a very purposeless
life. Maybe that's maybe the Again, I'm drawing from a realm that is
not evolutionarily biologically connected the word purpose is really teleology obviously has been taken out
of the realm of science pretty thoroughly by that's all correct. Ben Shapiro's correct
here, and this is the right type of argumentation. When you heard me
say that the universe is disteleological, I'm saying the same thing he's saying there.
That's just a fancy term for no purpose, teleology being the idea of
purpose in the world, in nature, interactions in the whole, in terms
of the whole universe having a telos or a purpose. Hence, because God
created it has meaning, Meaning makes sense in that universe. Meaning does not
make sense and is impossible in a deterministic universe. So this is the right
direction atheist by many people in the sciences, although I would argue that again,
most scientists speak in the realm of teleology literally all the time, and
they're borrowing language from the language of teleology, even when they're describing functions in
particular body parts. Right, the heart pumps blood in order to keep you
alive. Right, They're constantly using language that's teleological in nature. The real
question that I have, and this is what goes to the question that you
were asking at the beginning before the pre question question, which was the good
of religion to society. One of those goods is people believing that their free
will matters, and this actually is a useful thing. So I believe that
it is deeply important for people in society to believe that they have the capacity
to change themselves. Like already from the outset, the way the debates framed
is kind of a losing proposition. The debate is not free will and determinism
the debate. The debate is titled, uh is religion good for society?
First of all, there's not this thing as religion, as if all the
different religions are part of this overall worshiping of deities and of a generic natural
theology God. There's true religion and false religion, but there's just this things
like generic religion. And the question is already out of whack because in order
to know if religion is good for society or not, we need to know
what the good is. But the very question itself gets that out of order
by assuming that you have some criteria of the good by which to judge the
religion. But religion or metaphysics and theology is the basis for and the grounding
for the good. So this is it's a dumb way to propose the debate.
But of course this this is the type of religion or debate that like
normies love this type of framing of the debate, right, But it's it's
it's all backwards, and it's ignoring the nuclear strength apologetic that we could have,
which is to turn the tables and ask Alex O'Connor and Ben Shapiro as
well, Okay, what is the good and what is the basis for your
criteria? You're grounding your your judging, your your benchmark for the good here,
because that's what's already presupposed, and nobody's even asking the question, which
is like philosophy one on one to ask well, what is the good?
So how are you going to judge whether religion's good for society without first determining
how you know what the good is and to make different decisions than what biologie
we drives them do. So you say, well, it's biologae that drives
you to get out of bed in the morning, which is almost calvinist and
in sort of the way that it's described, right, it's like you're predestined
to get out of bed. He's actually correct in that analogy that the mechanistic
Darwinian naturalist universe really just took Calvinism and smushed it into the mechanistic process of
the universe itself. And there is actually, I think some validity to that
historical account that people give that out of the Enlightenment, a lot of the
Scottish, you know, Enlightenment philosophers like David Hume and others. Right,
what was the theology existing at that time throughout Scotland, Scottish Covenanter Calvinism,
What do the Puritans believe? Puritanical James Edwardian James Edwards radical extreme occasionalist version
of predestination. So yeah, it's just a hot skip and a jump to
naturalistic predetermination. So once the Puritans and the Enlightenment, that the the the
New light, Presbyterians and all those people had ditched the Trinity and ditched miracles,
they went from unitarianism too, straight up naturalistic determinism. Yeah, hopskipp
in a giant logical progression. So he's actually correct in the morning. So
thus you get out of bed in the morning. But the reality is that
we are constantly making decisions as though those decisions make a difference in the universe,
and what social science actually does tend to shows that when people believe that
they have control over their own actions, then when they believe that they're capable
of changing the way that they live, they do make those changes with more
alacrity and in better directions than if they don't believe that. If people tend
to believe in a deterministic universe, this whole argument about people do better when
they believe this really is irrelevant if the question is about what's true and what's
false. So again, the misnamed premise of this debate is religion good for
society? Is just the wrong headed way to have the debate. It's a
question of what's true and what's false, not is it good for me?
Right? I mean, the whole framing of it's like an Enlightenment utilitarian pleasure
principle. What do I get out of this? This? Is it good
for me? Do it make me do good and feel good? I mean,
might as well make make the topic of the debate does religion make people
feel good? I mean, it's equivalent to is it good for society?
Do it make me feel good? Do we give one fudgy. Well,
that's a dumb way to have that debate. Does it make any sense?
Does the religion make me feel good? I mean it might, but what
does that have to do with whether it's true false? I don't know.
If I was in this, if I was asked to come have this debate,
I would be like, well, the framing of the debate itself doesn't
make any sense. Is religion good for society? I would say that presupposes
that we know what the good is. Maybe we should debate what is the
good right first? But remember, almost nobody studies metaphysics. Almost nobody knows
what these terms are, what these things mean, Almost nobody knows informal fallacies.
So it's like, you're just It's like the conversation that we have with
James Sexton, right, And he's a highly intelligent person. Obviously he knows
all kinds of stuff I don't know about. He's a expert in law and
all that. Sure, But being an expert in law and the ways of
the world and all this, like, none of that had any It didn't
grant any advantage to whether or not the argument was fallacious, whether or not
what was being argued was true or false. They do ect wars, so
it may. So it's like the cause of frustration that I experience is that
we're talking about stuff that are what can I liken it too? Imagine we're
mechanics and we know everything about the structure and makeup of a car. We
know all the parts, how they go together. This thing over here,
this runs this thing. You know, this lubricates this other thing to make
this thing go, to make this thing go, And it's just like it's
super complex, you know, mobile computer that rolls down the road, and
we know all about it. Right, And so everybody else rides in cars
and drives cars, but they don't know anything about the inner workings of the
car. Right, So when somebody says, let's have a discussion of cars
and by the car, I don't just I don't mean this in some arrogant
way like the car is God and I know everything about God. That's not
what I'm saying. I'm saying the domain of laws of thought and argumentation and
debate, that's what I'm talking about here, and metaphysics and basics of philosophy,
right, the car's philosophy here. Not knowing everything about God for all
you high goons in the audience, and so everybody else is like driving around
in the car and they don't care about the inner workings of the car.
Right. And so when we go to talk to these people about cars,
and I say, tell me what you think of the workings of a car?
What a most people say, Oh yeah, dude, you're talking about
my Bugatti and it run fast, put oil in, put gas in it
go quick, right, that's what people are thinking. Cool car fast,
Honda Civic, Toyota, Corolla. And I'm thinking engine, ignition part you
know of all this, kuy Like, that's what I'm thinking of when I
think of cars. So when we have this conversation, I say, ah,
yes, and I don't know shit about cars. So I'm trying to
make this analogy work, but I don't know what anything about cars. Uh
yes, my friend, what do you think of the drive shaft and it's
components, the way that they connect to the the ignition car go fast?
Right? They don't know what you're talking about. The heck's a drive shaft?
I don't know shaft? Oh yeah, shaft right, Well, I
don't know what a drive shaft is. Car, go fast? Car look
cool? Car, get check right, that's what most people are thinking about
cars. We're not thinking about the workings and the components, right. And
it's like, uh, most people, you know, imagine, oh,
well the car works because you could just put liquid inside of it and it
go. So any liquid can go in or are there rules to what liquids
you can put in the car to make it go. It's the same with
argumentation, with logic. With a pistolmology, you can't just say anything and
make argument go. But people can't get this. It's just like it's two
different languages. When I say car, I'm thinking of the drive shaft and
all these stupid parts and components, and this thing ignites and causes a chemical
reaction and that runs this thing and this goes through this part, and everyone
else is just thinking cargo fast. Okay, so fine, cargo fast.
But there's rules to cargo fast. Like you can't just put bug juice,
right. You can't put purple sourus res in the gas tank and it runs,
right. You can't just push accelerator and it go through wall. No,
it doesn't go. That thing doesn't go through walls. There's rules about
there's things that govern the logic of that car. It doesn't go through walls.
I mean, you could try to go through a wall, but cardinal
go fast when you go through. All right, but no one thinks of
the laws of thought and argumentation this way. But they're the same. There's
rules to it. And everybody already kind of knows this because if I were
to imagine I were having a conversation, or you've all experienced this with relatives,
you're at the Thanksgiving turkey dinner and you're violating all the rules of propriety
and wisdom and arguing with your your pervert uncle about whether or not there's conspiracies.
You think nine eleven is inside job? Atta take your as strip club
shit? U straight boy? You don't that right? Does your uncle know
the laws of argumentation and logic? Of course not? And what does he
say? Your uncle drunk uncle says, uh, not eleven an inside job?
Because I don't. That don't feel right to me. Okay, maybe
it is, maybe it is, but how it feels to you, Uncle
Jimmy don't mean nothing. And I mean, squat, dude, that's a
dumb argument. If you tell Uncle Jimmy that's a dumb argument, He's gonna
set this dole row cigarette down, and he's gonna set his michelobe light down,
and he's gonna take that Mason ring and give you a nice little indentation
across your jaw because it's a Thanksgiving brawl. Don't argue with your drunk uncle.
But drunk uncle is a great example of like what what types of fallacies
most people are gonna turn out? Right? Not a living or an inside
job, because it's all them crazy towelhead people. Right, that's not an
arguments, that's just a spit out phrase. What if I and then I
turn around to drunk uncle and I say, drunk uncle, your arguments are
false because your dorial suck my doorrall, don silk, I've been smoking news
as I was sixteen. You don't got emphasy and cancer four times? What
you doing about? He would see, even he would know that's a bad
argument. So everyone knows deep down, even drunk uncle knows deep down,
Uncle Jimmy, he knows there's bad arguments. And yet even though we all
kind of know this, and since it deep down it's kind of obvious,
everyone just acts as if there are no laws of thought. There are no
laws of logic. There's no art laws of argumentation, there's no rules to
any of this. It's all just arbitrary. It's all made up. And
debating is just a demonstration of will to power. It's just power dynamics and
being flashy and being silver tongued and saying quick things and shutting people down.
That's like destiny debate, right, talking fast, that kind of thing,
which Ben Shapiro does that too, right, But Ben Schapiro can actually kind
of debate. It seems like, right, he's kind of an actual sort
of debater. I mean again, I've not watched a lot of Ben Shapiro,
you know, I've seen the viral clips everybody has seen of this or
that owning of the lib you know, from five or six years ago or
whatever. But he's actually making a good argument. Kork is gonna be sort
of strausi and in its implications, But that may work for you. You're
a very high IQ individual who can somehow reconcile the idea of living a very
purposeful life with the idea that actually there's no purpose to anything. But for
the vast majority of people that is not actually how they live. And I
would suggest that even in your daily life. You don't get out of bed
in the morning thinking, man, allergy is driving me this morning to get
on the bike, have a great day. The stunny is shining, that's
my bio. Well, that's true, But the debate needs to go out
of the whole domain of what helps people and what makes them feel good and
what's good for them is for society because that has nothing to do with what's
true or false. Again, that might be something we can draw out as
an implication of what's true and false in this debate. The whole debate is
wrong headed. I mean, how do we know what's good for society if
we don't know the good? And every way that this argument goes in this
discussion so far, it's already just assuming that there's a common ground idea of
what the good is. So what he ought to be doing is pressing Alex
O'Connor on the good, the justification for the good, and pressing the deterministic
naturalist fallacy, which O'Connor has already committed to. Allergy doing this and I
don't think that that most people who live purposeful lives, even if they believe
that everything they're doing is predetermined by the world around them, by their own
biology. I don't believe they actually feel that they have to engage in what
they themselves would term an illusion in order to feel a sense of purpose and
meaning in their lives. Of course, but that's what the evolutionary process in
my view, in my worldview I should say, has done so well,
is provide precisely that illusion. I mean, it's not as the wait a
minute, the evolutionary worldview has provided that illusion? Is that what let's feel
that? Make sure he said that they have to engage in what they themselves
would term an illusion in order to feel a sense of purpose and meaning in
their love, so to have purpose and meaning. Ben Shapiro saying, you
basically have to commit yourself to the illusion of purpose and meaning in this worldview
that Alex o'c connor has so make sure I heard him say this, of
course. But that's what the evolutionary process in my view, in my worldview
I should say, has done so well, is provide precisely that illusion.
I mean, the evolutionary worldview, That's what I mean. He's like,
does does anyone understand he's losing the debate on his own He's like he's he's
out, he's ruining himself very well. If I was being superbib, I'm
just gonna sit back and let your talk. I just keep talking, please,
I would if I was bench like, keep talking. Dude, you're
doing great refuting yourself because what you just said, like what, it's not
as that. I mean you say, look, you don't get out of
bed in the morning thinking, gosh, you know, look at my biological
mind. Yeah, of course not, because if I did, then the
whole evolutionary purpose that this this illusion serves would fall away. I mean,
did he just admit that the entire world that he believes is an evil lutionary
system that provides the illusion. But guess what, your belief in the evolutionary
system is also part of the illusion, dummy. I mean this is like,
I mean, this is not rocket science. Guys, you don't even
need all the philosophical you don't need philosophical training just to realize that what he
said just canceled out all of his argumentation and his whole worldview. In other
words, my world view is an illusion, but it helps me to live
and have meaning, to not think about how my world is an illusion and
meaningless. Let me hear him say this again, because this is it's hard
to believe you actually argued this, Like, are you really just destroying your
own position this easily? I mean what you say, Look, you don't
get out of it in the morning thinking gosh, you know, look at
my biologic mind. Yeah, because if I did, then the whole evolutionary
purpose that this illusion serves would fall away. I mean, oh, so
my whole worldview would collapse if I were to admit, what is actually the
case that my worldview isn't really meaningful or coherent? But let me live my
delusion and push my delusion even though it's complete philosophical nonsense as I try to
make arguments and use logic and argumentation to have a meaningful discourse, which Bench
Bureau, to his credit, had already pointed out would be impossible. This
whole argument with itself would be impossible if Alex O'Connor's world view were true.
So Alex O'Connor showing up to make this argument proves that Alex O'Connor does not
believe his own worldview, and his own worldview is nonsense and incoherence. You
say that this is a fairly purposeless life, and perhaps the implication so that
it's a bit of a depressing one. I didn't come here to inspire optimism
in people. I just think it is in by the way, in facts
the case. Right. So he's trying to be the edgy atheist that owns
it. But you didn't own your edginess, you didn't own up to it,
you didn't affirm Edginius. You destroyed your whole argument, dummy. But
this is remember what Paul says, now, Alex O'Connor, I'm sure colls
my scept to seize himself as a very sophisticated, popular YouTuber and college graduate
man. Right. In other words, atheism is not it's not a problem
of intellect, right because de scriptures say that the atheist is ignorant, No,
it calls them a fool. Does romans one say that men just don't
know because they haven't done enough syllogisms and enough Aristilian logic, they just don't
know. No, it says that all men know and are guilty because they
suppressed the truth deep down, so deep down. Alex O'Connor almost told you
that he knows his worldview is total bullshit, because if he were to admit
what it really is. The illusion of the coherence and the rationality of the
evolutionary worldview and survival of the fitness, and all the stuff that he thinks
is meaningful falls away as an illusion and is actually meaningless. But he will
not admit that because he's committed to a delusion which is not ultimately about reasoning
an intellect. It's a problem of pride. Atheism is spiritual delusion, as
the church elders say, it's not an intellectual problem. Atheism is an intellectual
choice that is a result of a moral problem, a spiritual problem. Do
you guys see that? And why that's the case? Well, doesn't exist,
and we may feel very nihilistic towards that. But as a wise man
once said, facts don't care about your feelings, and I will say that
the argument. Wait a minute, I facts don't care about your feelings,
and facts also don't care about your chosen delusions. And if your worldview is
an admitted chosen delusion because it helps you to have meaning, which you already
admitted it's all a lie, then all of your arguments are also delusions and
lies. Oops against free will, in my view, is based upon something
broader than just scientific analysis or empirical research. Rather, we can build an
argument, I think, from a law of logic, the proposition that P
must either be true or false, and it can't be both. It can't
be neither. It has to be one or the other. We can build
a worldview from a law of logic. Remember, Matt Della Hunty, I
don't know what transcendental categories are. They just are. So this is a
magical, irrational faith in something that he calls a law of logic, which,
in his worldview doesn't even make sense. He believes in a chaotic excuse
me, a determined, chaotic, meaningless, disteleological universe of presumably of pure
matter. I assume he's a materialist determinist. Okay, a law of logic
is not determined matter, dummy, it can't be. So what is it?
Oh, it's an invariant, abstract, immaterial Oh but wait a minute.
You don't have a basis to believe in those things, because the same
argumentation that you would use against a immaterial, invariant, unchanging god is the
same argument that undercuts and destroys your belief in abstract, universal metaphysical principles like
laws of logic. Dah, this is just the Bonsenstein debate all over again.
You don't have a basis to believe in a law of logic. Laws
of logic makes sense in a theistic world view. They do not make sense
in your worldview, and you just admit that it's an illusion. Anyway,
that falls away if you were to admit what's really going on at the biological
level in your worldview. So basically saying all my arguments are delusions, they
don't exist, but accept them because it helps me look cool on the internet,
which doesn't look cool. But anyway, now, this lord of the
excluded middle on one of the foundational precepts of philosophy. We can simply ask
a question of any kind of mental activity and this will be regardless of whether
it's material or immaterial. That's what makes this se crucial argument and an important
one. Sorry, And how do you give an account for what's immaterial in
your worldview as a determinist? I mean, I'm sorry, I feel sorry
for you guys. It's a disservice to you, guys that this is what
the masses are presented with as the height of intellectual sophistication. Is this cosmic
skeptic, right. I mean, college is not a place where you're taught
to rigorously critically think. College is a place where you're indoctrinated to be churned
out as an alex O'Connor does that make sense? Is that you can ask
if that of that mental activity, is it determined or is it not?
That is, is it determined by anything else or is it completely undetermined by
anything. If it's undetermined by anything, then it's random, and you're by
definition not in control of that which is random. If it's determined by something,
then it's either determined by something further inside your mind or inside your brain,
or indeed inside your soul, or it's determined by something external to your
brain. If it's determined by something external to yourself, I should say,
yourself rather than your brain. Here to rid this conversation of any implicit material
listen exterior to yours. Wait a minute, rid the conversation of materialism.
I mean, are you are you committed to that? I mean, I'm
not going to grant you that you have a basis to believe in anything immaterial
in your materialistic universe or worldview, which you seem to be wanting to do.
Now that you're talking about minds and selves, those are metaphysics, and
the same chopping block that would cut off God for you in your worldview,
are also going to cut off things like minds and selves and laws of logic.
Do you not get this? Atheists? You guys are super low IQ
and it's hard to get you to guys who understand this. But the same
chopping block that cuts God off cuts off souls, selves, consciousness, the
will, the good laws of logic. Can you not see this? And
yet here you are every time you make a sentence assuming laws of logic meaning
t los, etceteratera. Okay, right, so now that we all admit
you're doing that, we need to hear an account for that. What is
your account for your use and your belief in these things which you've already admitted
by the way, our illusions and don't work. I mean, this is
you're just I guess. The audience is just being gas lit, I guess,
and that everybody just wants to be gas lit. They want to be
lie to me. Please us, please spank me intellectually, spank me.
Please, Alex O'Connor, please don't want to be I want to I want
Stockholm syndrome because the atheist arguments are good, even though deep done in another
complete non sense. Please intellectually spank if me, I'm a bad person health.
If that's what's determining the action, then clearly you're not in ultimate control
of that action. If it's something inside of yourself somewhere, then all you
do is push the problem back and you ask the question again, is that
thing determined or is it indetermined? Indetermined, it's random determined. You keep
going back until you either terminate in something outside of the self something or I
suppose something undetermined and therefore therefore random, either of which you are complete.
Alex O'Connor is so bad at debate that Trent Horne, who is mediocre at
debate, completely demolished Alex O'Connor within about forty minutes and had him contradicting himself
right away. So like, and I'm not trying to be mean to Trent,
but my honest assessment as a person who knows how to debate, of
the debate with Trent, I would say Trent is a mediocre debate bit debater
because he miserably failed to even understand the basic critiques I was making in our
natural theology debate. So I give Trent a mid grade and Trent demolished both
Matt Dela Hunty and Alex O'Connor. So what does that tell you? So
this is like super low grade level argumentation. And I hope you guys can
see this. So and I get asked maybe once every week or two when
you're getting a debate cosmics skeptic, when you're going to debate Alex O'Connor,
You think I haven't asked and sent emails and sent tweets countless times to all
these people. Of course, that's never going to happen. And the reason
it's never going to happen is not just because he's got a bigger channel or
whatever. It's because there there's no reason for him to do that debate.
People who have this tier of debate, I guarantee you can sniff out who
would really demolish them in a debate. So there's no reason for them to
do it. What optics, What do they gain from that debate? Because
the majority of the population has already figured out that they think that this is
high tier debate, the debate that we would have would probably fly over the
heads of most people anyway, So it's what good would that even do?
And it would only draw away the smarter aspects of Alex O'Connor's audience into theism
or into our camp. Right, So there's really no advantages to debating people
who might beat you in a debate. And I think deep down they sniff
it out. They know that I better stick to people in my wheelhouse,
right, that I could probably hang with. Why would I debate somebody who
has spent twenty plus years studying epistemology metaphysics when I can have a much lower
tier, much more pop friendly debate. So again that's explaining to you guys,
why Alex. Why would Alex O'Connor have a debate with me? Well,
literally, there's no reason for him to do it. There's nothing he
gained from having a debate with me. Be out of control it. If
you say that it terminates in something like a soul, people like to do
this. They say, well, look, with the religioushilosophy, we have
the benefit of introducing a soul that doesn't solve anything, because you still need
to It's not a matter of having to explain the mechanism by which the soul
brings about actions that may well be a mystery. But if it is the
case, that whatever it is that's doing that is either determined or it's not,
and that if it's not, it's random and therefore out of your control,
and that if it is, it ultimately well. The first thing I
would say is that he's basing all of this on his belief in the ex
law of the excluded middle. But as a atheist materialist, he doesn't have
any basis or justification or believing in invariant immaterial laws. So I don't know
how he know how he knows or thinks that there's such a thing as a
law of excluded middle in a deterministic universe. Number Two, he's already admitted
that a bunch of the things that we've talked about. Now he's arguing like
there are souls and minds and selves, which he has no basis for either.
So I don't know why you're supposed to think that those things exist in
his worldview, and why he's going to use those things and appeal to those
things. Unless he's a car salesman and he's selling people obvious contradictions and lies
and gasolighting people, which could be the case, but it's a false It
also could be a false dialectic right, Like his argument was that from the
law e s flood of middle, all of our actions are either completely determined
or totally chaotic. Well, maybe a person is a unique kind of metaphysical
thing that can be influenced by different types of things, and so their choices
are not are neither totally biologically determined nor totally random. Maybe free will is
a unique metaphysical category that doesn't fit into your bizarre arbitrary ad hoc either or
right. And he's gonna say, oh, dull, you'll attacking on unknown
and unprovable metaphysical things. Oh yeah, exactly like what you just talked about
for the last five minutes, unknown unprovable metaphysical things in your worldview that make
no sense. Do you guys understand the strength of presubsistional apologetics pre subsisitional apologetics
is an immediate IQ test to eliminate from the outset everybody mediocre and under.
It is the litmus test of mediocre and under immediately being canceled out. That's
the strength of it. When you understand what we're talking about, itly terminates
in something outside of yourself or something random, and both of which are out
of your control, free will cannot exist. Well, that does argument that
that vernment does rely on the complete deconstruction of the self. I mean that
you're using the term self in this argument in I think a couple of different
ways. You're saying something outside yourself, But then you're breaking down the self
into a bunch of separate components, as though the self is a computer.
Right if you took the self and you broke it down into a machine and
there's like the micro there's yeah, like where he's going here? Like this
is the direction I would have gone. I would I would point out all
these different metaphysical terms that he's used as if there are things that he can
appeal to when his worldview excludes the possibility of those things, excludes them being
coherent. Micro check, and you've got the processor, You've got all these
different parts of it. So it has to be coming from here or it
has to be coming from here. But I think the very idea that we
have of ourselves as slves is as a deciding being, and so the the
attempt to carve that down into so which, Yeah, this was my point
so he's saying what I was saying through an analogy. So I agree with
him parts of the deciding being that is an avoidance strategy. So I don't
think that the argument quite holds. So if we didn't call the self just
being, then that sort of fundamental assumption that we make about the nature of
the self I didn't think is going to be incapastible with atheism. This marks
the potential start of a third These ai ads, these deep fake ads are
getting totally ridiculous, right, Like every day there's like some it's like Michael
Saylor, Donald Trump, Uh, hello everybody, this is doctor Phil and
the government has lied to you about the checks that you can get if you
sign up here on this app. Right, It's like the worst stupidest deep
fake ever. I get them on every video. How So, because we're
talking about what the self is, the I mean, atheists believe in the
self. Everybody believes in this. Yeah, thank you Alex for telling us
the things that you believe in that have no basis or justification and make no
sense in your worldview. That's exactly what we want to call out. We
know you believe in these things and use these things and act like you're an
atheist, using and believing in and basing your life around things that in your
worldview don't exist. But this guy is solo acute. It doesn't even see
that. I mean that I find difficult to believe. Why wouldn't atheists believe
in the self? Self is a series of of non disci Yeah exactly.
So Ben Shapiro is actually absolutely nailing him on the very thing I would argue
siding mechanisms as you described. I see that your view of the self is
an atheist view of the self, a meatball wandering through space, as I've
put it somewhat colorfully, the sort of Spinoza idea that you're a stone that's
been thrown, and you can comprehend that you've been thrown, but your stone
that's been thrown. And that's just the way that it is. Why would
there be in atheist philosophy such a thing as a deciding self, the deciding
sell, the deciding being is external to the idea of an evolutionary cause,
because it again, the very word deciding suggests uncaused decision making. Yeah exactly,
this is the appropriate way. So Ben Shapiro is absolutely correct. The
way he's critiquing this worldview. I had no idea what I was going to
get when I clicked this video, and a million people said, not a
million, but tons of people said, do the debate between Shapiro no corner.
Yeah, So here we are. This is the essence of the free
will predestination debate and determinism debate. And Shapiro's absolutely correctly on point calling him
out as to a pre subpositional internal critique of the atheist worldview that the self
makes no sense, it's arbitrary and ad hoc. But again, do atheists
do anything but be arbitrary and ad hoc. No, they don't, And
you've just excluded it through your own philosophy uncaused decision making. I suppose it's
a concept that I think is unintelligible, and therefore if there is, if
there is an unintelligibility. So you notice, unless there was an edit,
there no response on what the self was. The whole discussion was about,
now the metaphysics of the self, which O'Connor was trying to appeal to.
Ben Shapiro correctly called him out on it, and he's what deflecting often too
some other thing. So he doesn't want to talk about that clearly. And
look at the body language. He looks like he even gets bothered by the
question. Again, look at him like he's closing his elf like, oh,
he's like, oh shit, oh ship, I brought up self.
Uh but I already canceled out things like self and my dumb philosophy. What
am I gonna do the very word deciding? Look at him? Down bad,
right there, dude, down bad? He said a fist, He's
got his quibi quabbles in a WHEEBI wobble, oh cooly cobbers, oh blundy
dumb be bumbledoor eat bumbledumb to be dumbledore suggests. He's like, oh,
look at out angry eyes. Now I've had enough debates, by the way,
where you can you can begin to see in the body language of people,
uh, when when they're like when they're in oh land, you just
stepped into You just stepped your foot into a big pile of oh ship,
right cause decision making and you've just excluded it through your own philosophy. Oh,
that's exactly what I would have argued, uncool decision making. Oh,
let's not talk about that, and let me shift it over into some other
thing uncaused decision making. That was a pretty Again, this is the first
like proper. This is a prop debate. We're gonna have a debate.
It's gonna be proper. This is my first proper debate with Ben Shapiro,
watching him do a proper bit, not debating a purple haired college goblin.
And I think that was actually pretty solid. I see the body language of
cosmic shit pile here just melts, he like sinks down and then gives him
like gives him like evil. Why would there be in athi philosophy such a
thing as a deciding self, the deciding himself, the deciding being is external
to the idea of an evolutionary cause, because he, oh, close my
eyes and let me sink into myself. Let me sink into my non existent
determined self and come up with an argument very word decided. Look at the
watch, the angry look caused decision. So and I get credit to Ben
Shapiro for handing handling it in a friendly way, because if I was debating
Alex O'Connor, we all know that, like I will like throw in some
jokes, you know, and I put these people into a rage, like
when they debate with me. They get they get into a rage. So
he wouldn't have just been giving me, you know, evil eye, nasty
look. Dude would have like jumped across the table with soy rage. Well
he want to jumped there he went. No, he would run out of
the room. Right, we have a rage quit soy rage quit, estrogen
rage quit. Anyway, So there you go. A lot of you said
cover this, cover this. That sounded like I went into a doctor Philip,
when you're going to cover this? Uh, we're gonna have to go
back to the Wi fi now because of my damn internet's net it up.
My internet's been drinking Michael old Light and smoking door rills. So hold on
just one second. Everybody's gonna be fussing word stream. God. We didn't
even end up talking about aliens tonight. We talking about this goofy debate.
But it was exactly I wonder Ben Shapiro listens to arguments we make though,
could be? Could be now we gotta talk about aliens though? What's the
F for? We're gonta put f's in the chat. I just had to
switch back over to the WiFi. What's what? What's what? The f's
We're still here. We ain't going nowhere. I told you it would.
We had to come right back because I had to switch over to the Wi
Fi because if I use the L A N I have to turn off the
Wi Fi. When the battery runs down, I have to switch back to
the WiFi. Right. No, it's not the government. We're here.
Everything's good, so I'll be I don't have to change the title of this
live stream because it ended up being not really being about what we thought it
was going to be about. But I think that section those sections were quality
care tis there. Maybe we should just leave it like it is, though,
and not even get into alien stuff, because now it won't even make
sense to talk about alien stuff given that nothing we talked about was had anything
to do with aliens. So we'll see what we got. Ken m says
for five dollars, I love your work, but you have chronic rhinitis.
Well, thank you for Internet diagnosing me, doctor Internet. But if I
have something that's chronic, that means it comes and goes, and this is
not something that comes and goes. This is something that arrived via the Vatican
and has not left, so it has just been here. But thank you
for your diagnosis, doctor Internet, and you said you saline and nasal.
We'll see ribranium. Five dollars. I need an alien that's worked. I
need it alien, It's worked with me. Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas.
Do you two? Maybe maybe Santa will bring you a nice supple alien to
tourk for you, single man? Were I brainian? Five dollars? Dang,
the superchats made my fire emojis become questions Merry Christmas to Jamie too.
Well. I'm sure Jamie is happy that you are wishing her a Christmas time,
but I will not speak for her because she may not bless you for
Christmas, so I'm not going to speak for Christen. Ten dollars. I
could not superchat until you were done singing. It was too captivating. Come
on, we're tying up. I'm not exactly you feel me. Vincent migtial
five dollars. I hate to interrupt this, ear Candy, but can you
sing classic Mode? What is classic mode? Oh? Depeche Mode. I
hear that they are on tour and I wanted to go see them. Well,
they came to Nashville and I was trying to buy tickets and it ended
up not working out where we could be there when they were in Nashville,
and then I thought, well, maybe they're gonna come to Florida. So
I didn't make it a priority to buy Nashville tickets because I thought, we'll
I'll try to see them somewhere in Florida. But I don't think they even
came to Florida. So I really wanted to see the Peche Mode and was
in the process of buying tickets and I did it. I love to sing,
and I appreciate when people singing other people in front of other people.
We need to do more caroke, right, we need to have more karaoke
nights. Luke plays Drivvings five dollars. Jay, You're gonna make me stumble
tempting you with alien booty cheeks. You should not be tempted by cgi aliens,
Towerking. So you need to go see a doctor, a mind doctor,
a mental health doctor. You need to go get your mental health's checked
and take a self care day. You said, my alien and myself can
go get individual blessings as a couple at the local Roman Catholic church. Exactly,
Yes, it's a couple's blessing. Uh oh, Mark Morrison showed up.
Don't ever sing my song again. Jesuits owe me a favor, by
the way, Oh come on, well, I'm sorry Mark Morrison that I
I don't know what the Jesuits had to do with your song, but I
apologize. Storm the Cat ten dollars. If you watched the anime Death Note,
I have not because I've not seen much anime at all, so I'll
have to try to remember to look at Death Note. Ben chilled for the
jab, Storm the Cat three dollars, Frankie d five dollars. Drunk Uncle
stories remind me of how and by the way, I forgot, yes,
drunk Uncle is a Saturn Ound Night Live character. That's not what I was
thinking of. I was actually thinking of my uncle. So anyway, they
try to remind me of how drunk uncles explained fighting Saddam in the war wasn't
was for America and it wasn't for Johnny Rockefeller. Dudes that went there don't
like to hear that. Yeah, exactly, Like if you try to explain
that the wars are not fault for America's defenses but for you know, Subway,
Coke, Pepsi and Amazon, that doesn't make him happy exactly, Jay,
did you watch the Jimbob debate with Mike Burgandhi? No, I'm not
seeing the recent Jimbob debate. I'm assuming that's on the Crucible. Let's see.
Ooh, I'm streaming over my wife. Uh oh, she's gonna be
made a Let's see Jim Bob's debate with Mike Burgandhi, is he an atheist?
He apheists Mike brigand let's take a little look at it. I don't
believe in any gods, and I believe that there are some gods, especially
the Christian one, that are definitionally unable to exist, meaning the intelllogical contradictions
or inconsistencies. So today I will point out these logical consistencies contradictions. I
like, he's got my Brian Greene's book on dimensions in the background, Like
that's going to make it look smart, right, Like, I know about
dimensions, dude, I know about dimensions. What's the other book? I
can't tell. It's something something cosmos like Karl Sagan or something. Yeah,
I don't know. I don't know if I have the energy for this three
hours? Good grief, dude, Is there a specific like gotcha point in
this debate that I could go to. I can't watch all three hours of
this. Mike lost the very moment he said that we can see logic in
its matter. Okay, well yeah, if that that would be the kill
shot. So is there a time stamp? Can we just go to that?
I mean that's like these atheists are just like bottom of the barrel,
dude, They're so dumb. Man. I'm not trying to be mean,
like there aren't dumb Christians or religious people. There are. There's dumb people
everywhere. Guess what, there's dummies everywhere. But I mean it's just like
atheism is when they actually go up against an educated, metaphysically philosophically grounded person.
It's like Michael Jordan versus playground people, right. I Mean there's like
they don't even know basic stuff. They just completely collapse. I mean imagine
thinking that logic is material. I mean that's basically what we reult reduce uh
stuff to saying. Within like ten minutes of our debate, right, Jim
Bob annihilated Mike. Mike is out of his depth. I mean, you
got and they're saying he's a midwit Reddit atheist Yeah, so it looks like
that's about what I expected it would be. Uh, let's see you said
in the rest of your comment if you did watch this debate, what kind
of arguments would hit home with that audience. I don't even know who what
audio, I mean, the crucible audience or the atheists. It seems like
you're can apply distellial it's dys distelology, not d s disteleological arguments to any
person arguing for determinism. Yeah, sure, of course absolutely. Steve Miller
five dollars, Steve Millervan, we got Boomer Rockers in the chat as well
as R and B Legends, got Mark Morrison and even Miller Band in the
jet five dollars explain the link between jesus death at age thirty three and Masonic
number thirty three. I don't believe in or know if any connection between that.
I mean maybe the Masons think that arbitrarily. They could say, you
know, post hawk, Oh well, the number thirty three corresponds to Jesus's
death. I mean, there is no connection. Masonry is based on made
up stuff. Frankie d ten dollars do a Christopher walking. My Christmer walking
is not very good. Y'all. Everybody requests like my worst impressions. I
think I'm pretty good at quite a few, but my walking is not very
good. Man. I have to go back to work. I have to
go back to the shop, literally, because you can't actually work on impressions
of making better. So I'd have to work on my Christopher walking to get
it better. It's just and I haven't done it a long time. Expanding
the Doctor Phil with Christopher Walking doing an ad about how you should buy chalk
Patriot chalk to be prepared for the shortages. I'm sorry, Frankie Die,
I just don't have a good enough oh wow and wow. Right, remember
when he's dancing with the aliens? Uh, oh wow? I like to
dance with aliens. Now that's a problem that you've got. That's a deep
suited thing with your mother. Do you think you would always dance with aliens
if you had a father at home? How's that? How's that? That's
the kind of conversation I would see Christopher Walking and Doctor Phil have it right,
Because I'm talking about the movie Comunion. Does anybody even see the movie
Communion? You don't even know what I'm talking about? In Communion, Christopher
Walking does the cha Chai with aliens right playing Whitley Streaver. So anyway,
so I think we'll just skip aliens. That even makes sense to talk about
aliens now. It's like, maybe we could do this tomorrow night or something,
but we ended up not even totally different topics tonight. That's okay,
because everybody's always requesting, you know, debate reviews, so probably better to
do the debate review with with what we talked about tonight. But look,
guys, come on, there's one thing I gotta tell y'all. You all
know it, but we're all avoiding it. We're all telling ourselves lies about
how to become masculine. We all know the secret is chalk dot Com.
Chad Mode is your ultimate natural pre workout designed to take your performance to the
next level. Chad Mode is for natty beast. Alpha's only whether you're hitting
the gym, invading a favella, conquering a small village, gambling, burning
the midnight oil, mogging on your coworkers, or getting banned from Facebook,
chad Mode gives you the competitive edge you need. It's as simple as mixing
one or two scoops of our fine powder into water or juice, providing you
with a delicious, energizing beverage featuring a burst of sweet organic fruit flavor.
Chad Mode will give you the extra edge you desperately crave. Chad Mode stands
out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and dyes.
We've even avoided so called natural flavors, ensuring a clean and effective formula.
Only soy boys and Beta's guzzle blue dye and sucralose, further tanking their
already low testosterone levels. Chad Mode is made in America. Unlike your common
TikTok peasants pre workout powder, it does not contain Chinese lab made caffeine and
artificial sweeteners that soyboys so often crave. Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode
with Blue Magic registered trademark organic blue Spirillina extract, organic lemon cherry and organic
maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine. Embrace the natural power of organic green coffee
bean extract. Each dose of chad Mode mirrors the caffeine kick of a cup
and a half of coffee, delivering a surge of energy alongside essential vitamins minerals,
amino acids, and herbal extracts. Chad mode will allow you to fire
your boss and mog on end. Show of something that we're all proud of.
I got a browser here. This is Jay Dyers, much vaunted,
much sought after philosophy one oh one. Now he just got this page up.
We are just testing it out. You guys are some of the first
people in the world to see it. I want to say, for my
part, it's not philosophy one oh one. I think this is a mistitling.
I really think is as like philosophy unleashed because a philosophy want on one
course, they give you kind of some useless information that you can't make sense
of. Jay actually lays out over twelve weeks, dozens and dozens of hours
put into just the presentation of this, let alone the hundreds and thousands of
hours of research that it takes to have a coherent evolution and history of the
origins of philosophy, the uses of philosophy, the different to look at it
over time, and how that has been brought about to what we have today,
which is almost an absence of philosophy on the objective, logic and reason
side. In an overabundance of woke philosophy that is irrational, is made up
day by day as people are like, I think we should bring racism back,
and then here's a justification, and then it gets woke afied and spread
out, and then all of a sudden you have a bunch of communist socialist
ideas where you become the property in action. You need to be able to
stand on your own ground. It helps to have a foundation in philosophy because
it's a method define truth when you get down to it. Philosophy is there
because you love truth enough to go and learn how to find it, because
it's valuable. So if you're interested in things like that, there is the
landing page. We'll link it up in the notes. It is a longer
once, so we'll get a shorter URL for this. I'm sure Jay has
a link on his page. I just wanted to show it off. Now
you know what exists, you can go look for it and see. Is
that I'm muted? Now somebody said you a mess, Your mom's a mess.
I don't know why it's muted. Shouldn't be muted anyway, Well,
it's the end of the stream anywhere anyway, so you're just fussing about nothing.
Maybe I wanted to come on muted, and maybe I didn't want you
to hear the horrible things I saying about your mom. Do you think about
that? Do you think about whether I might I muted on purpose so you
didn't have to gear feelings hurt? Troy says, for five dollars, make
a video tour of your library. Explain how to start with a good personal
book collection. Well, I did do a I did a library tour several
years ago, and that was back when I had like five thousand subscribers though,
so I've probably gotten a few thousand books since then too, So we
could do a library tour. It's kind of like, let's see if I
can do this? Can I do this? Y'all want to see what's behind
the scenes. So when you look at the other side of the room,
it's exactly the same. So there's basically the same stuff right on the other
side of the room. And then there's another room that is the exact same
as this room with all the same books. So basically two full rooms.
But you want a video where I go around and show you all the books.
Uh, And also you ask for a basic library, like a starter
kit for a library. MTV cribs MTV libraries. Ain't know saying is MTV
libraries. I might do that. I might do that one day. It's
gonna take more than a five dollars super chat, though. You gotta pay
me. We gotta pay me a lot more than that to do it right,
or else I'm gonna start rapping you better, y'all better super Chat.
I'm gonna start rapping again. You know what I'm saying. You remember that
I must start saying. I must start threatening that you have to superchat me
or else I will wrap. Let's see here we go remember this? Oh
it's already disconnected. Never mind. Yeah, we could do a we could
do a library tour sometime. That'd be fun. In my rage quitting,
I'm always right, did our rage quit on a daily basis? You know
what I mean? Anyway, a lot of fun tonight. I hope you
guys enjoyed it. I can't think of anything else to review.