1
00:00:14,679 --> 00:01:06,920
S s some some woman some s
some so sore wave. Our anthropology is

2
00:01:07,000 --> 00:01:12,280
not derived by human psychology or you
know, historical data from M I T

3
00:01:12,680 --> 00:01:19,480
or something like this. It's derived
from the revealed aspect of what we see

4
00:01:19,480 --> 00:01:23,000
in prosology. And so there's no
real way to diagnose man's problem and and

5
00:01:23,159 --> 00:01:30,400
understand man and man's anthropology. As
I said, man without the right theology

6
00:01:46,120 --> 00:04:31,120
MS sting, no one stating something
you've seen from the singing from the logos

7
00:04:31,240 --> 00:04:45,319
is the icon of Father, and
man is the icon of God. We

8
00:04:45,399 --> 00:08:54,039
are the image of Godha dire wave
three shut dire wave. The artists reflects

9
00:08:54,559 --> 00:09:01,159
the soul. The spirit of the
architecture reflects the soul. Because therefore you

10
00:09:01,240 --> 00:09:07,960
can see the degeneracy. You can
see the degradation and the loss of the

11
00:09:09,080 --> 00:09:15,720
sthetics, the loss of the idea
of their being carmany border symmetry in esthetics.

12
00:09:16,399 --> 00:10:26,840
It's connected with the loss of a
comherence and philosophy. It's this sis

13
00:11:48,159 --> 00:12:37,639
dire wave three y Yeah now have
yeah, yeah, there have there have

14
00:12:45,440 --> 00:14:31,600
now throw throw thrown down town narrow
there have there have no bas tuna tat

15
00:14:33,480 --> 00:15:31,799
tat tat there there there have dire
wave, what's up, nerds? How

16
00:15:31,879 --> 00:15:37,200
y'all doing. Somebody said I'd have
a bigger audience if I didn't call people

17
00:15:37,279 --> 00:15:39,080
nerds. I didn't start that.
I don't even know where it came from.

18
00:15:41,799 --> 00:15:43,559
But hey, I'm chalked up.
I'm ready to go, baby,

19
00:15:46,639 --> 00:15:50,879
And uh, you know, debating
can be annoying, it can get old,

20
00:15:50,919 --> 00:15:54,320
but it can also be fun.
It has its pros, it has

21
00:15:54,399 --> 00:15:58,480
its cons and uh yeah, I'm
looking forward to wanting to have a good

22
00:16:00,000 --> 00:16:03,960
conversation with Trent for a long time. So I think tomorrow is going to

23
00:16:03,960 --> 00:16:07,679
be a lot of fun. We
got a lot of cool stuff that we're

24
00:16:07,679 --> 00:16:14,600
going to be bringing to the table, got gigantic tables of papers spread everywhere.

25
00:16:15,840 --> 00:16:18,000
So somebody said, oh, hope
you're prepared. Dude, hope you're

26
00:16:18,000 --> 00:16:22,519
prepared. I've been preparing for over
a month, so I'm well prepared.

27
00:16:22,559 --> 00:16:26,519
And not to be arrogant, but
I mean, it is a topic that

28
00:16:26,559 --> 00:16:32,960
we've debated for twenty years. I
mean I've been in the camp of criticism

29
00:16:33,080 --> 00:16:38,240
of this position, even back when
I was in undergrad So don't think that

30
00:16:40,720 --> 00:16:47,600
I'm treating it as some sort of
willy nilly thing. As everybody knows we've

31
00:16:47,720 --> 00:16:51,720
reviewed Trent in the past. I
think Trent is a excellent debater, have

32
00:16:51,799 --> 00:16:59,840
a lot of respect for Trent.
We did long review of his review of

33
00:16:59,879 --> 00:17:07,079
his debate with Cosmic Skeptic, and
of course we gave him props because you

34
00:17:07,119 --> 00:17:10,920
know, he did really well in
the debate that was pretty much an evisceration.

35
00:17:11,160 --> 00:17:15,799
Now this is a little different because
I don't this is more of an

36
00:17:15,920 --> 00:17:19,240
evidentialist, you know, attitude towards
debate. Not that there's anything wrong with

37
00:17:19,319 --> 00:17:26,400
evidences, right, Evidences themselves aren't
problematic. You do have to use evidences

38
00:17:26,440 --> 00:17:30,279
in debate, but this is a
little different because it's not a debate about

39
00:17:32,000 --> 00:17:40,799
apologetic methodologies. So one kind of
misunderstanding we probably should dispel is the idea

40
00:17:40,880 --> 00:17:42,279
that if you're a presuppositionalist, ever
you use a trend of stall army,

41
00:17:42,279 --> 00:17:49,039
you don't believe in evidences, you're
against evidences totally not true. Evidences come

42
00:17:49,079 --> 00:17:52,279
into play all the time, and
in fact, there's nothing but evidence for

43
00:17:52,480 --> 00:18:02,160
Christianity. That's precisely the point of
presubsitionalism is that it's the most extreme evidential's

44
00:18:02,200 --> 00:18:07,839
position that you could have, because
there's nothing but evidence for Christianity. So

45
00:18:11,200 --> 00:18:14,839
tomorrow's debate's going to be a lot
of fun looking forward to it. I

46
00:18:14,960 --> 00:18:18,799
meant to put the address for this
debate in the show description, so I'm

47
00:18:18,799 --> 00:18:30,519
going to add that real quick,
put it down the bottom. Now.

48
00:18:32,160 --> 00:18:40,359
I'm a little iffy about playing this
debate because if I play the video,

49
00:18:40,680 --> 00:18:42,799
I don't trust that Matt Frad isn't
going to try to strike my channel.

50
00:18:45,759 --> 00:18:49,720
So I have it ready to go. But I mean, Matt Frad doesn't

51
00:18:49,799 --> 00:18:56,640
like us at all, which is
fine, and I just think he might

52
00:18:56,759 --> 00:19:00,720
use that as a reason to,
you know, trying to try to do

53
00:19:00,799 --> 00:19:04,920
a little nasty business, try to
do a little some some try to be

54
00:19:04,960 --> 00:19:17,079
a little SaaS. So I'm gonna
play the audio at least, but we

55
00:19:17,240 --> 00:19:18,519
just don't know, right, We
just don't know what you can't. It

56
00:19:18,559 --> 00:19:25,359
would be nice if we could,
you know, speak freely and really technically

57
00:19:25,519 --> 00:19:30,720
under fair use. It would come
under fair use, and I don't think

58
00:19:30,759 --> 00:19:34,400
I would lose if we had to
dispute that. But it's not even worth

59
00:19:34,480 --> 00:19:41,440
really risking it and going into that, because you know, I think we're

60
00:19:41,480 --> 00:19:45,599
a lot safer if we just play
and refute the audio it's just you know,

61
00:19:47,400 --> 00:19:49,319
Trent's face and Matt's face. Anyway, It's it's not like you're missing

62
00:19:51,480 --> 00:19:56,759
you know, beautiful scenery and you
know, unless you really want to see,

63
00:19:57,079 --> 00:20:04,839
you know, the glare on Matt's
head, We're not really missing much.

64
00:20:07,119 --> 00:20:12,240
But as you know, we've been
researching a lot in preparation for this

65
00:20:12,319 --> 00:20:22,599
debate. I just swallowed a ginger
chew. Hold on there and shout out

66
00:20:22,640 --> 00:20:26,279
to our good buddy, Father Deacon
and an East Norwegian noose. Of course,

67
00:20:26,319 --> 00:20:30,400
he as a specialist in epistemology.
You know, he knows a lot

68
00:20:30,480 --> 00:20:36,799
of the current debate trajectory. So
actually, not in the I mean not

69
00:20:36,920 --> 00:20:41,359
in the last months, but in
the last year, Father Deacon has really

70
00:20:41,440 --> 00:20:45,599
recommended a whole bunch of really useful
books shout out to Space Jockey, Energetic

71
00:20:45,640 --> 00:20:52,000
Procession. He's also recommended some really
good materials and essays relating to some of

72
00:20:52,039 --> 00:20:56,680
these topics. So you know,
we have a whole host of people that

73
00:20:56,799 --> 00:21:00,119
really contribute. So I don't want
to make it out like, oh,

74
00:21:00,160 --> 00:21:03,079
I'm just some one person thing that
you know. I mean, I'm sure

75
00:21:03,160 --> 00:21:07,880
you know Trent has Catholic answers,
so you know, he has people that

76
00:21:07,240 --> 00:21:11,880
I'm sure he works with as well, and he comes out of the Steubenvilleville

77
00:21:12,519 --> 00:21:18,119
Mill you and you know there's various
UNI eight professors and people that work at

78
00:21:18,160 --> 00:21:21,960
Steubenville. So you know that's just
part of it. And you know,

79
00:21:22,000 --> 00:21:25,279
we want to we want to give
our proper props, you know, shout

80
00:21:25,319 --> 00:21:32,119
out to the peeps, the props
and uh, you know, I'm not

81
00:21:32,240 --> 00:21:36,680
gonna this. The purpose of this
review is not to you know, lay

82
00:21:36,720 --> 00:21:38,000
out all of our cards. You
know, we're not going to show all

83
00:21:38,079 --> 00:21:41,400
of our cards and points and arguments
that we're gonna bring to the table tomorrow.

84
00:21:41,680 --> 00:21:45,960
So you know, if you came
thinking that, you would figure out

85
00:21:45,000 --> 00:21:48,920
what I'm gonna do. And I'll
know what he's all know, I'll see

86
00:21:48,960 --> 00:21:52,640
his hand beforehand. Not gonna happen. That's not gonna work. We're gonna

87
00:21:52,680 --> 00:22:00,480
do another fun review like we always
do when we analy lies debates, and

88
00:22:00,640 --> 00:22:03,920
it's one of the funnest things.
They get a lot of views. Everybody

89
00:22:03,960 --> 00:22:06,680
loves these. I always say,
do them over and over and over.

90
00:22:07,440 --> 00:22:12,599
And I didn't even I forgot this
debate, not because I don't care for

91
00:22:12,759 --> 00:22:18,119
the people. I like to watch
these people debate. But I remembered Lewis

92
00:22:18,240 --> 00:22:27,839
had clipped the clip from this debate
right and made a video that was really

93
00:22:27,920 --> 00:22:33,200
funny that kind of showed where Matt
really messes up in this debate. And

94
00:22:33,440 --> 00:22:37,599
then I remember I never actually watched
this debate. I just watched Lewis's eight

95
00:22:37,680 --> 00:22:41,079
minute video, So it was high
time to actually watch the debate. So

96
00:22:41,920 --> 00:22:45,039
let's get this started. Imagine we'll
get through a good bit of it.

97
00:22:45,119 --> 00:22:48,880
We ment I do the whole to
two hours and eleven minutes. But if

98
00:22:48,920 --> 00:22:56,680
I recall, there's some pretty significant
philosophical blunders on Matt's part in this debate.

99
00:22:56,440 --> 00:23:00,279
Hopefully everybody can hear me. Everything
good, sound good, And as

100
00:23:00,319 --> 00:23:03,400
you know, we're gonna have to
make sure, let's make sure the sound

101
00:23:03,559 --> 00:23:07,319
is good when I play this debate. I'm gonna let it play a little

102
00:23:07,319 --> 00:23:12,759
bit. Mate, fraid, mate's
just giving me his introduction. So if

103
00:23:12,799 --> 00:23:17,799
you can hear this all right,
Well, I like to think Matt for

104
00:23:18,039 --> 00:23:22,119
hosting this debate, I'm grateful for
the other Matt for participating in it.

105
00:23:22,559 --> 00:23:26,279
Tonight, I'm going to defend the
statement that it's reasonable to believe Jesus of

106
00:23:26,359 --> 00:23:29,160
Nazareth rose from the dead. Can
you hear that Matt has the burden of

107
00:23:29,200 --> 00:23:33,039
defending the negative that it's not reasonable
to believe Jesus rose from the dead.

108
00:23:33,920 --> 00:23:36,599
In order for each of us to
defend our positions, we each have to

109
00:23:36,640 --> 00:23:40,839
present a standard for what makes a
belief reasonable, especially belief in unusual,

110
00:23:41,400 --> 00:23:45,680
unrepeatable events. Now we're being reasonable
is not the same as being convincing.

111
00:23:45,119 --> 00:23:48,599
You could fail to be convinced by
a belief but still think that the belief

112
00:23:48,680 --> 00:23:53,039
is reasonable. For example, Matt, Matt is not convinced of Alex O'Connor's

113
00:23:53,079 --> 00:23:57,319
ethical veganism, but I doubt Matt
would say Alex is unreasonable for being an

114
00:23:57,319 --> 00:24:03,359
ethical vegan. Likewise, Matt's personal
doubts about the resurrection are irrelevant to whether

115
00:24:03,440 --> 00:24:07,759
belief in the resurrection is reasonable.
Instead, Matt has to defend an objective

116
00:24:07,839 --> 00:24:11,799
standard for what makes beliefs reasonable or
Now, this is a great point I

117
00:24:11,960 --> 00:24:15,200
like where Trent has gone here,
and it's precisely the approach that I would

118
00:24:15,440 --> 00:24:18,640
go if I was debating Matt.
Right And when we did the debate with

119
00:24:18,759 --> 00:24:22,480
Matt, we kind of started out
in this arena where we wanted to go

120
00:24:22,640 --> 00:24:27,000
to Matt's presubpositions. Of course,
that doesn't mean that Trent is a presuppositionalist.

121
00:24:27,039 --> 00:24:32,160
I'm not saying that, but I
like that he's going to the epistemic

122
00:24:32,279 --> 00:24:34,000
question and he's saying, well,
first of all, Matt, we've got

123
00:24:34,079 --> 00:24:44,319
to understand that just not being convinced, your psychological state of being unconvinced,

124
00:24:44,759 --> 00:24:48,799
does not mean that a position is
necessarily unreasonable. For the very fact that

125
00:24:49,599 --> 00:24:55,119
we can find all kinds of positions
that you disagree with but that you still

126
00:24:55,240 --> 00:24:59,680
don't think are unreasonable. So it
sounds like Trent's going in the direction of

127
00:24:59,799 --> 00:25:03,119
a like you said, he's going
to try to pin Matt into giving an

128
00:25:03,119 --> 00:25:08,839
account of Well, then what is
the criteria for something being reasonable in Matt's

129
00:25:08,880 --> 00:25:11,640
worldview? But I don't know for
sure. Let's see what Matt's what he

130
00:25:11,720 --> 00:25:17,599
does unreasonable. So let me offer
three tests to see if belief in an

131
00:25:17,680 --> 00:25:22,480
unusual event is reasonable. Number one, does the belief contradict well established facts

132
00:25:22,519 --> 00:25:26,319
about the subject in question. If
it does, then the belief is unreasonable.

133
00:25:26,759 --> 00:25:30,920
For example, the claim that everyone
buried in Arlington National Cemetery physically rose

134
00:25:30,960 --> 00:25:36,400
from the dead would be unreasonable because
it contradicts the facts about those bodies still

135
00:25:36,440 --> 00:25:40,319
being in the ground. But claiming
Jesus rose from the dead doesn't contradict any

136
00:25:40,359 --> 00:25:44,720
similar fact about Jesus remaining in his
tomb. Now, you might say,

137
00:25:44,759 --> 00:25:48,000
the science of biology shows dead people
stay dead, and so the resurrection contradicts

138
00:25:48,119 --> 00:25:52,440
this fact. But this isn't a
fact about Jesus, it's a fact about

139
00:25:52,519 --> 00:25:56,319
human beings. In general. Atheists
like Matt are often skeptical of universal statements

140
00:25:56,480 --> 00:26:00,359
like everything that begins to exist as
a cause, So why not be skeptical

141
00:26:00,400 --> 00:26:04,720
of statements like human beings never come
back from the dead when we are presented

142
00:26:04,759 --> 00:26:10,359
with a reasonable counterexample. Moreover,
the claim that Jesus miraculously rose from the

143
00:26:10,440 --> 00:26:15,400
dead requires that dead people stay dead. That's because a miracle is a supernatural

144
00:26:15,559 --> 00:26:19,960
intervention that serves as a sign of
God's revelation, just as an orange life

145
00:26:21,079 --> 00:26:23,599
vest is a sign of a survivor
in the ocean. Because it's so unlike

146
00:26:23,680 --> 00:26:27,480
the surrounding blue water. The resurrection
can only be a sign from God or

147
00:26:27,519 --> 00:26:32,839
a miracle if it was so unlike
our usual experience of people dying and remaining

148
00:26:32,920 --> 00:26:37,279
dead. But does this mean we
have to accept every miracle claim that doesn't

149
00:26:37,279 --> 00:26:41,119
contradict a fact about the subject in
question. No. Here's test number two.

150
00:26:42,039 --> 00:26:47,039
Is there a lack of evidence we
would expect if the event did occur?

151
00:26:47,680 --> 00:26:49,880
If there is, and it's unreasonable
to believe the event occurred. For

152
00:26:49,960 --> 00:26:53,960
example, it's unreasonable to believe Jesus
appeared to every person in ancient Rome after

153
00:26:55,039 --> 00:26:59,839
his crucifixion, because ancient historians would
have written about that. But suppose Jesus

154
00:27:00,200 --> 00:27:03,720
did rise from the dead and appeared
to Peter, the Twelve Disciples, James,

155
00:27:03,839 --> 00:27:07,960
Paul, five hundred others, as
recorded on Corinthians fifteen. What kind

156
00:27:07,039 --> 00:27:11,720
of evidence would we expect to emerge
after these events. The people to whom

157
00:27:11,759 --> 00:27:15,480
Jesus appeared would tell other people about
what happened. Some people would believe these

158
00:27:15,519 --> 00:27:18,960
disciples and some wouldn't. This process
of oral communication would result in the establishment

159
00:27:19,000 --> 00:27:23,319
of communities of believers or churches.
The tiny minority of believers who were literate

160
00:27:23,400 --> 00:27:29,119
might write about the resurrection and non
Christians. I liked where this began.

161
00:27:30,039 --> 00:27:33,400
Now I kind of think it's getting
into the domain of weak stuff. Like

162
00:27:33,759 --> 00:27:36,519
he had a great point at the
beginning. I wish he had. Maybe

163
00:27:36,559 --> 00:27:38,799
he will later on. I don't
know, but he could have really pursued

164
00:27:38,920 --> 00:27:48,640
this line of argument about Matt's criteria
of reasonableness and rationality itself. What is

165
00:27:48,799 --> 00:27:53,480
reason? But now he's saying,
well, if Jesus raised from the dead,

166
00:27:53,799 --> 00:27:57,480
then some of the things that we
might expect would be what happened in

167
00:27:57,599 --> 00:28:00,599
Christian history. There would be church, there would be apostles, this kind

168
00:28:00,640 --> 00:28:04,400
of stuff. I don't find that
to be a very convincing line of argumentation,

169
00:28:04,599 --> 00:28:11,119
not because it isn't what's in history, but that's the Christian paradigm reading

170
00:28:11,200 --> 00:28:15,440
of history. And if Matt is
a sophisticated atheist, hopefully he will call

171
00:28:15,559 --> 00:28:21,160
that out. I don't expect that, but we'll see historians who are aware

172
00:28:21,200 --> 00:28:23,960
of this group my reference or beliefs, but not accept them. And that

173
00:28:25,079 --> 00:28:29,559
is exactly what happened with early Christianity. Now I'm not saying this proves the

174
00:28:29,599 --> 00:28:32,960
resurrection happened. I'm only saying that
if Jesus rose from the dead, as

175
00:28:33,000 --> 00:28:37,039
the New Testament describes, then there
is no absence of expected evidence that makes

176
00:28:37,079 --> 00:28:45,359
this particular retend. So there's no
absence of expected evidence, and so because

177
00:28:47,680 --> 00:28:51,119
this happened, it's evidence that there
might have been a resurrection, but it

178
00:28:51,160 --> 00:28:55,400
doesn't prove it. This is again
kind of really hitting at the weakness of

179
00:28:56,279 --> 00:29:00,720
starting things with an evidentialist bent,
right. I mean, if we're going

180
00:29:00,759 --> 00:29:04,519
to prove the resurrection, we're not
going to be able to prove it apart

181
00:29:04,640 --> 00:29:10,880
from a paradigm that gives an account
for proofs to themselves. And so it's

182
00:29:10,920 --> 00:29:15,359
really just begging the question to pile
up all these supposed evidences and then say

183
00:29:15,599 --> 00:29:22,519
that maybe this possibly might likely perhaps
suggest that there was a resurrection. But

184
00:29:22,640 --> 00:29:29,680
I mean, Matt isn't going to
merely accept Christianity if there's a resurrection.

185
00:29:30,000 --> 00:29:33,640
I mean, there's Old Testament people
who were resurrected, and that doesn't prove

186
00:29:33,720 --> 00:29:38,519
judaism. There are religious claims all
over the world about resurrections, and even

187
00:29:38,519 --> 00:29:45,720
if the resurrection happened, none of
those things actually establish the truth of the

188
00:29:45,799 --> 00:29:48,880
religion as a whole. That's why
Christianity is a paradigm. It's a whole

189
00:29:48,960 --> 00:29:52,200
system of beliefs. It's not a
piecemeal thing that you pick and choose from.

190
00:29:52,799 --> 00:29:56,559
You would only think it's a piecemeal
thing that you pick and choose from

191
00:29:56,680 --> 00:30:03,920
if you have a tonistic evidentialist bent. But again, if Matt is competent

192
00:30:03,279 --> 00:30:11,200
and coherent in for let's say,
accepting the doctrine of one guy resurrecting,

193
00:30:11,200 --> 00:30:15,319
maybe he starts his own cult about
one guy who resurrects. Right, Maybe

194
00:30:15,359 --> 00:30:22,359
he thinks Jesus resurrected and that now
gives him the impetus to start a the

195
00:30:22,440 --> 00:30:26,279
Matt cult of Jesus. I mean, isn't this what every cult and sect

196
00:30:26,400 --> 00:30:32,480
does. So this whole idea that
just merely proving that or arguing that the

197
00:30:32,599 --> 00:30:40,559
resurrection is reasonable, is not good
in terms of proving Christianity, because Christianity

198
00:30:40,680 --> 00:30:44,759
is not a piece by piece thing
that you stack up. It's a whole

199
00:30:44,880 --> 00:30:48,319
set of beliefs. The Trinity is
just as necessary as the resurrection. Creation

200
00:30:48,519 --> 00:30:53,559
x Neilo is just as necessary as
the doctrine of the resurrection. Virgin birds

201
00:30:53,640 --> 00:30:57,680
is just as necessary as the inspiration
of scriptures. They all go together,

202
00:30:59,519 --> 00:31:03,079
and it's a set of beliefs,
and there's not a piecemeal thing by which

203
00:31:03,160 --> 00:31:10,079
you assume that one doctrine is more
self evident than the other doctrines. Direction

204
00:31:10,200 --> 00:31:14,759
belief unreasonable but an unusual belief could
still be unreasonable even if it passes these

205
00:31:14,799 --> 00:31:19,039
two tests, which brings us to
the final test. It's the evidence of

206
00:31:19,079 --> 00:31:23,319
the unusual event just as easily accounted
for by a usual And I would add

207
00:31:23,359 --> 00:31:27,240
two and I think Father Deacon would
probably agree with this critique, which is

208
00:31:27,319 --> 00:31:37,640
that this approach from the outset kind
of already assumes a theory neutral look at

209
00:31:37,759 --> 00:31:45,759
evidence improving things. And so Trent's
whole approach is assuming that evidence improving things

210
00:31:45,400 --> 00:31:52,200
isn't theory laden, as if you
can do that apart from the system of

211
00:31:52,240 --> 00:31:57,000
your other beliefs that you have.
Right, there's not a theory neutral notion

212
00:31:57,279 --> 00:32:01,400
of proof and evidence. I mean
by the mere fact that you can convince

213
00:32:01,519 --> 00:32:06,440
atheists of all kinds of things and
they don't accept the rest of the doctrines

214
00:32:06,480 --> 00:32:10,799
of Christianity. Even if Matt agrees
that it maybe is reasonable that Christ was

215
00:32:10,880 --> 00:32:15,319
raised from the dead, there's a
whole host of other sects that he could

216
00:32:15,400 --> 00:32:20,559
choose. There's a whole host of
other false religions or again his own cult

217
00:32:20,599 --> 00:32:23,720
that he could make up. So
when you grant from the outset that Matt

218
00:32:23,759 --> 00:32:29,559
as an atheist, has the correct
paradigm of interpreting the evidences. You're already

219
00:32:29,640 --> 00:32:34,160
surrendering the very thing that's in question, which is Matt's whole paradigm of atheism

220
00:32:34,240 --> 00:32:37,400
and autonomous reasoning. And so that's
again the problem with this approach is that

221
00:32:37,839 --> 00:32:43,799
it grants too much to the unbeliever
to say that he can properly interpret all

222
00:32:43,839 --> 00:32:46,279
this, all these domains of the
natural world. And if we can get

223
00:32:46,319 --> 00:32:50,640
him to agree to enough things,
then later down the road we can just

224
00:32:50,759 --> 00:32:53,519
tack on something else. I mean, I like to say that natural theology

225
00:32:53,759 --> 00:32:58,839
and evidentialism is like, let me
convince you of a bunch of heresies,

226
00:32:59,640 --> 00:33:01,000
and then down the road, I'll
make you a Christian, right, I

227
00:33:01,079 --> 00:33:05,839
mean, if we took, for
example, Phaser's approach, where Faser says,

228
00:33:05,880 --> 00:33:08,680
Okay, I've given up trying to
argue for creation x nilo. Let

229
00:33:08,720 --> 00:33:14,200
me just argue for an eternal first
actualizer. Okay. So when you convince

230
00:33:14,279 --> 00:33:17,519
me of that, you're not making
me a Christian. Okay, you're making

231
00:33:17,559 --> 00:33:22,440
me a stupid heretic. So do
you want to convince me of twenty heresies

232
00:33:22,640 --> 00:33:24,720
and then a year from now,
five years from now, get me to

233
00:33:24,720 --> 00:33:30,480
become a Roman Catholic. Is that
what you think apologetics is? I mean,

234
00:33:30,599 --> 00:33:32,480
does Paul do that? In acts? No, they go out and

235
00:33:32,519 --> 00:33:36,880
preach the resurrection, right, they
don't. Nobody does in the in the

236
00:33:37,000 --> 00:33:39,720
New Testament, when the apostles go
out and preach, does anybody do this

237
00:33:40,920 --> 00:33:44,599
table of evidences and all this kind
of not. No, they don't do

238
00:33:44,680 --> 00:33:47,400
that. They don't say, well, that's maybe probably partly kind of reasonable

239
00:33:47,440 --> 00:33:50,519
to believe that maybe a guy rose
from that. No, they don't do

240
00:33:50,599 --> 00:33:55,000
that. They say, your wisdom
is foolishness. Repent and believe in the

241
00:33:55,039 --> 00:34:00,839
resurrection, because you can't interpret anything
right. Nation. If it is,

242
00:34:00,960 --> 00:34:04,880
then it is unreasonable to believe in
the unusual event. The claim that the

243
00:34:04,960 --> 00:34:09,679
Muslim prophet Muhammad received poetic recitations from
an angel doesn't necessarily contradict anything about Mohammed,

244
00:34:09,920 --> 00:34:15,079
and if an angel only dictated the
story in medieval Arabic conventions, we'd

245
00:34:15,119 --> 00:34:17,800
expect the cut on to sound as
it does. But Test number three says

246
00:34:17,840 --> 00:34:22,480
there are usual explanations that account for
these historical facts. This includes fraud or

247
00:34:22,519 --> 00:34:27,440
even mistakenly attributing one's subconscious thoughts to
the voice of God or an angel.

248
00:34:27,920 --> 00:34:30,239
Therefore it's not reasonable to believe in
the central miracle of Islam, but the

249
00:34:30,320 --> 00:34:37,679
central miracle of christian So I mean
again, this whole line of argumentation acts

250
00:34:37,760 --> 00:34:45,159
as if there's a common notion of
what's reasonable. But what's in debate is

251
00:34:45,239 --> 00:34:50,320
the are the very things that are
prior to reason. Do these people not

252
00:34:50,440 --> 00:34:54,800
get this? The evidentialists and the
natural theologian proponents not understand that actually what's

253
00:34:54,880 --> 00:35:01,079
in debate is not a conclusion of
a syllogion or a bunch of argumentation some

254
00:35:01,360 --> 00:35:07,400
God, but the kind of God
that is prior to logic, prior to

255
00:35:07,000 --> 00:35:14,679
epistemology, prior to all human argumentation. I mean, that's what you're arguing

256
00:35:14,760 --> 00:35:19,400
for in Christianity, right, a
sovereign, all knowing, omniscient personal trinity.

257
00:35:21,440 --> 00:35:27,199
You're not arguing for generic theism.
Oh but perhaps you are. But

258
00:35:27,280 --> 00:35:31,960
when you're doing that, oh,
sanity is literally a different story. Before

259
00:35:31,960 --> 00:35:36,719
I explain why, I must note
that in previous debates Matt has said there

260
00:35:36,800 --> 00:35:39,320
is a difference between claims and evidence. He said, there is no evidence

261
00:35:39,360 --> 00:35:44,800
for the resurrection, only claims about
things that happened to Jesus and his apostles.

262
00:35:45,320 --> 00:35:49,960
But most historical evidences, nearly all
of them are just claims that something

263
00:35:50,000 --> 00:35:53,079
happened, including unusual things. If
I told Matt I wrote an elephant across

264
00:35:53,119 --> 00:35:58,039
the Swiss Alps, he might want
extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim.

265
00:35:58,440 --> 00:36:00,960
But the only evidence for the Carthagin
in general, Hannibal crossing the Alps with

266
00:36:01,039 --> 00:36:06,480
war elephants in the third century BC. It's just a claim made by a

267
00:36:06,599 --> 00:36:10,760
Roman historian decades after it happened.
This is a good point to refute one

268
00:36:10,800 --> 00:36:15,360
of Matt's assumptions, right, which
it's correct that I mean in a sense,

269
00:36:15,960 --> 00:36:21,280
is there a difference between making or
asserting something and making an argument?

270
00:36:21,519 --> 00:36:28,280
Yes, but Matt is apparently unaware
of history. That history isn't a thing

271
00:36:28,360 --> 00:36:32,000
that you prove with empirical evidence.
I mean, as an empiricist or a

272
00:36:32,159 --> 00:36:37,239
supposed empiricist. This is really embarrassing. I mean, Matt should know this,

273
00:36:37,639 --> 00:36:40,840
right. You can't empirically observe what
Hannibal did. You can't empirically observe

274
00:36:42,360 --> 00:36:46,320
what Plato and Socrates were up to. All you have is claims from history.

275
00:36:46,559 --> 00:36:52,599
So Matt really fumbles on a really
stupid point in this debate. And

276
00:36:52,719 --> 00:36:58,880
this is precisely what Lewis clips out, which is correct. What I think

277
00:36:59,159 --> 00:37:02,159
where Trent's going to get him on
this major historian doubts this took place,

278
00:37:02,480 --> 00:37:07,119
even though historians don't even agree on
basic facts like what route Hannibal took.

279
00:37:07,800 --> 00:37:10,360
So, given this proper understanding of
historical evidence, what is the evidence for

280
00:37:10,480 --> 00:37:15,760
the resurrection? The most important evidence
would be claims that Jesus appeared in a

281
00:37:15,800 --> 00:37:20,360
bodily form to groups of his disciples
after death. So how could we explain

282
00:37:20,480 --> 00:37:23,400
these claims? Well, here are
four possibilities. So again, you know,

283
00:37:23,639 --> 00:37:30,639
in this debate with Matt, it's
not wrong to give evidences, uh

284
00:37:30,960 --> 00:37:38,119
or evidence. Excuse me, But
if the debate is about belief in the

285
00:37:38,199 --> 00:37:45,760
resurrection as reasonable, then the real
debate is about the prior question of reason

286
00:37:45,960 --> 00:37:52,320
and the criteria of reason, which
Trent hint he started with that, but

287
00:37:52,440 --> 00:37:57,960
now he's gone into Well, let's
act like we all have the same criteria

288
00:37:58,000 --> 00:38:04,559
of proof and rationality when the atheist
worldview is completely ultimately irrational, and then

289
00:38:04,760 --> 00:38:07,639
let's on those grounds, act as
if I'm not debating an atheist, but

290
00:38:07,679 --> 00:38:13,639
I'm debating a person with the same
criteria as me. But he'd asked at

291
00:38:13,639 --> 00:38:20,519
the beginning what mats criteria is.
And I like that he's critiquing Matt's inconsistency

292
00:38:20,719 --> 00:38:25,079
on historical claims. But the reason
that this debate is not going to go

293
00:38:25,159 --> 00:38:34,639
anywhere ultimately is because he's not challenging
Matt's presuppositions of autonomy and atheism itself in

294
00:38:34,760 --> 00:38:42,320
terms of worldviews, as if just
believing in the resurrection is somehow like a

295
00:38:42,400 --> 00:38:46,400
theory neutral fact. Again, Matt
can accept the resurrection and reject Christianity,

296
00:38:47,360 --> 00:38:52,480
right, And that's the whole assumption
of the piecemeal foundationalist approach is that,

297
00:38:52,119 --> 00:38:54,519
oh well, if I just you
know, come up with a few of

298
00:38:54,559 --> 00:39:00,199
these basic ideas, then maybe maybe
it'll be likely problem for Matt to accept

299
00:39:00,280 --> 00:39:05,960
Christianity. But I mean, why
does he have to accept Christianity merely because

300
00:39:06,000 --> 00:39:10,119
he accepts some person resurrecting or rising
from the dead. You know, there

301
00:39:10,199 --> 00:39:14,119
was a great point Bonson always used
to say about this, which is that,

302
00:39:14,239 --> 00:39:15,920
I mean, couldn't the atheists just
say, well, crazy things happen,

303
00:39:17,320 --> 00:39:23,199
But why does crazy things happening entail
that I should accept Christianity? One

304
00:39:24,039 --> 00:39:29,320
the claims never happened and were invented
by later Christians as a legendary development.

305
00:39:29,920 --> 00:39:32,519
The problem with this explanation is that
we have Paul's writings and he had contact

306
00:39:32,599 --> 00:39:37,760
with the disciples and even makes this
claim about himself. We also have accounts

307
00:39:37,800 --> 00:39:40,679
from Luke, who shows himself to
be a very reliable historian. Father Deacon

308
00:39:40,719 --> 00:39:44,800
makes a great point in his paper, which is that if I'm going to

309
00:39:44,880 --> 00:39:50,199
grant that the atheist has the correct
criteria of reason and the correct epistemology to

310
00:39:50,480 --> 00:39:55,639
investigate and evaluate evidences from the outset, then couldn't the atheist turn around and

311
00:39:57,679 --> 00:40:00,199
you know, point out that could
just be and that most dude, he's

312
00:40:00,280 --> 00:40:04,719
not welcome here. He's a liar. He came into the discord under the

313
00:40:04,760 --> 00:40:08,159
auspices that he was an inquirer,
but he wasn't. So could you block

314
00:40:08,239 --> 00:40:15,760
him? I've already bock I've already
blocked him on other arenas. So if

315
00:40:15,800 --> 00:40:17,960
you're a MOD, I can't see
him because I've blocked him on another channel.

316
00:40:19,079 --> 00:40:22,039
So if you're a MOD, just
block him. That is a liar.

317
00:40:25,280 --> 00:40:30,559
I mean again, these people act
like nothing has happened in the last

318
00:40:30,599 --> 00:40:37,360
five hundred years of philosophy, right, like not aware of the last several

319
00:40:37,480 --> 00:40:40,679
centuries of debates and epistemology. I'm
saying, but for both of these parties

320
00:40:40,719 --> 00:40:45,239
here right, And that doesn't mean
I think that like Matt wins. No,

321
00:40:45,480 --> 00:40:52,440
I'm sure Matt loses this debate.
But the foundationalist approaches to these questions,

322
00:40:52,920 --> 00:40:57,960
they just ignore the questions that we
ask. They both documents, these

323
00:40:58,000 --> 00:41:01,320
appearances and Peter's testimony about the resurrection, it acts too. Finally, if

324
00:41:01,320 --> 00:41:05,920
the Disciples never claim Jesus rose from
the dead, and we have no explanation

325
00:41:06,039 --> 00:41:09,880
for how church communities based on this
belief arose so quickly when other Messianic movements

326
00:41:09,920 --> 00:41:15,000
fell apart after the death of their
leaders. This is why scholars universally agree

327
00:41:15,039 --> 00:41:21,400
that an authentic experience motivated the Disciples
to make these claims. The Agnostic New

328
00:41:21,480 --> 00:41:24,639
Testament scholar PAULA. Fredrickson says,
I know, in their own terms what

329
00:41:24,760 --> 00:41:29,039
they saw was the raise Jesus.
That's what they say, and then all

330
00:41:29,079 --> 00:41:34,639
the historical evidence we have afterwards attest
to their conviction that that's what they saw.

331
00:41:36,320 --> 00:41:37,840
I wasn't there. I don't know
what they saw, but I do

332
00:41:38,000 --> 00:41:42,920
know that as a historian that they
must have seen something similarly. The atheistic

333
00:41:43,039 --> 00:41:45,960
historian Richard Carrier says, I think
it more probable that Peter and James,

334
00:41:46,039 --> 00:41:52,119
and certainly Paul maybe several others saw
something that inspired their faith. I think

335
00:41:52,119 --> 00:41:55,000
it most likely that others had these
visions earlier than Paul, and that Paul's

336
00:41:55,079 --> 00:41:59,480
letters give more or less a correct
version of his own experiences, such as

337
00:41:59,519 --> 00:42:04,519
his personution of the early believers.
The disciples. Maybe they just made the

338
00:42:04,559 --> 00:42:07,159
resurrection claims. They made the claims, but they were lying. But this

339
00:42:07,199 --> 00:42:10,840
doesn't really explain the involvement of outsiders
like Paul and James who had no reason

340
00:42:10,920 --> 00:42:15,719
to lie, or the evidence of
the disciples' sincerity and their willingness to be

341
00:42:15,800 --> 00:42:21,119
persecuted. Maybe the three Maybe the
disciples sincerely believe they saw the reason Jesus,

342
00:42:21,199 --> 00:42:23,639
but they were mistaken. They had
some kind of grief induced hallucination.

343
00:42:24,480 --> 00:42:29,239
But this explained. This doesn't explain
any other facts related to Jesus's death.

344
00:42:30,000 --> 00:42:32,760
One we should be skeptical of the
disciples being grief stricken. It's equally likely

345
00:42:32,840 --> 00:42:37,559
they were angry they wasted. Yeah, but again, even if you do

346
00:42:37,719 --> 00:42:44,400
demonstrate that, why should I on
this piecemeal approach. I mean, if

347
00:42:44,440 --> 00:42:47,599
this is if this is the approach
that we should take, then shouldn't you

348
00:42:49,000 --> 00:42:52,440
piecemeal convince me of every doctrine of
Christianity? I mean, if it's a

349
00:42:52,519 --> 00:42:59,280
piecemeal approach, then you're gonna be
bound then to give me piece male evidence

350
00:42:59,400 --> 00:43:06,320
of every every single doctrine within Christianity
unless you would just argue for the paradigm

351
00:43:06,360 --> 00:43:08,199
as a whole. I mean,
wouldn't that make much more sense? I

352
00:43:08,280 --> 00:43:14,480
mean, the atheist does not have
the competent, correct criteria of evidence.

353
00:43:15,199 --> 00:43:19,519
In fact, you can't give an
account of evidence at all, much less

354
00:43:19,639 --> 00:43:22,880
reasoning, much less proofs, much
less logic, all of which are prior

355
00:43:22,960 --> 00:43:28,559
to the actual doing of evidential analysis. I mean, I don't why can

356
00:43:28,639 --> 00:43:32,880
these people not get this right?
There's questions that are prior to logic and

357
00:43:34,039 --> 00:43:38,280
argumentation and evaluation of evidence is namely
epistemological questions. Right, if you're going

358
00:43:38,360 --> 00:43:45,239
to make metaphysical assumptions about what exists, the nature of that evidence, you

359
00:43:45,320 --> 00:43:47,880
know, how it relates to other
evidences, formulating theories, et cetera.

360
00:43:49,679 --> 00:43:52,840
That's all interpretations of things in the
domain of you know, what exists,

361
00:43:53,199 --> 00:44:02,400
metaphysical realities that you're just assuming,
right, But you haven't demonstrated on foundationalist

362
00:44:02,880 --> 00:44:10,960
grounds the metaphysical principles and truths that
are being used in the evaluation of evidence

363
00:44:13,599 --> 00:44:20,360
that are assumed in this evidence.
You're not. You haven't demonstrated the logical

364
00:44:20,639 --> 00:44:28,960
principles, the epistem logical principles that
are prior to the metaphysics. You're just

365
00:44:29,119 --> 00:44:32,119
assuming that that's the case. And
yeah, you could say, well,

366
00:44:32,199 --> 00:44:36,000
but Matt's assuming the same thing too, So aren't we on the same page?

367
00:44:36,079 --> 00:44:38,280
No or not, Because just because
you're doing that doesn't mean that you

368
00:44:38,400 --> 00:44:43,519
have the good, the same good
reasons to do that. That's what justification

369
00:44:43,679 --> 00:44:49,519
is about. That's the whole point
of why we don't want to grant that

370
00:44:49,719 --> 00:44:55,119
the atheist has the ability to give
coherent, justified, meaningful interpretations of the

371
00:44:55,199 --> 00:45:04,920
evidence. It's giving him too much. Years of their life following another failed

372
00:45:05,000 --> 00:45:07,760
messiah. Moreover, Paul and James
were not reef stricken over Jesus's death because

373
00:45:07,800 --> 00:45:13,440
they weren't believers when he was crucified. Two. Since ancient Jews believe the

374
00:45:13,480 --> 00:45:15,880
resurrection wouldn't take place until the end
of the world, it follows that even

375
00:45:15,960 --> 00:45:20,760
if they had grief induced hallucinations,
the disciples would have thought they saw Jesus's

376
00:45:20,800 --> 00:45:23,519
soul in heaven, not as glorified
body on earth. Moreover, given their

377
00:45:23,559 --> 00:45:28,239
fierce monotheism, we would expect them
to hallucinate Jesus as a man exalted in

378
00:45:28,320 --> 00:45:32,480
heaven and not as the creator.
I'm going to take issue with the notion

379
00:45:32,639 --> 00:45:39,679
of fierce monotheism. Again. The
New Testament doesn't use and there's there's no

380
00:45:39,920 --> 00:45:45,920
usage of the term monotheism, as
doctor Branson has shown anywhere in this period.

381
00:45:45,960 --> 00:45:52,840
That's a much later term. Monotheism
isn't really there if you read the

382
00:45:52,880 --> 00:45:59,000
Cappadocians. It's the monarchia of the
Father right and the niceing Creed's definition of

383
00:45:59,280 --> 00:46:00,800
the We believe one God, the
Father, Almighty, maker of Heaven.

384
00:46:01,000 --> 00:46:06,119
So the identification of the one God
begins with the person of the Father and

385
00:46:06,199 --> 00:46:09,519
the Creed. So it is actually
not the case that the Apostles and the

386
00:46:09,639 --> 00:46:15,360
Jews believed in and defended a radical
monotheism. That's a myth. It doesn't

387
00:46:15,400 --> 00:46:21,119
exist. There's no such thing as
an Old Testament unitarianism that gives way to

388
00:46:21,320 --> 00:46:24,800
trinitarian theology, and the New Testament
and this is fundamental to our system and

389
00:46:24,920 --> 00:46:30,760
to our theology. Orthodox theology is
always insistent that the God of the Old

390
00:46:30,800 --> 00:46:34,440
Testament is the Trinity just as much
as the God of the New Testament is

391
00:46:34,480 --> 00:46:40,599
the Trinity. You see, so
fundamentally weird mistake on the part of Trent

392
00:46:40,800 --> 00:46:45,159
there. But I think that's just
because Trent's in the system of Roman Catholicism,

393
00:46:45,280 --> 00:46:50,119
and you know, it's probably in
large degree of Thomas. Maybe he

394
00:46:50,360 --> 00:46:53,199
takes issue with some of Thomas's teachings, I don't know, but you know,

395
00:46:53,480 --> 00:47:00,679
the Thomas doctrine of simplicity usually lends
to people arguing that the Old Testament

396
00:47:00,800 --> 00:47:07,920
doctrine of the Unitarian monotheism was just
kind of a given right. Abraham believed

397
00:47:07,960 --> 00:47:14,199
in a generic unity, a generic
Unitarian God, which is precisely what Muslims

398
00:47:14,280 --> 00:47:19,400
argue. No, in fact,
the Old Testament doctrine is the Trinity when

399
00:47:19,440 --> 00:47:22,920
the church fathers in the New Testament
are achieving in the post Alphasolic period,

400
00:47:23,119 --> 00:47:28,559
justin Martyr, when they prove the
Trinity, when ieron As proves the Trinity,

401
00:47:29,480 --> 00:47:32,480
when the New Testament writers prove their
trinity doctrine, even though they don't

402
00:47:32,559 --> 00:47:36,880
use the word trinity. They go
to the Old Testament. They go to

403
00:47:37,079 --> 00:47:40,159
the Old Testament. That's the number
one starting point for proving the trinity.

404
00:47:40,719 --> 00:47:45,880
When we argue with the Muslims,
where do we prove the Trinity the Old

405
00:47:45,920 --> 00:47:52,360
Testament? Which we couldn't do if
the Old Testament taught a bear unitarian radical

406
00:47:52,840 --> 00:47:59,599
monotheism. So that's just false.
But again, Roman Catholics don't have the

407
00:47:59,639 --> 00:48:02,559
trinity, their heterodox on the Trinity. And I'm not saying that to insult

408
00:48:02,599 --> 00:48:07,039
Trent. I don't have any ill
will or call in to question, you

409
00:48:07,079 --> 00:48:12,719
know, trans motives at all.
Just factually speaking, the Orthodox position is

410
00:48:12,840 --> 00:48:16,159
that the Roman Catholics do not have
the correct trinitarian doctrine. Jesus told them

411
00:48:16,199 --> 00:48:21,880
he used divine power to raise himself
from the dead. Three. Paul tells

412
00:48:21,960 --> 00:48:23,880
us Jesus appeared to groups of people, and the closest thing we have to

413
00:48:23,960 --> 00:48:30,119
Group hallucinations or mass hysteria usually involve
people psychosomatically experiencing a similar illness, not

414
00:48:30,400 --> 00:48:35,599
individuals claiming to all see the same
thing that doesn't exist, especially something that

415
00:48:35,880 --> 00:48:39,639
didn't conform to their previous expectations.
Four. The New Testament authors repeatedly make

416
00:48:39,719 --> 00:48:44,199
it clear when someone has a dream
of vision where they think they've seen a

417
00:48:44,199 --> 00:48:47,079
ghost or a spirit. The resurrection
appearances in the New Testament all point toward

418
00:48:47,159 --> 00:48:52,639
groups of people seeing an embodied,
recently deceased individual that would not be the

419
00:48:52,719 --> 00:48:57,920
subject of an illucination. Five.
Since the Resurrection was preached in Jerusalem within

420
00:48:58,000 --> 00:49:01,760
a few weeks of the crucifixion,
disciples or enemies of the faith could have

421
00:49:01,880 --> 00:49:06,480
checked Jesus' tomb to see if they
were hallucinating, and the evidence suggested.

422
00:49:07,239 --> 00:49:10,199
You know, all of these kinds
of arguments. The reason that they're I

423
00:49:10,360 --> 00:49:14,639
just don't think they're very good.
They're not very convincing is because again,

424
00:49:14,719 --> 00:49:21,880
they all rest on assumptions that aren't
being questioned, that aren't going to solve

425
00:49:22,559 --> 00:49:27,360
any of these disputes. It's like, well, if this, then it

426
00:49:27,440 --> 00:49:30,079
seems like this could have been the
case, or it seems like they would

427
00:49:30,079 --> 00:49:31,079
have done this, and maybe they
could have done that. It's all this

428
00:49:31,239 --> 00:49:39,320
like really hypothetical stuff that is really
indeterminate, right, and it's only reasonable

429
00:49:39,440 --> 00:49:46,280
to accept Trent's conclusions on Trent's theory
and criteria of reasoning right on Trent's epistemology,

430
00:49:47,440 --> 00:49:52,760
and so I don't think Trent gets
the point that you and Matt have

431
00:49:52,960 --> 00:49:59,639
radically different accounts of reasoning, evidence, and epistemology. I mean, I'm

432
00:49:59,639 --> 00:50:04,599
speaking to Trent the Christian here,
not Trent the philosopher. Trent the Christian

433
00:50:04,960 --> 00:50:10,719
should agree with me that Matt and
he have a completely different account and justification

434
00:50:12,079 --> 00:50:16,519
for the criteria of justification. So
again, all of this is just like,

435
00:50:20,159 --> 00:50:22,800
let's tell stories about what could have
happened or might have happened, and

436
00:50:22,960 --> 00:50:28,840
let's see in the scales like which
one's more reasonable and less reasonable. I

437
00:50:28,920 --> 00:50:35,239
mean, it's just arbitrary, right, more reasonable on whose criteria or theory

438
00:50:35,320 --> 00:50:40,679
of reasoning, which is what Trent
first asked Matt. But now he's acting

439
00:50:40,880 --> 00:50:46,920
like I mean, this line of
argumentation is as if Matt has the correct

440
00:50:47,800 --> 00:50:53,679
line of argumentation and reasoning. But
he had first asked Matt Matt needs to

441
00:50:53,760 --> 00:50:58,800
give a standard of what's reasonable.
But now the line of argument is acting

442
00:50:58,920 --> 00:51:04,199
as if they have the same standards. So I just I just find these

443
00:51:04,400 --> 00:51:07,519
these types of arguments, which there
might be situations where you would need to

444
00:51:07,639 --> 00:51:14,880
say something like it's more reasonable to
believe this you know, in some niche

445
00:51:14,960 --> 00:51:21,320
dispute about the you know, false
visions of the apostles, or you know,

446
00:51:21,639 --> 00:51:25,199
they hallucinated the resurrection, and but
really, again, this is all

447
00:51:25,280 --> 00:51:30,719
just ignoring the more fundamental questions that
neither of these parties in the debate seem

448
00:51:30,800 --> 00:51:37,840
to be grasping women whose testimony was
not trusted in the ancient world. The

449
00:51:37,920 --> 00:51:43,840
factor's inclusion makes sense is somebody being
a recollection of what actually happened. This

450
00:51:43,960 --> 00:51:47,519
shows that appeals to hallucinations do not
easily account for this case because it involves

451
00:51:47,559 --> 00:51:52,280
outsiders, appearances to groups, evident
sincerity. Wait a minute, appeals to

452
00:51:52,360 --> 00:51:58,639
hallucination don't easily account for this,
so perhaps they do. So. You

453
00:51:58,760 --> 00:52:06,800
see the problem with IF evidential approaches
to fundamental dogmas is that it places the

454
00:52:06,840 --> 00:52:13,320
dogmas in the realm of probability.
But God's existence, if God is who

455
00:52:13,360 --> 00:52:17,079
he says he is, is prior
to and grounds even the notion of evidence

456
00:52:17,119 --> 00:52:23,000
and probability and reasoning itself. But
this is what the classical apologists, and

457
00:52:23,159 --> 00:52:25,800
you know, this is what these
people just can't grasp. They can't grasp

458
00:52:25,920 --> 00:52:31,400
that if God is who he says
he is, then he's prior to any

459
00:52:31,559 --> 00:52:37,320
notions of rationality, reasoning, logic, right, he would be the ground

460
00:52:37,400 --> 00:52:44,079
of those things. And so for
Trent to concede to Matt that there's probability

461
00:52:45,440 --> 00:52:52,159
that the Apostles all hallucinated is essentially
to concede that there's probability. He may

462
00:52:52,239 --> 00:52:54,559
think it's not that probable, but
at least there's some probable, there's some

463
00:52:54,719 --> 00:53:02,559
percentage likelihood that Christianity is a hallucination
false. So you see the point here

464
00:53:02,679 --> 00:53:08,880
of what evidentialism is conceding. It's
conceding the possibility that Christianity is false,

465
00:53:09,480 --> 00:53:15,960
and man's reasoning, man's logic,
man's autonomous reasoning, which hasn't been given

466
00:53:15,960 --> 00:53:19,440
an account for yet, will be
the determining factor. We'll put God in

467
00:53:19,480 --> 00:53:22,519
the docs, as C. S. Lewis said, and we'll put him.

468
00:53:22,880 --> 00:53:27,360
We'll judge whether God has given a
sufficient evidence. That's what evidentialism is

469
00:53:27,480 --> 00:53:32,639
doing in this bogus move. But
again, that's the strength of the transcendental

470
00:53:32,719 --> 00:53:37,599
argument presubpsisitionalism. It's not granting that. It's not granting that you have any

471
00:53:37,199 --> 00:53:44,559
theory, neutral, self evident notion
of logic, argumentation, epistemology such that

472
00:53:44,760 --> 00:53:50,719
you can judge God's existence. But
that's essentially what Matt is. That's what

473
00:53:50,880 --> 00:53:55,320
Trent is conceding. And if Matt
was sophisticated, Matt could say, well,

474
00:53:55,440 --> 00:54:01,320
so you're admitting the probability that Christianity
is false and hallucination, and I'll

475
00:54:01,400 --> 00:54:06,440
just go with that, and a
general lack of an expectation for the hallucination

476
00:54:06,519 --> 00:54:09,599
in question. Therefore, given that
belief in the resurrection doesn't contradict a known

477
00:54:09,719 --> 00:54:15,039
fact about Jesus, it doesn't lack
evidence it should have if it did happen,

478
00:54:15,480 --> 00:54:17,679
and no other usual explanation just as
easily accounts for the evidence. I

479
00:54:17,800 --> 00:54:22,760
think this is a really weak line
of argumentation. There's no lack of contradictory

480
00:54:22,800 --> 00:54:27,119
evidence, so therefore it's probable that
there might have been a resurrection. It

481
00:54:27,239 --> 00:54:30,159
follows that it's reasonable to believe Jesus
rose from the dead. Now you could

482
00:54:30,159 --> 00:54:32,760
stop there and just say Jesus rose, but you don't know how he did,

483
00:54:32,880 --> 00:54:38,239
And the resolution for the debate with
a hold. So the explanations for

484
00:54:38,360 --> 00:54:43,000
Jesus' resurrection. For the same reason, we should be skeptical of natural explanations

485
00:54:43,039 --> 00:54:45,719
for the claims that Jesus rose from
the dead. Now, wait a minute.

486
00:54:45,960 --> 00:54:53,880
If we're going to be using standard
logic, evidential interpretation and reasoning,

487
00:54:55,239 --> 00:55:01,360
then why would we not accept natural
excit explanations for Christ's resurrection? I mean,

488
00:55:01,480 --> 00:55:05,719
on Trent's own argument, those would
be more likely because we're in the

489
00:55:05,760 --> 00:55:13,880
domain of probability. Likelihood, that's
probability well judged on how evidences typically go

490
00:55:14,920 --> 00:55:21,679
and our normal experience, It's more
likely that there's a natural explanation for Christ's

491
00:55:21,679 --> 00:55:25,679
resurrection that we just simply don't know
about or haven't seen yet. Right.

492
00:55:25,840 --> 00:55:29,599
I mean, Matt could say all
kinds of things. Matt could say,

493
00:55:29,679 --> 00:55:32,679
this is something bonds and always just
say like, well, maybe there's a

494
00:55:32,800 --> 00:55:38,559
natural explanation that we just don't know
yet, So how does this prove Christianity

495
00:55:38,599 --> 00:55:42,039
to me? Right? I mean, if Matt was sophisticated, that's the

496
00:55:42,119 --> 00:55:44,800
line of argument I would take.
I don't think Matt's that's sphisticated. He's

497
00:55:44,840 --> 00:55:49,280
going to say, these are just
claims, and claims aren't arguments, and

498
00:55:49,559 --> 00:55:53,480
you can't prove anything from history with
these claims, which Matt's not even going

499
00:55:53,519 --> 00:55:58,519
to realize means that you know,
all of history was really he knows nothing

500
00:55:58,559 --> 00:56:02,239
of history, right, because as
a basic bitch empiricist, Matt's not going

501
00:56:02,280 --> 00:56:06,239
to be able to give an account
for anything outside of his empirical sense data,

502
00:56:06,400 --> 00:56:08,000
which is what I raised to Matt
multiple times in the debate, which

503
00:56:08,039 --> 00:56:12,800
he never got. If natural causes
are behind them, we would expect these

504
00:56:12,840 --> 00:56:15,920
causes to produce many similar resurrection claims. But the resurrection is very unique.

505
00:56:17,079 --> 00:56:22,039
No, that's a non sequitor,
Trent. So that's begging the question.

506
00:56:22,800 --> 00:56:25,719
So Trent just said that if there
was a natural explanation for the resurrection,

507
00:56:25,960 --> 00:56:31,679
we should expect resurrections to be happening
naturally. No, not necessarily. Maybe

508
00:56:31,760 --> 00:56:37,599
this was a one off, just
a weird event. There's no necessary connection

509
00:56:37,960 --> 00:56:43,440
or reason that I ought to conclude
that because this weird thing happened one time,

510
00:56:44,519 --> 00:56:47,280
and perhaps as a natural explanation that
we just don't know about, that

511
00:56:47,440 --> 00:56:51,840
it should be happening all the time. Now, that simply doesn't follow on.

512
00:56:51,920 --> 00:56:55,000
Atheist Anthony flu once said, the
evidence for the resurrection is better than

513
00:56:55,039 --> 00:57:00,840
for claim miracles in any other religion. It's outstandingly different in quality and quantity.

514
00:57:00,519 --> 00:57:04,920
However, if supernatural explanations are allowed, then couldn't we propose them for

515
00:57:04,960 --> 00:57:09,199
almost anything and destroy their explanatory things. Now, that is a worthwhile point

516
00:57:09,440 --> 00:57:15,760
that does come into valid use of
evidences. So I would say, for

517
00:57:15,880 --> 00:57:20,000
example, yeah, when it comes
to evidence for the New Testament, it's

518
00:57:20,079 --> 00:57:23,960
one of the most attested to documents
in history, far more evidence for the

519
00:57:24,039 --> 00:57:27,480
veracity of the New Testament, you
know, the Bible, the text,

520
00:57:27,559 --> 00:57:30,880
et cetera than for Plato. A
lot of people don't know this, but

521
00:57:30,000 --> 00:57:34,960
yeah, I mean there's a lot
more evidential evidence for those things which can

522
00:57:35,039 --> 00:57:39,079
help to strengthen and confirm our faith. But I mean again, piling up

523
00:57:39,119 --> 00:57:45,400
a bunch of evidences typically doesn't convinced
the more sophisticated atheists, right, because

524
00:57:46,320 --> 00:57:50,440
the way that you're going to interpret
the evidence is going to be based on

525
00:57:51,119 --> 00:57:54,840
your theory of evidence as your paradigm. And so you know, it's like,

526
00:57:57,599 --> 00:58:00,000
you know, I like the analogy
of the rose color glasses, right

527
00:58:00,039 --> 00:58:04,800
when when we feed a bunch of
evidences to the atheist, for example,

528
00:58:04,880 --> 00:58:07,880
let's use the atheists example, Right, the atheist has rose colored glasses to

529
00:58:08,000 --> 00:58:15,119
where the evidence is going to be
always reinterpreted according to his naturalistic paradigm.

530
00:58:16,920 --> 00:58:22,320
Oh, a guy that was raised
from the dead very possible. Uh,

531
00:58:22,880 --> 00:58:27,880
maybe there's a naturalistic explanation. We
just don't know for bodies that pass out

532
00:58:27,920 --> 00:58:32,000
and resuscitate three days later. Uh, you know, and X y Z

533
00:58:32,239 --> 00:58:36,079
continue down the line, for any
other so called miracle. Right, the

534
00:58:36,159 --> 00:58:42,840
atheists can just say, okay,
again, I interpret that within my naturalistic

535
00:58:42,920 --> 00:58:47,639
framework. So in order to really
get to the point, it's not gonna

536
00:58:47,639 --> 00:58:51,880
work to just machine and I'm not
saying trances doing this, but just in

537
00:58:52,360 --> 00:58:57,320
principle in general, for the evidentialist
approach, for me to just you know,

538
00:58:57,440 --> 00:59:00,320
like pile up look at all these
papers that have been written for you

539
00:59:00,360 --> 00:59:06,440
know, intelligent design and for the
rational rational belief in the resurrection of Christ,

540
00:59:06,519 --> 00:59:08,800
and look at all these papers that
show that it's probably very likely that

541
00:59:08,920 --> 00:59:14,239
the New Testament is authentic in what
it describes and records. I mean,

542
00:59:14,280 --> 00:59:17,639
again, the atheist is just going
to interpret all that according to his autonomous

543
00:59:17,679 --> 00:59:27,880
paradigm. If you don't challenge the
rose colored glasses, it's just a weak

544
00:59:28,119 --> 00:59:30,000
approach. It's not going to do
very good, and it's granting him too

545
00:59:30,079 --> 00:59:34,599
much. Or well, first of
that, we're true atheists who say the

546
00:59:34,719 --> 00:59:39,320
universe exists without a cause would commit
the same fallacy, because having no cause

547
00:59:39,679 --> 00:59:45,400
could explain anything we don't understand.
Second, we can rule out many unusual

548
00:59:45,480 --> 00:59:47,559
explanations. I think that's a fair
point, though it is it is worth

549
00:59:47,639 --> 00:59:52,920
calling out the atheist usage of things
like uh, oh give me the grant

550
00:59:53,000 --> 00:59:57,280
me the Big Bang, which has
no cause, and then I can explain

551
00:59:57,320 --> 01:00:00,599
everything else having a cause. Right, So they want they always want that,

552
01:00:00,760 --> 01:00:02,480
like, oh, give me this, grant the exception, right,

553
01:00:04,159 --> 01:00:07,559
don't question my metaphysical presubsence, grant
me this right, grant me this a

554
01:00:07,599 --> 01:00:10,239
pismological principle. Then I can show
you everything. Right, just grant me

555
01:00:10,320 --> 01:00:15,800
one thing, and I can move
the world. God or aliens as unreasonable

556
01:00:15,880 --> 01:00:20,719
because they're ad hoc. There's no
reason to appeal to them aside from explanatory

557
01:00:20,840 --> 01:00:24,039
power. For example, in eighteen
seventy two, the Mary Celeste was found

558
01:00:24,079 --> 01:00:29,599
a drift at sea in relatively decent
condition with ample supplies on board. Now

559
01:00:29,760 --> 01:00:36,440
I'm not sure about that on evidential
grounds, why the alien hypothesis would be

560
01:00:37,079 --> 01:00:46,960
less reasonable than Trend's evidentialist approach to
the resurrection. Again, you're going to

561
01:00:47,039 --> 01:00:52,800
interpret the evidences according to your presuppositions
and your paradigm. Right, your network

562
01:00:52,880 --> 01:00:57,480
of beliefs that you already hold as
your core beliefs are going to be the

563
01:00:57,559 --> 01:01:02,760
ones that interpret the incoming evidence.
So why and on what grounds would we

564
01:01:02,960 --> 01:01:10,639
think that the alien hypothesis is less
rational as an evidentialist than the theist position.

565
01:01:12,159 --> 01:01:15,280
And I'm sure Trent would list a
whole bunch of things, But that's

566
01:01:15,360 --> 01:01:17,960
kind of begging the question, right, because I'm asking a question about the

567
01:01:19,079 --> 01:01:22,840
theory of evidences themselves, not your
list of evidences. And it's like what

568
01:01:22,920 --> 01:01:25,519
the evidentialists do is say, well, let me give you more evidences,

569
01:01:25,960 --> 01:01:32,760
But I'm saying I'm asking you a
question about theory of evidence evidence itself,

570
01:01:34,400 --> 01:01:38,679
what counts as evidence? How do
we interpret facts evidences? So for you

571
01:01:38,800 --> 01:01:44,480
to just keep giving me evidences isn't
answering the prior epistemic question that I'm asking.

572
01:01:45,079 --> 01:01:50,079
The ten passengers and crew and historians
still don't know why they all got

573
01:01:50,119 --> 01:01:52,960
in a lifeboat and left to seaworthy
vessel. You could say that God told

574
01:01:53,000 --> 01:01:55,280
them to leave as a test of
faith and took them up to heaven,

575
01:01:55,519 --> 01:02:00,880
or aliens abducted them, but there's
no evident remotely points in that direction.

576
01:02:01,639 --> 01:02:05,559
Now, the ship's logs said something
about heavenly voices or a ship in the

577
01:02:05,599 --> 01:02:09,440
sky. Yeah. The problem that
the difference here is that Christianity as a

578
01:02:09,519 --> 01:02:16,639
worldview is not like this example of
the boat and the missing people. Christianity

579
01:02:16,760 --> 01:02:22,039
is arguing and has a worldview in
a position that gives an account for everything

580
01:02:22,159 --> 01:02:28,599
in the world. Right, it's
the grounding of your metaphysics and your epistemology

581
01:02:28,719 --> 01:02:32,559
and your ethic, and the example
and the analogy that you gave it doesn't

582
01:02:32,559 --> 01:02:37,760
attempt to do that. So while
I understand the analogy, I don't think

583
01:02:37,800 --> 01:02:44,000
the analogy works to match it up
to what the religion of Christianity is supposed

584
01:02:44,039 --> 01:02:46,920
to be and is supposed to do
in terms of worldviews. You might have

585
01:02:47,000 --> 01:02:52,239
a reason for an extraterrestrial or supernatural
explanation, but it didn't. However,

586
01:02:52,280 --> 01:02:54,639
the resurrection is different because we have
reasons to believe God was involved based on

587
01:02:54,679 --> 01:02:58,920
the nature of the disciples testimony.
Wait, we have reasons to believe God,

588
01:02:59,039 --> 01:03:01,199
so are we still in the of
the resurrection here? But again,

589
01:03:01,800 --> 01:03:08,920
if Matt is granted the autonomy to
reject as a possibility that Christianity isn't the

590
01:03:09,039 --> 01:03:14,880
explanation for christ resurrection, then you've
already lost the debate. The debate needs

591
01:03:14,920 --> 01:03:19,519
to be couched as a you must
accept this or else, right. I

592
01:03:19,599 --> 01:03:25,320
mean, there's no logical refuge from
God or from Christianity. It's Christianity or

593
01:03:25,440 --> 01:03:30,559
nothing. That's the point and the
power of the transcendental argument, and a

594
01:03:30,639 --> 01:03:35,679
pre subsistional apologetics is that precisely that
it doesn't grant to Matt or any of

595
01:03:35,679 --> 01:03:40,639
the atheists this refuge, this common
ground into the Even if you think of

596
01:03:40,719 --> 01:03:45,760
a small percentile, it doesn't matter, because it's essentially conceding that there's a

597
01:03:45,840 --> 01:03:49,760
possibility that Christianity doesn't account for any
of these things. And Islam is true,

598
01:03:49,880 --> 01:03:52,119
or Judaism is true, or Paganism
is true, or no religion is

599
01:03:52,159 --> 01:03:57,719
true, any of the other positions
might be the case. But when we

600
01:03:57,760 --> 01:04:02,159
look at the New Testament, do
we see the writers arguing no of assertitude

601
01:04:02,480 --> 01:04:08,239
that Christ is resurrected? Peter says, does Peter say, know of a

602
01:04:08,280 --> 01:04:15,599
great probability with ninety eight percent Jesus
was probably resurrected? Why don't the Apostles

603
01:04:15,719 --> 01:04:19,079
and the New Testament writers and Paul
when he goes out and does apologetics,

604
01:04:19,519 --> 01:04:29,960
why does it never look like these
people Where was Paul's lists of probable reasons

605
01:04:30,000 --> 01:04:35,559
for the resurrection? Does Paul ever
speak like it was probable or likely the

606
01:04:35,639 --> 01:04:41,920
Christ is resurrected? Of course,
not no of assertitude that Christ was resurrected.

607
01:04:42,000 --> 01:04:45,000
Peter says, that means if you're
a non Christian who believe God exists,

608
01:04:45,000 --> 01:04:48,599
which is half of religiously unaffiliated Americans. I mean, that's another point

609
01:04:48,639 --> 01:04:54,559
I want to stress too, is
that the approach of evidentialism is like I

610
01:04:54,679 --> 01:05:04,199
can do apologetics divorced from my fol
Now, how is that that make any

611
01:05:04,280 --> 01:05:10,920
sense? I mean, the apologetics
is supposed to direct people to the theology.

612
01:05:12,400 --> 01:05:15,960
If the apologetics leads to bad theology, it's bad apologetics. And that's

613
01:05:16,000 --> 01:05:21,920
precisely what this stuff does. It
doesn't point to the type of God that

614
01:05:23,039 --> 01:05:28,480
we're trying to argue for in the
Trinity, in Trinitarian theology, fiercely trinitarian.

615
01:05:29,199 --> 01:05:34,159
Even our enemies James White, even
James White who hates everything that we

616
01:05:34,239 --> 01:05:36,719
stand for and what we talk about, what we do, even he admits

617
01:05:38,920 --> 01:05:44,880
Orthodox Christianity outside of all the other
groups is fiercely trinitarian. Yeah, exactly,

618
01:05:45,119 --> 01:05:48,280
and we take pride in that because
we're the only religion that has the

619
01:05:48,360 --> 01:05:54,039
correct trinitarian doctrine, and the whole
of our theology is literally grounded in that,

620
01:05:54,760 --> 01:06:00,800
including get this revolutionary idea apologetics,
what you mean the Trinity affects are

621
01:06:00,960 --> 01:06:08,639
apologetics. Yes, absolutely. I'm
interested in improving and defending and convincing the

622
01:06:08,880 --> 01:06:15,840
atheist, the Muslim, the cult
member of the Trinity as much as I

623
01:06:15,920 --> 01:06:18,719
am any of the other doctrines.
And we'll get that into that, I'm

624
01:06:18,719 --> 01:06:24,280
sure tomorrow when we get into generic
theism and how this is a bogus,

625
01:06:25,400 --> 01:06:29,199
ridiculous idea. There's no such thing
as generic theism, and that's precisely what

626
01:06:29,800 --> 01:06:38,159
natural theology is predicated on. You
could consider the resurrection within your own current

627
01:06:38,199 --> 01:06:41,960
worldview. What if you don't believe
God exists and so it seems like there's

628
01:06:41,960 --> 01:06:45,320
nothing to cause Jesus rise from the
dead, Well, the resurrection could make

629
01:06:45,360 --> 01:06:48,880
you rethink that idea. But I
might also argue an argument for the existence

630
01:06:48,880 --> 01:06:56,280
of God this one. So here
he's addressing the challenge that I said earlier,

631
01:06:56,440 --> 01:06:59,440
like, okay, well, maybe
Christ was raised in the dead,

632
01:07:00,400 --> 01:07:03,559
but weird things happen, and there's
no reason that I should accept Christianity.

633
01:07:04,000 --> 01:07:09,079
And now he's going to go into
the you know, classical arguments, which

634
01:07:10,280 --> 01:07:14,400
all the argument from change. I
like it. It goes like this change

635
01:07:14,440 --> 01:07:17,559
occurs when a potential X becomes an
actual Why we see change all the time.

636
01:07:17,760 --> 01:07:23,119
It could be like growth or movement, but no potential X can become

637
01:07:23,159 --> 01:07:28,199
an actual Y on its own more
than water can freeze itself or a train

638
01:07:28,280 --> 01:07:30,880
car can propel. Okay, so
again right away, I mean this is

639
01:07:30,079 --> 01:07:35,920
terrible argumentation. I mean we if
Matt was savvy, of course, Matt's

640
01:07:36,679 --> 01:07:41,360
not, does it can't do philosophy? I mean admitted. I'm not trying

641
01:07:41,360 --> 01:07:43,360
to be mean to Matt. I
mean I think it was evident in our

642
01:07:43,400 --> 01:07:53,119
debate when he called in Aussie and
malpass or whoever did the review where they

643
01:07:53,199 --> 01:07:58,599
tried to cope and help him out
after our debate. I mean that was

644
01:07:58,639 --> 01:08:00,280
evident that Matt was out of it. He didn't always something about like I

645
01:08:00,320 --> 01:08:03,400
don't know what's going on in the
philosophy stuff, right, give me the

646
01:08:03,559 --> 01:08:10,039
simple sort of Reddit arguments and claims. But we get into this epistemology,

647
01:08:10,039 --> 01:08:14,679
style of justification, circularity, induction, all the things that I brought up

648
01:08:14,679 --> 01:08:20,159
to Matt he was he was lost. So don't we shouldn't expect that Matt

649
01:08:20,359 --> 01:08:28,520
is going to be too swift in
responding to these things. But if it's

650
01:08:28,600 --> 01:08:34,399
the case that that trend's going to
begin with the self supposedly self evident notions

651
01:08:34,680 --> 01:08:43,520
like change and causation and potentiality and
actuality, I mean, dude, that's

652
01:08:43,600 --> 01:08:48,359
assuming the Aristotelian metaphysic. Okay,
I'm not saying that I out of hand

653
01:08:48,399 --> 01:08:53,720
reject everything to do with Ariozol's metaphysics, but in a debate, okay,

654
01:08:55,039 --> 01:08:58,680
the first thing I would do if
I was Matt is I would say,

655
01:08:59,600 --> 01:09:04,800
Okay, on your basis as a
thomist or foundationalist or whatever you want to

656
01:09:04,840 --> 01:09:12,319
call yourself classical theists, I'm not
going to grant you that all of that

657
01:09:12,680 --> 01:09:16,720
metaphysical baggage is the case. You're
gonna need to demonstrate to me the prior

658
01:09:16,880 --> 01:09:23,199
questions of epistemology before you can start
making all these metaphysical claims. This is

659
01:09:23,279 --> 01:09:30,520
the same thing I would say to
an atheist. Do you remember the stef

660
01:09:30,680 --> 01:09:40,000
On Molinu debate. In the Stuff
on Monitoring debate, I asked a lot

661
01:09:40,079 --> 01:09:46,319
of the same questions in different ways
that I asked to Azra Rashid. Why

662
01:09:46,359 --> 01:09:53,439
would I ask the same questions to
Azra Rashid that I do to Stephan Moloney.

663
01:09:54,319 --> 01:09:59,640
The answer is that both of those
positions come from a parapatetic axiom kind

664
01:09:59,640 --> 01:10:02,399
of star point. There's nothing in
the intellect that's not first in the senses,

665
01:10:03,039 --> 01:10:09,119
So they're both empirically oriented in their
starting points. And when you do

666
01:10:09,319 --> 01:10:14,560
that, you kind of lock yourself
into a specific, very limited type of

667
01:10:14,800 --> 01:10:18,239
epistemology. So the problem with that, though, is that I can critique

668
01:10:18,520 --> 01:10:25,359
the presubpositions of that epistemology that will
cut you off from being able to make

669
01:10:25,560 --> 01:10:30,520
any of the metaphysical claims that you
make that underlie the arguments you're making.

670
01:10:30,960 --> 01:10:38,000
So if you can't get to the
external world and all that stuff, then

671
01:10:38,119 --> 01:10:41,560
none of this change argument is going
to get you anywhere, because you need

672
01:10:41,640 --> 01:10:45,279
to demonstrate the stuff prior to that
that you know about the external world that

673
01:10:45,319 --> 01:10:47,720
you're actually seeing causation, et cetera, et cetera. Right, all the

674
01:10:47,840 --> 01:10:56,520
human and contient type questions so I'm
not going to grant you that anymore than

675
01:10:56,520 --> 01:11:01,399
I granted it to stuff on Molonu
or Azrah Rashid. And why is that?

676
01:11:01,520 --> 01:11:11,560
Because Azra Rashid and Trent and Stefan
Malini all have this same empiricist starting

677
01:11:11,600 --> 01:11:18,680
point. I'm not saying they're empiricists
strictly, they're not the starting point of

678
01:11:18,840 --> 01:11:25,920
their worldview and knowledge and metaphysical claims
is going to be basically what Aristotle says

679
01:11:26,560 --> 01:11:30,560
in imposteri analytics, in the metaphysics
and in a couple other places, Right,

680
01:11:30,920 --> 01:11:35,119
the distinction between what is better known
in itself and what is better known

681
01:11:35,159 --> 01:11:43,000
by us, and the peraopthetic axiom. Right, there's nothing in the intellect

682
01:11:43,000 --> 01:11:46,279
that's not first in the census.
Now, if Matt was Swoft, that's

683
01:11:46,600 --> 01:11:54,239
right where Matt would go he should, right, I don't think Matt's going

684
01:11:54,279 --> 01:11:57,119
to do that, right, I
would don't expect Matt to go there,

685
01:11:57,640 --> 01:12:00,239
Matt. This is all going to
fly over Matt's head. And what that's

686
01:12:00,279 --> 01:12:04,680
gonna do, I'm guessing is he's
going to say everything from history is claims,

687
01:12:04,800 --> 01:12:10,439
and I don't find them personally convincing. And Trent's correctly going to say,

688
01:12:11,119 --> 01:12:16,600
that's a psychological descriptor. Right,
that's a description of your psychological states,

689
01:12:17,840 --> 01:12:20,239
not an argument, right, one
of the famous one of the classic

690
01:12:20,319 --> 01:12:26,640
things Matt loves to say, not
an argument. Yeah, Matt, that's

691
01:12:26,720 --> 01:12:30,239
not an argument. Did you know
that? And it's very easy to show

692
01:12:30,319 --> 01:12:36,319
that the fact that you find something
unconvincing isn't an argument self. Instead,

693
01:12:36,399 --> 01:12:41,319
something like a freezer or a locomotive
has to actualize the potential for change.

694
01:12:41,800 --> 01:12:45,000
But then these actualizers only change because
other things actualize them. So could an

695
01:12:45,039 --> 01:12:48,760
infinite series explain why we have changed
at all? Well no, just as

696
01:12:48,800 --> 01:12:53,920
an infinitely long train of box cars
would sit motionless without a locomotive, an

697
01:12:53,920 --> 01:12:58,359
infinite number of things that must be
actualized by something else would be changeless.

698
01:12:58,680 --> 01:13:03,239
Unless again, that's all assuming a
host of metaphysical baggage that if Matt's a

699
01:13:03,279 --> 01:13:08,800
good debater, he will go right
to the epistemic presuppositions there. So wait

700
01:13:08,840 --> 01:13:15,960
a minute, before you do this
metaphysics, demonstrate to mesod on empiricist grounds

701
01:13:18,359 --> 01:13:23,079
that you're justified in saying all these
things. The cause of the series is

702
01:13:23,199 --> 01:13:27,560
just pure actuality. So just as
a locomotive pulls without being pulled. This

703
01:13:27,960 --> 01:13:31,760
uncaused cause for the series would actualize
everything without being actualized by anything else.

704
01:13:31,800 --> 01:13:35,960
It'd be pure actuality. And since
the universe contains a mixture of potential and

705
01:13:36,039 --> 01:13:41,199
actual, it can't be that uncaused
cause. If there's a cause of the

706
01:13:41,239 --> 01:13:44,560
universe that's purely actual, what would
it be like, Well, if it

707
01:13:44,600 --> 01:13:48,319
has no potential, it can't change
because change is potentially going to actual If

708
01:13:48,359 --> 01:13:54,560
it's changeless, it would have to
be immaterial and timeless because material temporalize it.

709
01:13:54,680 --> 01:13:57,279
So, I mean, Matt doesn't
know any of this Aristotelian philosophy that

710
01:13:57,399 --> 01:14:00,560
Trent's relying on, so he's not
going to be able to deal with any

711
01:14:00,600 --> 01:14:03,439
of this. But if again,
if he was swift, he would not

712
01:14:03,720 --> 01:14:11,359
accept all of Trent's metaphysical claims.
Because it's like everybody thinks you can just

713
01:14:11,560 --> 01:14:15,159
do philosophy and make claims without addressing
the questions that have been asked for the

714
01:14:15,279 --> 01:14:19,840
last five hundred years. I'm sorry, you can't, Okay, so we're

715
01:14:19,840 --> 01:14:24,600
gonna have to deal with the last
four hundred years of philosophy. We'll say

716
01:14:25,239 --> 01:14:33,319
where people have questioned, what's prior
to doing metaphysics epistemology, and it doesn't

717
01:14:33,399 --> 01:14:38,239
work to just say, like Phaser
and the people in Trents can't typically do

718
01:14:38,960 --> 01:14:45,039
well, the starting points are all
just properly basic. Phaser says, well,

719
01:14:45,359 --> 01:14:48,760
all these things are true because they're
commonly general, commonly general. You

720
01:14:48,840 --> 01:14:53,880
think that counts as a justification for
your first principles. I mean, I

721
01:14:54,000 --> 01:14:57,560
was just reading Skotis by the way, who says there's not an argument for

722
01:14:57,600 --> 01:15:00,159
the first principles. They're not provable. He thinks that they're rational and you

723
01:15:00,159 --> 01:15:03,760
should believe them, but they're not
provable. Well, yeah, I mean,

724
01:15:03,800 --> 01:15:09,920
if you believe in autwal theology and
you think that you have to demonstrate

725
01:15:11,119 --> 01:15:14,920
right every proposition and thing that you
believe in, it seems to follow that

726
01:15:14,960 --> 01:15:17,760
you should demonstrate why you should believe
in the first principles. But they're not

727
01:15:18,000 --> 01:15:21,399
proven. That grant me those please, right? And oh I don't have

728
01:15:21,439 --> 01:15:28,760
to give a justification for them because
they're just they're properly basic. Okay,

729
01:15:28,840 --> 01:15:30,880
Yeah, that's begging the question,
and I'm not going to grant that you

730
01:15:31,439 --> 01:15:35,039
have the right criteria of justification to
say that that's properly basic, right,

731
01:15:35,119 --> 01:15:39,800
I mean, that's what philosophy is, is that we question our assumptions.

732
01:15:40,399 --> 01:15:48,039
This is the whole history philosophy back
to Socrates. The apology goes around questioning

733
01:15:48,079 --> 01:15:55,079
everybody, and Trent loves to do
cross examination and question people. So we'll

734
01:15:55,560 --> 01:16:00,840
be interesting to see what happens with
that tomorrow. It's always changed. The

735
01:16:00,960 --> 01:16:05,000
cause couldn't be limited in power,
knowledge, or existence because these imply potentials

736
01:16:05,039 --> 01:16:12,000
and doesn't have any potential. The
cause would be omnipotent omnission had necessary existence.

737
01:16:12,039 --> 01:16:15,760
Again, this is just throwing out
all the you know, Swinburn style,

738
01:16:15,039 --> 01:16:19,359
like basic bitch assumptions about natural theology, which I hope Trent brings all

739
01:16:19,399 --> 01:16:29,359
that tomorrow because that's going to be
fun. But I mean, if you're

740
01:16:29,760 --> 01:16:32,520
watching this right now and you want
to get a little bit of a teaser,

741
01:16:33,800 --> 01:16:39,960
go read the Russ Manion paper Contingency
of Knowledge, because the section where

742
01:16:40,039 --> 01:16:45,439
doctor Mannion goes into foundationalism and goes
into all of these you know, classic

743
01:16:45,560 --> 01:16:48,439
problems in the history of philosophy and
especially in Western philosophy the last five hundred

744
01:16:48,560 --> 01:16:55,960
years. Everything Trent's saying is is
acting like none of those questions have been

745
01:16:56,000 --> 01:17:00,920
asked so before you say all this, if you're going to have to give

746
01:17:00,920 --> 01:17:06,159
an account for things prior to these
things. And again I wish I was

747
01:17:06,239 --> 01:17:10,079
atheist, Matt, I could ask
those questions. Right, I will get

748
01:17:10,119 --> 01:17:12,079
to tomorrow. I'm joking. I'm
not atheist, Matt, but you know

749
01:17:12,079 --> 01:17:15,640
what I'm saying. Like if I
was, as I hear this, I

750
01:17:15,720 --> 01:17:18,520
know all this stuff, I would
say, and I can't wait for the

751
01:17:18,640 --> 01:17:26,680
disaster, right the Matt, the
Dilla Dila does the disaster that will be

752
01:17:26,760 --> 01:17:30,439
the response because that had no potential
for non existence. Would also be all

753
01:17:30,560 --> 01:17:35,000
good because evil is a lack of
goodness and this cause lacks nothing. This

754
01:17:35,199 --> 01:17:43,119
is like all of this stuff that
he's saying right from the change he went

755
01:17:43,199 --> 01:17:46,840
from the thing that is the first
cause supposed to be changeless, to now

756
01:17:46,880 --> 01:17:51,720
all this list of divine attributes.
Right, and uh yeah, I think

757
01:17:51,840 --> 01:17:58,560
everybody who knows about Garabie, Right. I hope that this comes up tomorrow

758
01:17:58,880 --> 01:18:02,159
has no potentiality. Also, the
cause would be personal and not a mere

759
01:18:02,319 --> 01:18:08,000
force. Is the only immaterial things
that exist are minds and abstract entities like

760
01:18:08,079 --> 01:18:15,800
numbers, but personal. I wonder
where the concept of personhood comes from is

761
01:18:15,840 --> 01:18:20,159
that in theology. Where does that
come from? I wonder the trinity?

762
01:18:20,279 --> 01:18:26,239
Maybe fact entities can't cause anything,
they're causally a feat So this means the

763
01:18:26,359 --> 01:18:32,399
ultimate cause of the universe causally impotent. I should say much. I may

764
01:18:32,479 --> 01:18:36,640
bring this up tomorrow actually in my
opening statement, so you know, the

765
01:18:36,880 --> 01:18:40,039
people, A lot of times people
think I'm not saying Trent thought this,

766
01:18:40,119 --> 01:18:43,800
but a lot of people think that
there's an advantage to going second in the

767
01:18:43,840 --> 01:18:50,359
debate, which is kind of a
Nube view of debates, because actually there's

768
01:18:50,399 --> 01:18:56,399
quite a few advantages to going first, because the person that goes first can

769
01:18:56,479 --> 01:19:02,439
potentially diffuse a lot of the argument
in his opponent's opening statement if he has

770
01:19:02,479 --> 01:19:05,279
a good idea of the types of
things that his opponents are going to say.

771
01:19:05,520 --> 01:19:15,239
Right, So, if I diffuse
enough of Trent's opening line of argumentation,

772
01:19:15,840 --> 01:19:18,600
you see the advantage that I can
have if I go first. Right,

773
01:19:18,800 --> 01:19:24,680
So it's not always an advantage for
people to to have the second,

774
01:19:25,159 --> 01:19:29,279
you know, position in the debate
be something that's similar to a mind that

775
01:19:29,439 --> 01:19:31,520
exists in an unlimited way. And
so for a lot of people that's what

776
01:19:31,600 --> 01:19:34,600
they mean by the word God finally, is the debate continued. Oh,

777
01:19:34,880 --> 01:19:39,159
yes, he did it. That's
what we were looking for right now.

778
01:19:39,560 --> 01:19:43,039
In the cosmic skeptic debate where we
gave Trent, you know, props,

779
01:19:43,119 --> 01:19:45,319
he definitely won that debate, and
I feel sure that he wins this debate

780
01:19:45,399 --> 01:19:54,039
too. What we were really looking
for was that right there. So now

781
01:19:54,079 --> 01:19:59,119
we have Trent kind of on record
saying it. I don't think tomorrow he's

782
01:19:59,159 --> 01:20:02,319
going to shift his busies or take
a different approach. But that's really what

783
01:20:02,439 --> 01:20:06,680
we were looking for in terms of
what we want to lock down in terms

784
01:20:06,720 --> 01:20:14,239
of Trent's argumentation for natural theology.
Uh so that means right there that again,

785
01:20:14,520 --> 01:20:17,119
I think it'll be difficult for Trent
to go in a different direction,

786
01:20:18,279 --> 01:20:23,800
uh given what he just said right
there. And this this was April.

787
01:20:26,239 --> 01:20:29,920
This was this was six months ago. So I doubt Dren's changed his position

788
01:20:30,000 --> 01:20:32,800
in six months. And again I
don't see how as a Roman Catholic he

789
01:20:32,880 --> 01:20:36,920
really could change his position. I
mean, they're kind of locked into the

790
01:20:38,039 --> 01:20:43,560
view that they have on natural theology. So tomorrow yeah, so people are

791
01:20:43,560 --> 01:20:46,039
asking, right so tomorrow night the
debate is Uh. I shared it on

792
01:20:46,119 --> 01:20:50,399
my community tab it's on my websites
in the discord right tomorrow night, it's

793
01:20:50,479 --> 01:20:56,000
on Twitter, Trent and I will
be debating natural theology, the very thing

794
01:20:56,079 --> 01:21:00,439
that Trent just kind of got into
right there on Sue and Soon a channel

795
01:21:00,479 --> 01:21:05,680
tomorrow, So that's tomorrow night is
six pm Central, So look for that

796
01:21:06,159 --> 01:21:12,800
tonight. We're just having fun doing
another review of one of the debates that

797
01:21:12,880 --> 01:21:16,439
I meant to watch but I forgot
about, which is Matt and Trent on

798
01:21:16,520 --> 01:21:23,680
the Resurrection. Don't forget about Matt's
burden of proof. He actually unreasonable to

799
01:21:23,760 --> 01:21:27,600
believe Jesus rows from the dead.
So keep asking this question. As you

800
01:21:27,680 --> 01:21:32,439
hear his opening statement, Matt says
belief in the resurrection is unreasonable because fill

801
01:21:32,479 --> 01:21:35,560
in the blank. So as the
debate that can use, I think you'll

802
01:21:35,600 --> 01:21:40,760
see that Matt reason his reasons that
fill in the blank are flawed because they

803
01:21:40,800 --> 01:21:45,520
either lead us to one rejecting many
facts of history we already know to be

804
01:21:45,680 --> 01:21:47,920
reasonable. This is a good point
to they make that point, I think

805
01:21:48,039 --> 01:21:51,039
is killer, And that's really what's
going to be a stickler for Matt.

806
01:21:51,600 --> 01:21:58,640
Given the fact that I've seen Lewis's
clipped out video. So that we agree

807
01:21:58,680 --> 01:22:01,520
with. I think that's a great
point. So I give Trent props for

808
01:22:01,560 --> 01:22:06,079
that argument. And that's what's really
going to trip up Matt. I don't

809
01:22:06,079 --> 01:22:11,279
think Matt ever even gets it right. Like if you watch the Lewis's clipped

810
01:22:11,279 --> 01:22:15,800
out video of this, it's like
Matt doesn't even get it. Arbitrary judgments

811
01:22:15,800 --> 01:22:19,039
about reality based on Matt's assumptions about
the world instead of keeping an open mind

812
01:22:19,039 --> 01:22:21,520
about how the world works. Yes, that is a great point, So

813
01:22:21,640 --> 01:22:27,239
props to Trent for that. So
instead of that particular epistemology or way of

814
01:22:27,399 --> 01:22:30,479
not that term will show up a
lot of pistemology that just means the study

815
01:22:30,520 --> 01:22:32,880
of knowing, like how do we
know about the world? How do we

816
01:22:32,960 --> 01:22:36,399
figure out what's really going on?
Okay, so I have a way of

817
01:22:36,399 --> 01:22:40,000
figuring out what's going on when it
comes to unusual events. I gave a

818
01:22:40,079 --> 01:22:44,199
three pronged test for it, and
I hope Matt proposes a way of figuring

819
01:22:44,279 --> 01:22:48,600
out how to this is good to
discern unusual events and claims of unusual I

820
01:22:48,720 --> 01:22:55,000
wish Trent had gone more into epistemology, although he might have got called out

821
01:22:55,159 --> 01:22:58,520
for if he went too far into
a pistemology, because Matt would have been,

822
01:22:58,600 --> 01:23:00,079
well, that's not the topic of
the debate. Topic of this debate

823
01:23:00,319 --> 01:23:09,000
is a resurrection, not pristomology.
Right, But I wouldn't have done the

824
01:23:09,039 --> 01:23:14,000
debate this way, of course,
but you know whatever, So but that's

825
01:23:14,119 --> 01:23:17,199
that is a good point. So
I'm glad that he did at least lead

826
01:23:17,279 --> 01:23:27,600
off and kind of conclude with questioning
mats presubpositions of evidence and criteria and epistemology.

827
01:23:27,800 --> 01:23:31,920
But that middle part there, I
would have to disagree with events,

828
01:23:32,359 --> 01:23:35,319
and as I said, he'll try
to show that this unusual event, the

829
01:23:35,359 --> 01:23:42,439
resurrection, is unreasonable because fill in
the blank, why does he think it's

830
01:23:42,520 --> 01:23:46,359
unreasonable? And then you'll see those
reasons either lead to rejecting other reasonable beliefs

831
01:23:46,680 --> 01:23:49,560
or they end up being arbitrary.
Instead, I would argue that you should

832
01:23:49,560 --> 01:23:55,680
accept the standard that I've offered and
then seriously consider the truth and meaning one

833
01:23:55,720 --> 01:23:59,680
thing. I will say that right
there, from a tactical standpoint, that

834
01:23:59,800 --> 01:24:02,279
was a good move on Trent's part, because what he did there at the

835
01:24:02,439 --> 01:24:10,079
end was kind of frame the debate. So what Trent was doing wasn't just

836
01:24:10,439 --> 01:24:15,520
giving his case. He was also
kind of trying to get Matt to be

837
01:24:15,680 --> 01:24:21,119
on the defensive and kind of go
down the trail of answering Trent's questions due

838
01:24:21,159 --> 01:24:28,439
to Trent's opening statement and questions in
the opening statement, which nothing wrong with

839
01:24:28,560 --> 01:24:31,640
doing that. It's it's a you
know, a rhetorical strategy at a tactic

840
01:24:31,800 --> 01:24:34,840
in debate. There's nothing wrong with
tactics per se. I'm not saying debate

841
01:24:35,279 --> 01:24:40,439
debates involved tactics, right, but
it's not all tactics. Obviously. If

842
01:24:40,479 --> 01:24:43,439
it's just tactics, then you're you're
never gonna win. You're just going to

843
01:24:43,479 --> 01:24:47,720
be seen as a douchebag. Right, But that's that's a useful tactic to

844
01:24:48,319 --> 01:24:51,560
to again in the opening statement,
try to frame the debate. Everybody tries

845
01:24:51,600 --> 01:24:55,359
to do this, right, It's
not like a secret. Anybody who does

846
01:24:55,439 --> 01:25:00,560
the opening statement will try to frame
the debate and kind of form the guy

847
01:25:00,600 --> 01:25:08,239
who goes second, h to answer
his challenges, his questions, and you

848
01:25:08,279 --> 01:25:12,720
know, try to defuse the guy
who goes second. The opening statement wants

849
01:25:12,760 --> 01:25:18,399
to defuse the the guns, right, the big guns that the guy who

850
01:25:18,439 --> 01:25:24,159
goes second brings, and Jesus Christ
having risen from the dead and consequently demonstrating

851
01:25:24,199 --> 01:25:29,960
the truth of the Christian faith.
Again, this is where we see two

852
01:25:30,000 --> 01:25:33,760
different Trents, right. We see
Trent the Christian apologist who's trying to I

853
01:25:33,800 --> 01:25:41,039
think, genuinely and with sincere motives
bring people to Christianity, but then doing

854
01:25:41,199 --> 01:25:47,960
a Trent the philosopher apologist who grants
too much and doesn't do it, gets

855
01:25:48,000 --> 01:25:54,119
too much into probabilities and things that
grant the autonomous atheist unbeliever way too much.

856
01:25:55,039 --> 01:25:58,640
All right, thanks Trent, Matt. Whenever you want to stop,

857
01:25:58,920 --> 01:26:01,840
we will all quick. Fifteen minute
time rush all right, thank you,

858
01:26:04,720 --> 01:26:08,079
all right, So, first of
all, thanks for having here. I

859
01:26:08,199 --> 01:26:13,079
appreciate it's nice to meet Trent virtually
for the first time and to hang out

860
01:26:13,119 --> 01:26:17,199
with the Flints with aquinas crew and
fans. Thanks everybody for showing up to

861
01:26:17,279 --> 01:26:20,800
this, especially because I didn't do
too much to promote it as I had

862
01:26:21,399 --> 01:26:26,159
weird technical issues this week. So
let's get started. First of all,

863
01:26:26,239 --> 01:26:30,319
it is not my intent ever to
offend people, but the nature of these

864
01:26:30,319 --> 01:26:34,159
discussions about topics that are at the
heart of people's deeply held beliefs often offends.

865
01:26:34,840 --> 01:26:40,079
I once believed many of the things
that many of you. I mean,

866
01:26:41,319 --> 01:26:45,159
I don't. I guess it's wrong
in principle to say this at the

867
01:26:45,199 --> 01:26:51,159
beginning of your opening statement, But
I mean, this is really irrelevant to

868
01:26:51,199 --> 01:26:55,039
the debate like that. I mean, I guess you could say this is

869
01:26:55,119 --> 01:26:58,039
part of the rhetoric, like he
wants to frame it like, Hey,

870
01:26:58,479 --> 01:27:00,560
you know, I'm trying to make
you guys mad cool, We're all cool.

871
01:27:02,159 --> 01:27:06,520
Not really that relevant to the topic. I mean believe, I believe

872
01:27:06,560 --> 01:27:11,039
many of the things that Trent believed, including a belief in the bodily resurrection.

873
01:27:11,640 --> 01:27:15,119
It's difficult to state something like that
without someone interpreting it is, Oh,

874
01:27:15,239 --> 01:27:17,479
now he thinks he's better than us. I don't necessarily think I'm better

875
01:27:17,520 --> 01:27:20,279
than any of you as people,
but I do believe that my position is

876
01:27:20,479 --> 01:27:25,279
more rational, and if that bothers
you, I'd ask you to consider whether

877
01:27:25,319 --> 01:27:30,239
you think your position is more rational. So I think Matt is kind of

878
01:27:30,279 --> 01:27:35,439
actually accidentally stumbling upon the type of
argument that I would say. But I

879
01:27:35,520 --> 01:27:42,680
would again point out that this whole
debate is assuming that both of the parties

880
01:27:42,760 --> 01:27:48,880
have a correct common ground of what's
rational. They don't, in fact at

881
01:27:48,920 --> 01:27:54,760
all. They're gonna have completely different
accounts of what is rational, what reason

882
01:27:54,920 --> 01:28:02,479
is, what logic is right?
So I don't think I think that's actually

883
01:28:02,600 --> 01:28:06,520
an interesting statement, but it's not
the way that Matt actually meant it to

884
01:28:06,560 --> 01:28:10,479
be understood, and it makes it
interesting, right. That's the funny part

885
01:28:10,479 --> 01:28:13,479
of this, because if your answer
is yes, then we're in the same

886
01:28:13,520 --> 01:28:15,760
boat and we can argue it out. And if your answer is no,

887
01:28:15,880 --> 01:28:18,119
then you need to consider why you
are willingly, knowingly holding a view that

888
01:28:18,199 --> 01:28:23,760
you consider less rational than the alternative. So how do we go about telling

889
01:28:23,840 --> 01:28:30,720
me again like more rational, less
rational, probable, less probable. This

890
01:28:30,920 --> 01:28:36,720
all rests on a prior question and
consideration of what rationality, probability evidence has

891
01:28:36,800 --> 01:28:43,920
proved justifications are, and that has
not been raised except by Trent, but

892
01:28:44,039 --> 01:28:47,680
he didn't really press it. Maybe
later on he will. But again,

893
01:28:47,960 --> 01:28:53,039
Matt doesn't grasp this. He's never
grasped us. It's reasonable to believe a

894
01:28:53,159 --> 01:28:56,359
claim, and then it's worth noting
this is separate from whether or not the

895
01:28:56,399 --> 01:29:00,039
claim is in fact true. The
claim could be false, and yet you

896
01:29:00,119 --> 01:29:03,279
could still have a reasonable belief in
it. For once upon a time,

897
01:29:03,479 --> 01:29:08,239
it was reasonable to believe that the
sun went around the Earth because that's what

898
01:29:08,399 --> 01:29:11,680
we saw when we looked up in
the sky. It was it would have

899
01:29:11,680 --> 01:29:17,399
been absurd to think that the Earth
was spinning at an unbelievable rate. Again,

900
01:29:19,439 --> 01:29:28,039
Matt seems to be equating reasonable with
what's commonly accepted, and maybe some

901
01:29:28,119 --> 01:29:31,359
people do that, but that's not
actually what's in debate here, right,

902
01:29:31,479 --> 01:29:35,880
It really doesn't matter, Like the
number of people that accept something has nothing

903
01:29:35,920 --> 01:29:40,520
to do with whether it's even rational
or not. I mean, I could

904
01:29:41,359 --> 01:29:45,199
give an easy defeater for that just
by pointing out that, isn't it possible

905
01:29:45,319 --> 01:29:49,000
that a large portion of the world
believes something irrational? Exactly? Yeah,

906
01:29:49,159 --> 01:29:56,000
so this is just like really low
level stuff here the reasons why I would

907
01:29:56,000 --> 01:29:59,239
call it unbelievable, and yet that
was the truth. So what's I mean

908
01:29:59,279 --> 01:30:02,760
Matt's own bos is that most of
the world believes in some kind of God

909
01:30:02,920 --> 01:30:10,039
or deity, and he thinks that's
irrational. So the numbers of people that

910
01:30:10,119 --> 01:30:13,399
believe something has nothing to do with
whether, in fact the belief itself is

911
01:30:13,520 --> 01:30:16,560
rational or irrational. It's totally irrelevant. Reasonable to believe in what's true are

912
01:30:16,600 --> 01:30:20,600
separate. But we're stuck because we
may not actually ever have access to the

913
01:30:20,680 --> 01:30:24,720
truth, So all we can hope
for is what's reasonable. So how do

914
01:30:24,800 --> 01:30:30,720
you think we may not ever have
access to the truth I mean of empirical

915
01:30:30,800 --> 01:30:33,439
claims or truth at all. I
mean, I don't think Matt even gets

916
01:30:33,520 --> 01:30:39,680
the distinctions between these types of claims
and types of truths and types of I

917
01:30:39,760 --> 01:30:44,039
mean, if you remember in our
debate, Matt literally acts like everything has

918
01:30:44,079 --> 01:30:48,960
proven the same way, and when
I questioned his principles of proof and evidences

919
01:30:49,800 --> 01:30:54,800
from the outset, he had no
idea what I was arguing. He was

920
01:30:54,920 --> 01:30:58,199
lost, Oh, what's reasonable?
Well, there's many answers to that,

921
01:30:58,479 --> 01:31:00,800
and they are all problemat because at
the end the end of the day,

922
01:31:01,720 --> 01:31:05,359
each individual is going to be responsible
for determining what's reasonable to them, and

923
01:31:05,399 --> 01:31:08,880
the rest of society is going to
say, ah, you're unreasonable. So

924
01:31:09,000 --> 01:31:17,279
again, this is so like mind
blowingly dumb that Matt thinks that rationality and

925
01:31:17,359 --> 01:31:20,960
what's reasonable is a social construct.
I mean, that's essentially what he just

926
01:31:21,039 --> 01:31:27,039
said, Like everybody's responsible as individuals, So he's got a relativistic account of

927
01:31:27,159 --> 01:31:33,960
what is reasonable. I mean,
reasonable beliefs means reasons for the beliefs,

928
01:31:34,079 --> 01:31:38,880
right, the beliefs that you think
you have good reasons for what you believe,

929
01:31:39,800 --> 01:31:44,119
and Matt's basically saying that that's all
determined by the subjective tastes or states

930
01:31:44,159 --> 01:31:46,920
of the individual. I mean,
that's completely ludicrous, right, just just

931
01:31:47,039 --> 01:31:53,319
philosophical garbage, nonsense, like so
easy to refute, and I'm sure Trent

932
01:31:53,359 --> 01:31:58,319
will do that, but I mean, does Matt really think that. I

933
01:31:58,359 --> 01:32:01,319
mean, it's it's it's hard to
actually believe that he thinks this right.

934
01:32:01,880 --> 01:32:04,720
I mean most atheists do. I'm
not doubting it. But it's like,

935
01:32:06,399 --> 01:32:12,640
do you even grasp that when you
come to a debate, your presupposing objective

936
01:32:12,800 --> 01:32:18,000
rules of logic and argumentation, do
you do you get? I mean,

937
01:32:18,119 --> 01:32:23,680
debate wouldn't be possible if you didn't
assume that, right, the two parties

938
01:32:23,720 --> 01:32:30,399
couldn't be appealing to the rules and
laws of logic and debate, or you're

939
01:32:30,479 --> 01:32:34,640
incredibly We often use the example in
discord, right when the atheists come of

940
01:32:34,880 --> 01:32:41,119
chess. I mean, when you
come and play chess, you're agreeing when

941
01:32:41,159 --> 01:32:44,680
you come to the table to the
rules of chess, like you don't have

942
01:32:44,880 --> 01:32:46,880
the right. You don't get to
like, oh, I'm going to play

943
01:32:46,960 --> 01:32:50,680
my chess, okay, right,
and what is your chess? Well,

944
01:32:50,800 --> 01:32:58,680
my rules for chess are I bring
my checker pieces and I thump them at

945
01:32:58,720 --> 01:33:00,159
your pieces, and when I knock
you piece is off. I win.

946
01:33:00,920 --> 01:33:04,279
And that's what I think chess is. Because that's not chess. Okay,

947
01:33:04,319 --> 01:33:08,760
you're not. You're playing a different
game. That's not the rules of chess.

948
01:33:08,960 --> 01:33:11,680
And that's the point here, right. If you come to debate,

949
01:33:12,560 --> 01:33:15,720
there are laws of logic, laws
and rules of debate that are the case

950
01:33:16,199 --> 01:33:21,159
and that you are submitting to by
virtue of coming to the debate. And

951
01:33:21,279 --> 01:33:25,600
if you don't believe that and reject
that, then you're going to lose the

952
01:33:25,680 --> 01:33:30,720
debate because you're debating, you're refuting
yourself. Remember the JF debate. This

953
01:33:30,760 --> 01:33:33,600
is what happened, right, But
I don't Matt just doesn't even seem to

954
01:33:33,760 --> 01:33:39,239
have a clue about this, and
so we try to work together. This

955
01:33:39,359 --> 01:33:43,359
is one of the reasons why we
have scientific methods that remove as much of

956
01:33:43,439 --> 01:33:47,800
the bias inside. I mean,
imagine being so low tier scientism, basic

957
01:33:47,840 --> 01:33:54,199
bitch empiricism that you think the scientific
method is going to tell you what reason

958
01:33:54,359 --> 01:34:00,880
is rationality is and what's I mean
It's like the questions of a pistemology,

959
01:34:00,960 --> 01:34:09,560
Matt are prior to the doing of
science, the making of claims, the

960
01:34:09,720 --> 01:34:19,439
making of arguments claiming how the world
is or isn't right. And you can't

961
01:34:19,920 --> 01:34:26,479
just like I'm going to critique Trent
likewise, you can't just start saying things

962
01:34:27,399 --> 01:34:34,119
without prior consideration. And this is
what we keep having to remind the atheists

963
01:34:34,239 --> 01:34:39,720
and the people in the domain of
internet philosophy who haven't studied philosophy at the

964
01:34:39,760 --> 01:34:42,960
academic level. They don't seem to
be aware of the state of the question

965
01:34:43,079 --> 01:34:46,560
in academia. I mean, atheists, do you realize that they don't do

966
01:34:46,680 --> 01:34:51,600
a pistemology anymore? Typically speaking,
this has been surrendered, right, What

967
01:34:51,720 --> 01:34:57,960
does KWin say It's time to give
up a pistemology as a classical enterprise of

968
01:34:58,199 --> 01:35:06,039
justification and rational belief. It's just
psychology now. That's the state of the

969
01:35:06,159 --> 01:35:11,880
question after Quine, And as doctor
Mannion points out in his paper, the

970
01:35:12,039 --> 01:35:17,760
debate hasn't changed from Hume. The
debate on epistemology at the academic level is

971
01:35:17,840 --> 01:35:25,520
basically still debating conton Hume questions.
It hasn't progressed since then. The notable

972
01:35:25,600 --> 01:35:33,439
paper The Two Dogmas reduces epistemology to
psychology. That's a surrendering of the discipline.

973
01:35:33,479 --> 01:35:42,520
We don't do it anymore if Hume
and cont are correct. That's why

974
01:35:42,560 --> 01:35:45,960
I kept raising in the debate with
Matt human Cont over and over, and

975
01:35:46,159 --> 01:35:50,439
Matt had no idea what I was
raising, never got or grasped what my

976
01:35:50,560 --> 01:35:56,239
objections were, and just ignored it. Activity as possible even though we can't

977
01:35:56,279 --> 01:36:00,880
completely remove I'd argue in simplest terms, it claims reasonable if the claim is

978
01:36:00,960 --> 01:36:04,560
consistent with what we know to be
true and possible within reality. So somebody

979
01:36:04,600 --> 01:36:08,720
asked a good question there, break
down the scientific method. That would be

980
01:36:08,760 --> 01:36:13,680
a good video, because you know, if you look at somebody like Kuserlehustoral

981
01:36:13,720 --> 01:36:19,560
had a great breakdown in the logical
investigations of the logic and math that the

982
01:36:19,640 --> 01:36:29,319
scientific method relies on, and other
things such as induction. Right, you

983
01:36:29,479 --> 01:36:35,840
inductively approach questions and you deduce things. You then make deductive approximations of what's

984
01:36:35,920 --> 01:36:43,800
going on in these different cases,
right, and so point there is that

985
01:36:45,680 --> 01:36:51,239
you can't do this stuff right.
If Hume and Kant were correct, there's

986
01:36:51,279 --> 01:36:55,159
no basis for science. I mean, this is Kant's whole point, right.

987
01:36:55,319 --> 01:36:59,479
Kant saw that if Hume was right, then we're science is done.

988
01:37:00,079 --> 01:37:09,840
We can't. It has no basis
because epistemology is gone. And I'm not

989
01:37:09,960 --> 01:37:14,239
contient. We're not saying Kant is
correct in total right, The kantient system

990
01:37:14,359 --> 01:37:17,920
is goofy right, it's silly,
But Kant raised good questions, and he

991
01:37:18,000 --> 01:37:24,000
correctly saw that if human was right, then this stuff's done. We don't

992
01:37:24,039 --> 01:37:28,159
have a basis for this stuff.
Now, after Kant, some people do

993
01:37:28,279 --> 01:37:31,359
come along and raise good questions and
make good points, like Kussrel says in

994
01:37:31,439 --> 01:37:38,479
the logical investigations, that's the scientific
method proceeds on the basis of logical mathematical

995
01:37:38,560 --> 01:37:45,039
principles, so they're prior to the
scientific method. They're presupposed in the scientific

996
01:37:45,159 --> 01:37:55,880
method. So, Matt, you
can't do those things justifiably without giving an

997
01:37:55,880 --> 01:38:00,359
account for the things that are prior
to the doing of science. And never

998
01:38:00,439 --> 01:38:02,760
got that, and has never gotten
that, and probably never will get that.

999
01:38:03,000 --> 01:38:08,399
Right short of a miracle, it
simply does no good to argue that

1000
01:38:08,520 --> 01:38:13,159
it's reasonable because it's internally consistent,
because that's true for many sci fi fantasy

1001
01:38:13,239 --> 01:38:18,039
stories, or at least some of
the best ones. Uh, that's an

1002
01:38:18,039 --> 01:38:24,239
objection to coherentism, which I don't
think Trent made any argument about coherentism.

1003
01:38:24,640 --> 01:38:30,039
So I don't know where's Matt getting
this argument of coherentism and how you reply

1004
01:38:30,199 --> 01:38:36,600
to a coherence theory of truth a
knowledge when Trent is not a coherentist and

1005
01:38:36,880 --> 01:38:43,840
didn't make that argument. So what
does the physical evidence about the resurrection tell

1006
01:38:43,920 --> 01:38:47,920
us? Well, as far as
I'm aware, there is no physical evidence.

1007
01:38:48,760 --> 01:38:54,199
There's only a story and testimonials,
testimonials about you know, hey,

1008
01:38:54,319 --> 01:38:59,640
so and so, so I'm anticipating. I think if I remember from the

1009
01:38:59,720 --> 01:39:03,640
Lewis clip where Trent goes with this
and it's like, Matt, do you

1010
01:39:03,720 --> 01:39:12,600
not understand that what you're saying is
like makes the discipline of history impossible?

1011
01:39:12,840 --> 01:39:15,399
Now, I don't think Matt is
going to be so absurd as to think

1012
01:39:15,439 --> 01:39:19,760
that there's no such thing as the
discipline of history. But Matt doesn't understand

1013
01:39:19,840 --> 01:39:26,479
that the arguments that he's making actually
make history impossible. There's not anything like

1014
01:39:26,640 --> 01:39:31,840
history. And Trent already kind of
brought that up and anticipated that in his

1015
01:39:31,960 --> 01:39:38,840
opening statement. Right, But it's
like Matt. It's like Matt prepared an

1016
01:39:38,840 --> 01:39:46,640
opening statement that wasn't interested in Trent's
opening statement, which sometimes debaters do because

1017
01:39:47,039 --> 01:39:51,800
you know, they want to stick
to their notes or whatever and they can't

1018
01:39:51,880 --> 01:39:56,039
do improv or they can't you know, think on the fly. And I

1019
01:39:56,119 --> 01:39:58,720
mean, if you go second,
that's what you have to do, right,

1020
01:39:58,800 --> 01:40:00,720
You're going to be bound to you
know, if the guy who went

1021
01:40:00,880 --> 01:40:06,119
first diffused half of your you know, big guns that you brought in your

1022
01:40:06,359 --> 01:40:10,079
opening statement, then you're gonna have
to think I'm a fly and like,

1023
01:40:10,239 --> 01:40:12,840
you know, come up with something
better, Like it's not gonna work to

1024
01:40:13,680 --> 01:40:16,960
give your opening statement half of which
was already addressed in the other guy's opening

1025
01:40:17,000 --> 01:40:21,119
statement. Oh this or this is
what happens. If Christianity is true,

1026
01:40:21,840 --> 01:40:27,039
then the resurrection of Jesus must be
the single most important fact in history.

1027
01:40:27,640 --> 01:40:34,279
And for that fact, we have
nothing but hearsay. Now Matt's criteria what

1028
01:40:34,399 --> 01:40:42,479
hearsay is and no historical evidence is
actually flatly contradicted by the way all historical

1029
01:40:42,800 --> 01:40:48,840
evidences and attestation actually works, right, I mean, what's the historical attestation

1030
01:40:48,960 --> 01:40:56,960
to the existence of Plato. Oh, these medieval manuscripts that are the earliest

1031
01:40:57,800 --> 01:41:01,359
translations of Plato? Literally, did
you know that the oldest translations of Plato

1032
01:41:01,439 --> 01:41:06,159
or the Middle Ages? Oh?
Okay, so, Matt, do we

1033
01:41:06,279 --> 01:41:12,000
also now have no reason to believe
in Plato? Do we have no reason

1034
01:41:12,079 --> 01:41:15,600
to believe in Heroditus? Do we
have no reason to believe in you know,

1035
01:41:16,640 --> 01:41:23,119
Alexander the Great? Because the things
that will qualify as historical evidences for

1036
01:41:24,039 --> 01:41:31,840
Alexander, you know, Aristotle,
Socrates will not meet Matt's criterion for what

1037
01:41:32,159 --> 01:41:38,159
is evidence of historical things. So
this is so dumb on Matt's part that

1038
01:41:38,920 --> 01:41:44,479
Matt literally is completely destroying not only
himself but the possibility of history at all.

1039
01:41:45,600 --> 01:41:49,079
And he never gets this was kind
of amazing now that here's it wouldn't

1040
01:41:49,079 --> 01:41:53,520
be admissible in a court, and
certainly the standard I would think for adopting

1041
01:41:53,600 --> 01:41:57,479
the foundation of a religion is true
to the extent that one is willing to

1042
01:41:57,560 --> 01:42:00,560
conform one's life to it, should
at least rise to the level of surviving

1043
01:42:00,800 --> 01:42:06,920
courtroom evidentary. Stand But Matt,
again, you just said that it's hearsay,

1044
01:42:08,680 --> 01:42:14,760
Right, It's not hearsay, it's
multiple testimonies, multiple examples of attestation

1045
01:42:15,159 --> 01:42:20,840
that far exceed Plato. One might
wonder, as I do, if this

1046
01:42:21,039 --> 01:42:26,520
event actually happened, and there's a
good and wise God behind it, why

1047
01:42:26,600 --> 01:42:30,279
did he leave us with such a
paucity of anecdotal evidence and place this event

1048
01:42:30,680 --> 01:42:38,079
in a such a temporal situation as
to make it unverifiable. So I love

1049
01:42:38,159 --> 01:42:44,680
to bring in the point about Jesus's
approach to evidences. Here in the Gospels,

1050
01:42:44,680 --> 01:42:48,279
there's a fascinating instance right where the
guy goes to Abraham's bosom, he

1051
01:42:48,399 --> 01:42:53,079
dies, and he goes to excuse
me. He goes to Hades, but

1052
01:42:53,560 --> 01:43:00,359
he's not in Abraham's bosom, and
he's in the section of the dead,

1053
01:43:00,479 --> 01:43:04,479
which is torment, and he can
see the poor man ride the story of

1054
01:43:04,479 --> 01:43:08,560
the rich Man of the poor Man. He sees the poor man who went

1055
01:43:08,680 --> 01:43:14,199
to Abraham's bosom, which is the
abode of the righteous in the intermediate state

1056
01:43:14,319 --> 01:43:16,800
in the Old Testament, and he
says, you know, I can see

1057
01:43:18,479 --> 01:43:23,119
the poor guy over there, and
he says that he's in Abraham's bosom and

1058
01:43:23,159 --> 01:43:28,079
he's blessed, and he says,
Lord, yeah, the poor man allows.

1059
01:43:28,199 --> 01:43:31,560
He says, Lord, let me
compack, go back to life from

1060
01:43:31,600 --> 01:43:36,680
the dead and warn my brothers,
because if my brothers see me rise from

1061
01:43:36,760 --> 01:43:43,279
the dead, they'll believe and they
won't come to this terrible place of torment.

1062
01:43:44,239 --> 01:43:47,119
What does Jesus say. Does Jesus
say, Oh, dude, yes,

1063
01:43:47,520 --> 01:43:51,199
all we have to do is pile
up a bunch of probabilities about how

1064
01:43:51,239 --> 01:43:56,880
it's possible that someone rose from the
dead, and maybe they'll believe. Uh

1065
01:43:57,560 --> 01:44:00,479
No, Actually, Jesus says,
the very op sit of everything Trent is

1066
01:44:00,600 --> 01:44:06,800
arguing is apologetic. Even though one
rise from the dead, they will not

1067
01:44:08,079 --> 01:44:15,479
believe. Let me repeat that,
Trent, even though one rise from the

1068
01:44:15,600 --> 01:44:24,720
dead, they will not believe.
Why because evidences are interpreted according to a

1069
01:44:24,840 --> 01:44:30,920
paradigm, and the amount of evidences
that you throw at an unbeliever is not

1070
01:44:31,079 --> 01:44:40,119
going to really work or do anything
until you change his paradigm of evidences challenging

1071
01:44:40,159 --> 01:44:45,960
his presuppositions. You see, because
as Jesus points out in that story in

1072
01:44:45,039 --> 01:44:50,399
the parable, he says, if
they wanted to believe, and if they

1073
01:44:50,399 --> 01:44:57,680
were actually open to the truth,
they have Moses and the prophets. So

1074
01:44:57,880 --> 01:45:02,159
Jesus is basically saying, if you
want evidences one of the greatest, clearest

1075
01:45:02,199 --> 01:45:11,000
evidences is to go to the prophets, understand the mountains of Messianic prophecies in

1076
01:45:11,079 --> 01:45:15,239
the Old Testament, how they're fulfilled
in Christ, and you would have the

1077
01:45:15,520 --> 01:45:29,760
very thing Matt is asking for,
the giant pile of historical attestation they have

1078
01:45:30,039 --> 01:45:36,119
Moses and the prophets. If they're
not going to investigate Moses and the Prophets

1079
01:45:36,800 --> 01:45:43,359
with an open heart and mind to
see this pile of evidence, then they're

1080
01:45:43,439 --> 01:45:51,600
not going to believe even though one
rise from the dead and unfalsifiable, because

1081
01:45:51,600 --> 01:45:58,479
I'd argue that an untestable claim of
a matter of fact such as this event

1082
01:45:58,520 --> 01:46:01,760
occurred, no matter what the event
is, can never be reasonably believed unless

1083
01:46:01,800 --> 01:46:06,399
that matter of fact is wholly mundane
and when the risk of being wrong is

1084
01:46:06,560 --> 01:46:13,920
minimized. So matd just gave an
arbitrary, absurd criteria of what counts as

1085
01:46:14,039 --> 01:46:18,319
a reasonable belief and what counts as
justification for that belief. And there's absolutely

1086
01:46:18,439 --> 01:46:23,399
no way that mad could could make
good on what he just said. And

1087
01:46:23,880 --> 01:46:30,479
what this shows again is that this
debate isn't about evidences. The debate is

1088
01:46:30,640 --> 01:46:36,520
actually about the prior question of justification
our criteria of evidences, which Trent did

1089
01:46:36,600 --> 01:46:41,000
bring up at the beginning, But
Mats just like blowing past that, acting

1090
01:46:41,199 --> 01:46:44,039
like, well, we all know
what evidences are, and we all know

1091
01:46:44,119 --> 01:46:45,880
what a courtroom does, and we're
all just doing the same thing and it's

1092
01:46:45,920 --> 01:46:49,560
all the same. So if somebody
would say George Washington had a dog named

1093
01:46:49,640 --> 01:46:55,720
Piggy, the risk of accepting that
claim being wrong is fairly trivial. We

1094
01:46:55,800 --> 01:46:58,880
don't have any way to verify it
as far as I can tell, and

1095
01:46:59,199 --> 01:47:03,000
it's also not falsifiable because we don't
have a time machine. We don't have

1096
01:47:03,079 --> 01:47:08,640
they would exhaustively explore the aspect of
it, But the risk of being wrong

1097
01:47:08,840 --> 01:47:12,159
is trivial. Oops, I thought
George Washington had a dog named Piggy.

1098
01:47:12,880 --> 01:47:16,479
Turned. I mean, Matt just
doesn't even have a conception of the fundamental

1099
01:47:16,600 --> 01:47:21,239
problems to empiricism, right, I
mean, there's so many, and it's

1100
01:47:21,520 --> 01:47:25,560
it's if you had an epistemology one
on one class, or if you had,

1101
01:47:26,399 --> 01:47:29,800
you know, some classes in modern
philosophy, you would take the classes

1102
01:47:29,840 --> 01:47:33,920
on the empiricists, you would study
Locke, Barkley, Hume. You would

1103
01:47:33,960 --> 01:47:39,359
get into the questions that they raise, ask and debate, and then you

1104
01:47:39,399 --> 01:47:45,680
would have at least a basic knowledge
of what the problems of skepticism and empiricism

1105
01:47:45,800 --> 01:47:49,680
are. Matt does not know that. He will probably never know that because

1106
01:47:49,720 --> 01:47:55,279
he thinks he knows what he's talking
about, and he doesn't. And if

1107
01:47:55,319 --> 01:47:59,000
he did, he would know about
the myth of the given, the underdetermination

1108
01:47:59,119 --> 01:48:01,399
of data. He would know about
the external world, he would know about

1109
01:48:01,479 --> 01:48:06,239
the self, he would know about
the problem of universals right plaguing questions for

1110
01:48:06,800 --> 01:48:12,720
skeptical empiricists, which Matt does not
know about, does not care about,

1111
01:48:12,760 --> 01:48:16,520
and we'll never talk about that.
I wasn't right. I guess that's not

1112
01:48:16,560 --> 01:48:19,479
a big deal, unless maybe you're
on a quiz show in front of millions

1113
01:48:19,520 --> 01:48:24,640
of people and then you suffer terrible
embarrassment and a harm to your reputation.

1114
01:48:24,800 --> 01:48:28,439
Well, remember this is the guy
who thinks that when Jordan Peterson asked him

1115
01:48:28,439 --> 01:48:34,680
about why life has value, he
literally replied because a monkey ancestor thought he

1116
01:48:34,760 --> 01:48:38,960
had value. That was his actual
I'm not joking. It wasn't a joke.

1117
01:48:39,720 --> 01:48:43,600
It was literally what he thought was
a good reply. And I mean,

1118
01:48:43,640 --> 01:48:45,600
I can kind of see on Trent's
face. I'll just show you a

1119
01:48:45,640 --> 01:48:51,000
little a little uh. I mean, look at Trent's face here. It's

1120
01:48:51,119 --> 01:48:57,159
like Trent's like, are you really
arguing this with me right now? Like,

1121
01:48:57,520 --> 01:49:01,159
dude, seriously, It's like I
got this in the bag, bro,

1122
01:49:02,159 --> 01:49:06,680
right. I mean, Matt,
this is just so goofy dude.

1123
01:49:06,720 --> 01:49:11,319
It's like, I'm not trying to
be mean, it's just bro come on.

1124
01:49:11,880 --> 01:49:15,319
And then all of a sudden,
believing something like that is a problem.

1125
01:49:15,079 --> 01:49:20,039
It's important for people to recognize that
there's a difference between verification and falsification.

1126
01:49:20,880 --> 01:49:29,079
Matt does he does he not even
know that the verificationists and the falsificationists,

1127
01:49:29,600 --> 01:49:33,279
Like this is all like people don't
do this anymore. Like it's like

1128
01:49:33,520 --> 01:49:40,239
Matt read a couple introductory books and
then just ran with it and ignores like

1129
01:49:41,359 --> 01:49:49,239
dispensed archaic epistemological attempts of justification and
theories of evidences and proofs and knowledge that

1130
01:49:49,520 --> 01:49:56,079
people don't really hold anymore. But
I think maybe the normy audiences that follow

1131
01:49:56,159 --> 01:50:00,600
Matt. I mean, if you
read the comments under the debate that I

1132
01:50:00,680 --> 01:50:04,039
have with Matt on his channel and
on my channel, like the especially on

1133
01:50:04,159 --> 01:50:08,640
his channel like the tier of people, the reddit tier of the audience that

1134
01:50:08,720 --> 01:50:13,680
follows Matt, you know, the
people that come into the discord, the

1135
01:50:13,760 --> 01:50:16,439
atheist crowd, the people that I
was arguing with for five hours the other

1136
01:50:16,600 --> 01:50:21,840
night on the Politics and Religion Server, Like, they don't know what an

1137
01:50:21,920 --> 01:50:27,000
argument is, they don't know what
justification is, they don't know what empiricism

1138
01:50:27,119 --> 01:50:30,399
is, they don't know what Barkley
said, what humans, They have no

1139
01:50:30,479 --> 01:50:33,520
idea about any of this stuff.
So what appeals to them is really these

1140
01:50:35,720 --> 01:50:44,880
really these these low tier analogies,
right, these naive assumptions and really naive

1141
01:50:45,359 --> 01:50:49,800
positions, And Trent is enough of
a philosopher and enough of a good thinker

1142
01:50:49,880 --> 01:50:57,000
and critical thinker to be way tiers
way above this. So, I mean,

1143
01:50:58,279 --> 01:51:00,079
Matt is so out of his element
in these kinds of debates that he

1144
01:51:00,159 --> 01:51:05,640
doesn't even realize it. That's the
sad part here. And because he at

1145
01:51:05,760 --> 01:51:11,000
least is a good talker, he's
at least able to dupe a lot of

1146
01:51:11,079 --> 01:51:15,399
people who literally know nothing about philosophy
one on one. And that's really the

1147
01:51:15,479 --> 01:51:18,520
only way that he could be successful
at this is that kind of a game.

1148
01:51:19,199 --> 01:51:25,159
Verification is the notice the note the
note verification is the concept that we

1149
01:51:25,239 --> 01:51:28,800
should produce the thing. If we
were to say all intelligent beings are on

1150
01:51:28,920 --> 01:51:31,760
planet Earth verification, you could run
around, hey, there's an intelligent being

1151
01:51:31,800 --> 01:51:33,680
on Earth, and there's one on
Earth in there again. I mean,

1152
01:51:33,840 --> 01:51:40,479
do anybody who has had like a
few philosophy classes will like they know the

1153
01:51:40,560 --> 01:51:47,199
ways that you could critique verificationism right
or falsification, like people don't hold this

1154
01:51:47,279 --> 01:51:50,920
stuff anymore. One on Earth and
there's one on Earth, But verifying it

1155
01:51:51,119 --> 01:51:57,680
exhaustively could be completely impractical because you
would have to search. He doesn't understand

1156
01:51:57,800 --> 01:52:02,720
that the verification and these they don't
actually solve the dilemmas that Hume raised.

1157
01:52:03,720 --> 01:52:06,600
Do you remember in the debate with
Matt where I just kept going back to

1158
01:52:06,720 --> 01:52:12,239
David Hume and saying, Matt,
everything that you're saying assumes the principles that

1159
01:52:13,159 --> 01:52:15,520
Hume called into question. Do you
have an account for that? And Matt

1160
01:52:15,680 --> 01:52:20,039
literally just kept saying, I don't
care what David Hume said, like he

1161
01:52:20,199 --> 01:52:27,239
thought I was appealing to David Hume
as an appeal to authority. Matt,

1162
01:52:27,279 --> 01:52:30,600
I'm not appealing to David Hume as
an authority. I'm appealing to his argument,

1163
01:52:30,920 --> 01:52:33,359
dude, really, are you that
slow? Yes, he is replanet

1164
01:52:34,000 --> 01:52:38,239
at all the time in order to
determine that, in fact, whole intelligent

1165
01:52:38,319 --> 01:52:42,760
beings are in fact on planet Earth. But falsification is a separate issue.

1166
01:52:42,840 --> 01:52:46,800
Falsification is whether or not it is
theoretically able to be shown to be false.

1167
01:52:47,399 --> 01:52:51,720
And so while we may never be
able to Matt will never grasp that.

1168
01:52:54,000 --> 01:53:01,800
It's the people in his camp in
academia that ask and repeat the very

1169
01:53:01,960 --> 01:53:09,840
questions that Matt doesn't understand that skepticism
can't answer. Do you understand that?

1170
01:53:10,800 --> 01:53:14,760
And the comments I mean, just
dude, the mindlessness of the comments in

1171
01:53:14,880 --> 01:53:17,960
Matt's on MAT's channel under our debate. None of them. I'm not none

1172
01:53:18,000 --> 01:53:20,359
of them because a lot you've actually
seen a lot of people convert. But

1173
01:53:20,920 --> 01:53:24,640
I mean the comments that are there, the thousands of comments, are like

1174
01:53:26,760 --> 01:53:30,399
not even grasping this. Do you
remember the debate with stuff on Molineux?

1175
01:53:30,920 --> 01:53:34,640
Do you guys see this? From
my vantage point, the debate is the

1176
01:53:34,760 --> 01:53:44,760
same, from Matt to Trent to
Asrah Rashid to stuff on Molineux. I'm

1177
01:53:44,880 --> 01:53:49,640
asking the same questions to all of
these people because all of those people share

1178
01:53:49,880 --> 01:53:56,760
an empiricist starting point, and so
anytime they start saying all these things,

1179
01:53:56,800 --> 01:54:00,720
I'm like, whoha, who whoa
whoa bro, Let's dial back, dude,

1180
01:54:00,800 --> 01:54:04,399
whoa the dollar is back, because
I want to know about these starting

1181
01:54:04,520 --> 01:54:13,239
point positions in epistemology that you need
to deal with first, that human con

1182
01:54:13,800 --> 01:54:20,359
raised before you start doing all this
postulating and pontificating. Maybe all of your

1183
01:54:20,439 --> 01:54:27,319
postulations and pontifications are correct, but
you're going to have to answer those prior

1184
01:54:27,520 --> 01:54:35,079
questions before you go down this long
rabbit trail here. And that's what philosophy

1185
01:54:35,119 --> 01:54:40,760
does. I mean, guys,
hello, the last five hundred years,

1186
01:54:41,800 --> 01:54:46,760
the last four or five hundred years
of philosophy is asking and repeating what I'm

1187
01:54:46,800 --> 01:54:58,359
saying. Remember what doctor Manion says, epistemology and its questions have not significantly

1188
01:54:58,439 --> 01:55:05,039
progressed or changed sense Hume and cont
they're still debating this. So from human

1189
01:55:05,119 --> 01:55:13,039
Kant to Qwine, it's the same
questions. Matt doesn't even know those questions.

1190
01:55:13,239 --> 01:55:16,079
That's how lame and silly this is. I mean, Matt should be

1191
01:55:16,199 --> 01:55:24,439
laughed off of the stage as as
a stage magician. He's not a philosopher.

1192
01:55:25,239 --> 01:55:28,920
He doesn't know the first thing about
philosophy, So the stuff he's talking

1193
01:55:28,960 --> 01:55:32,880
about is like totally divorced from what's
actually going on in the last five inentred

1194
01:55:32,960 --> 01:55:36,199
years of philosophy to pistemology, and
most of the reddit, you know,

1195
01:55:36,359 --> 01:55:42,199
internet sphere atheists are that same way, right, Like they're just repeating things

1196
01:55:42,359 --> 01:55:46,279
that, like somebody said in the
seventeen hundreds, just as much as Trent

1197
01:55:47,520 --> 01:55:54,000
and the classical apologists are repeating bad
arguments from the thirteen hundreds. By that

1198
01:55:54,079 --> 01:55:57,279
all intelligent beings are in fact on
planet Earth, we could, at least

1199
01:55:57,359 --> 01:56:00,279
in theory, falsify it, because
if we produced an intelligent being that wasn't

1200
01:56:00,319 --> 01:56:04,039
on Earth, that would falsify the
claim. Now, that would show that

1201
01:56:04,119 --> 01:56:06,800
the claim is wrong. But if
we had, if Matt had, if

1202
01:56:06,840 --> 01:56:16,840
Matt took if Matt took uh modern
philosophy one on one and then took modern

1203
01:56:16,840 --> 01:56:25,520
epistemology or epistemology one on one,
he would be at least aware of the

1204
01:56:25,640 --> 01:56:31,800
critiques of the verification thesis. Claim
that is unverifiable, unfalsifiable, it is

1205
01:56:31,920 --> 01:56:36,560
essentially untestable. And my foundation is
that if you have an untestable claim,

1206
01:56:36,640 --> 01:56:42,479
it had better be mundane, trivial, and consistent with the facts of reality.

1207
01:56:43,119 --> 01:56:45,479
Before excuse me, what does it
mean for something to be mundane?

1208
01:56:45,600 --> 01:56:49,680
What does it mean for objects to
exist in some kind of consistent, meaningful

1209
01:56:49,720 --> 01:56:53,600
way with your thoughts? What does
it mean for you to know that there's

1210
01:56:53,600 --> 01:56:56,399
an external world? What does it
mean for you to know that these objects

1211
01:56:56,479 --> 01:57:00,960
have identity over time? I mean
Matt's It is so easy to just destroy

1212
01:57:01,079 --> 01:57:04,520
Matt. And if you watch go
back and watch the debate that I have

1213
01:57:04,640 --> 01:57:09,479
with Matt, And all I did
was pick a couple of those kinds of

1214
01:57:09,520 --> 01:57:13,720
basic questions to keep asking Matt,
and he never even note knew what I

1215
01:57:13,840 --> 01:57:16,880
was asking. You should ever risk
believing that it's in fact the case?

1216
01:57:18,079 --> 01:57:23,479
Well, we can't really believe,
or we can't argue that it's rational to

1217
01:57:23,479 --> 01:57:26,520
believe something that we can't test at
all, And so we do the best

1218
01:57:26,600 --> 01:57:30,560
we can. When it comes to
history and Matt, why should we believe

1219
01:57:30,680 --> 01:57:39,920
that it's rational to believe in rational
things? Why should we believe in your

1220
01:57:40,079 --> 01:57:44,800
theory of reasoning? Why should we
believe in the verification thesis? Why should

1221
01:57:44,800 --> 01:57:48,199
we believe in falsifying things? Right? In other words, these are all

1222
01:57:48,840 --> 01:57:56,880
assumptions that Matt is using as his
starting point, right, that Matt is

1223
01:57:56,920 --> 01:58:00,800
not going to be able to justify. Let's give an easy example. Matt

1224
01:58:00,880 --> 01:58:03,319
is a basic bitch empiricist, literally, right, And we saw that in

1225
01:58:03,399 --> 01:58:08,279
our debate. There's no question about
that. That's not a false, falsely

1226
01:58:08,319 --> 01:58:11,039
attributing to him a position he doesn't
have. And if you remember in the

1227
01:58:11,079 --> 01:58:14,319
debate, I said, Matt,
I heard in previous debates you say,

1228
01:58:14,520 --> 01:58:18,600
quote, you should never believe anything
without good empirical evidence to support it.

1229
01:58:20,039 --> 01:58:26,359
Right, Yes, I agree,
Matt. Matt said that it's a basic

1230
01:58:26,960 --> 01:58:31,119
Matt one oh one principle, right, that's Matt delahunty epistemology one on one,

1231
01:58:32,720 --> 01:58:39,760
Matt, do you think that proposition
itself is part of your sense data?

1232
01:58:42,439 --> 01:58:46,520
No, it's not, and so
over and over. I hammered at

1233
01:58:46,600 --> 01:58:50,800
these kinds of points, Matt.
Everything that you're saying about science presupposes induction.

1234
01:58:51,039 --> 01:58:56,359
What is the justification for believing in
the principle of induction? It just

1235
01:58:56,560 --> 01:58:59,720
is, so Matt says, it
just is that. I'm not joking.

1236
01:58:59,720 --> 01:59:02,720
That's his argument. It just is. That's arbitrary, that's at hoc.

1237
01:59:02,840 --> 01:59:06,279
That's not a justification. It's not
an argument. It's circular on Matt's own

1238
01:59:08,199 --> 01:59:14,399
theory of circularity and argumentation. Right, And Matt says, you can't give

1239
01:59:14,439 --> 01:59:17,680
an account or a justification for presuppositions
they just are, which is not true.

1240
01:59:17,760 --> 01:59:23,399
But that's that was his reply.
So wait a minute. So Matt,

1241
01:59:23,399 --> 01:59:28,800
you're saying we should believe in things
that we don't have empirical data and

1242
01:59:29,000 --> 01:59:36,039
justification for. But you earlier said
don't believe anything without good empirical evidence and

1243
01:59:36,159 --> 01:59:43,000
justification. Oh yeah, total contradiction. When we take a look at history,

1244
01:59:43,199 --> 01:59:45,760
all we have are reports. Somebody
said they saw this, somebody said

1245
01:59:45,760 --> 01:59:48,920
they knew this person, somebody said
this other thing. That's all well and

1246
01:59:49,000 --> 01:59:53,039
good when we're trying to put together
the best understanding of history we can,

1247
01:59:53,239 --> 01:59:57,000
but we shouldn't be proclaiming it is
truth. And we shouldn't necessarily be saying

1248
01:59:57,039 --> 02:00:01,479
that this particular version of history is
particular reasonable because history tends to be written

1249
02:00:01,600 --> 02:00:06,880
by the victors, and so history
is always suspect. And there are two

1250
02:00:08,000 --> 02:00:12,199
quotes from David Hume that are the
I mean, this goober doesn't even know

1251
02:00:12,560 --> 02:00:17,399
David Hume's argumentation. I mean he's
just quote mining. I guarantee you he's

1252
02:00:17,479 --> 02:00:19,880
not ever read that. He wouldn't
be able to understand David Hume if you

1253
02:00:19,920 --> 02:00:26,159
read it, because I asked him
multiple times arguments that Hume makes, and

1254
02:00:26,279 --> 02:00:30,880
he acted like it doesn't matter.
David Hume is not an authority for me.

1255
02:00:32,600 --> 02:00:38,439
Dude. I'm not appealing to David
Hume as an authority. I explicitly

1256
02:00:38,479 --> 02:00:43,760
said multiple times his argument. But
this obtuse dude acted like that that's not

1257
02:00:43,880 --> 02:00:45,960
what I was doing. And he
probably knew better, right, but he

1258
02:00:46,039 --> 02:00:51,119
got flustered in that debate and was
just demolished cornerstone of how and why I

1259
02:00:51,239 --> 02:00:56,640
go by determining if something is or
should be considered reasonable. The first one

1260
02:00:56,760 --> 02:01:00,840
is that he said the wise man
proportions his belief to the evidence. And

1261
02:01:00,960 --> 02:01:04,000
all he's really saying is your confidence
level in the truth of a claim should

1262
02:01:04,039 --> 02:01:11,960
be proportional to the evidence that is
there to support it. You barely have

1263
02:01:12,039 --> 02:01:15,720
any evidence for And similarly, if
there's mountains of evidence or something and you're

1264
02:01:15,760 --> 02:01:19,600
just like, well, you know, then you're not proportioning your confidence to

1265
02:01:19,720 --> 02:01:24,840
the belief. It's just so like, I mean, how does anybody follow

1266
02:01:24,880 --> 02:01:29,279
this dude, Like, this is
like embarrassing level opening statement. I hope

1267
02:01:29,319 --> 02:01:33,279
Trent really just demolishing the evidence.
Sorry, the second quote from you,

1268
02:01:33,560 --> 02:01:39,640
which I'll go ahead and read because
it's lengthy. When anyone tells me that

1269
02:01:39,720 --> 02:01:43,880
he saw a dead man restored to
life, I immediately consider with myself whether

1270
02:01:43,920 --> 02:01:47,399
it be more probable that this person
should either deceive. So again, if

1271
02:01:47,479 --> 02:02:00,319
Christianity is true, then it's not
probable. It's the only rational position to

1272
02:02:00,359 --> 02:02:06,560
say that Jesus rose from the dead, right, because the beliefs in the

1273
02:02:06,680 --> 02:02:12,479
set of beliefs in our system all
relate to and determine one another. There's

1274
02:02:12,560 --> 02:02:16,520
no belief within the Christian system that
is somehow more self evident or more obvious

1275
02:02:17,359 --> 02:02:21,199
per se than the other beliefs.
Considered as a set of beliefs, they

1276
02:02:21,239 --> 02:02:25,600
all go together. This is why
you can't like take one belief out and

1277
02:02:25,640 --> 02:02:27,880
be like, oh, well,
I believe in Christianity, but not God's

1278
02:02:27,880 --> 02:02:33,600
omnistions. Well that's not christianitymore right, that's some other thing, some heresy.

1279
02:02:34,159 --> 02:02:41,119
Because Christianity is the set of orthodox
beliefs. I mean, it's not

1280
02:02:41,199 --> 02:02:44,000
reduced to that. But I'm saying
in terms of the system. That's what

1281
02:02:44,119 --> 02:02:48,159
it is expressed as. So are
we starting to see the point here that,

1282
02:02:48,439 --> 02:02:57,239
like, it's not a debate about
this fact versus that fact. The

1283
02:02:57,359 --> 02:03:04,520
debate is too paradigm. Two worldviews
that are in commensurate. So wait a

1284
02:03:04,520 --> 02:03:08,119
minute, if they're in commensurate,
how would we determine between the two?

1285
02:03:08,439 --> 02:03:15,760
Ah, exactly which of these paradigms
gives an account for not just evidences,

1286
02:03:15,279 --> 02:03:19,479
but the theory of evidence at all, the possibility of evidence at all,

1287
02:03:20,359 --> 02:03:27,279
possibility of logic at all, the
possibility of ethics at all, the possibility

1288
02:03:27,319 --> 02:03:33,560
of meaning at all. Which are
prior questions to metaphysics, or be deceived

1289
02:03:34,000 --> 02:03:38,680
or that the fact which hin he
relates should have actually happened. I weigh

1290
02:03:38,720 --> 02:03:42,079
the one miracle against the other,
and according to the superiority which I discover,

1291
02:03:42,239 --> 02:03:46,000
I pronounce my decision and always reject
the greater miracle. Now, what

1292
02:03:46,239 --> 02:03:53,199
human is essentially saying there is is
it more probable that someone has either been

1293
02:03:53,279 --> 02:03:57,680
deceived or is intending to deceive me? Then it sounds like after our debate,

1294
02:03:58,920 --> 02:04:01,119
Matt went and tried to learn David
Hume, right, I mean,

1295
02:04:01,479 --> 02:04:04,399
you can tell that after our debate. Matt was shook up because he had

1296
02:04:04,479 --> 02:04:09,000
to call in Ozzy and doctor Malpass
to help him out and to help him

1297
02:04:09,000 --> 02:04:14,479
feel better and to help him understand
my argument. Literally, like he didn't

1298
02:04:14,560 --> 02:04:17,800
understand it, and so he called
them in as backup to save you know,

1299
02:04:18,000 --> 02:04:23,239
him, because they had actually no
philosophy, and so it sounds like

1300
02:04:23,439 --> 02:04:26,920
since then Matt was like, maybe
I should go read this David Hume guy,

1301
02:04:27,000 --> 02:04:29,680
because he's supposed to be like,
you know, the guru daddy of

1302
02:04:29,720 --> 02:04:34,359
my skepticism. But Matt still doesn't
understand David Hume, which is the hilarious

1303
02:04:34,399 --> 02:04:38,840
part, right. I mean,
this guy is just like a self owning

1304
02:04:39,119 --> 02:04:44,239
meme generator. The claim is true, and when he says reject the greater

1305
02:04:44,399 --> 02:04:51,000
miracle that is Remember Matt's greatest argument, my life has value because monkey thought

1306
02:04:51,039 --> 02:04:57,399
it have value. There's a monkey
ancestor who decided life has value. That

1307
02:04:57,560 --> 02:05:02,239
was Matt's reply, did you or
Peter, this is the most well known

1308
02:05:02,319 --> 02:05:08,880
Internet atheist person. His argument,
I'm not kidding. Go listen to the

1309
02:05:08,960 --> 02:05:14,039
Jordan Peterson del Hunty debate. Jordan
Pierre, why does life have value?

1310
02:05:14,399 --> 02:05:16,399
Why do you think it has value? Why does your life have value.

1311
02:05:17,680 --> 02:05:23,680
My life has value because monkey ancestors
thought it had value. He's not joking,

1312
02:05:23,800 --> 02:05:28,399
that's what he says. Dude.
If if you, as an atheist,

1313
02:05:28,479 --> 02:05:33,760
believe that you are a monkey,
that is incredibly important and significant to

1314
02:05:33,880 --> 02:05:43,840
understand. That's actually the best argument
for the lesser miracle atheism. Like somebody

1315
02:05:43,880 --> 02:05:46,039
asked me of the day, what's
the best argument for atheism. The atheist

1316
02:05:46,199 --> 02:05:51,920
arguments are so bad that they almost
convinced me were monkeys or their monkeys at

1317
02:05:53,000 --> 02:05:58,600
least, and so therefore evolution atheism
might be true. Because those dudes are

1318
02:05:58,640 --> 02:06:01,520
so bad, that's the best.
The best argument for atheism is the stupidity

1319
02:06:01,560 --> 02:06:08,239
of the atheists, which make me
think that humanity is completely stupid. That

1320
02:06:08,439 --> 02:06:11,840
is not it at all. It
is reject to the greater miracle. It

1321
02:06:11,920 --> 02:06:15,880
doesn't just say, oh, here's
two potential candidate explanations that we have at

1322
02:06:15,920 --> 02:06:19,079
this particular moment in time. Throw
the one out that's more ridiculous and accept

1323
02:06:19,119 --> 02:06:21,880
the other one. No, it's
just you should throw out the one that's

1324
02:06:21,920 --> 02:06:26,880
more ridiculous. And so if we're
hearing a claim that someone rose from the

1325
02:06:26,960 --> 02:06:31,159
dead when we have no evidence that
this sort of thing is possible or probable,

1326
02:06:31,960 --> 02:06:34,760
then the greater miracle is that someone
rose. Well no, wait a

1327
02:06:34,800 --> 02:06:41,319
minute, no evidence that it is
possible or probable. Again, Actually,

1328
02:06:41,399 --> 02:06:45,720
Trent did give some considerations as to
how it might be possible or probable.

1329
02:06:46,479 --> 02:06:51,640
So now I'm not going to go
down this evidentialist, goofy line of argumentation.

1330
02:06:51,960 --> 02:06:57,960
But I mean, Matt, you
should at least maybe there's rebuttals coming

1331
02:06:57,960 --> 02:07:00,359
where Matt will respond. I don't
know, but I mean that's not really

1332
02:07:00,479 --> 02:07:06,520
what I mean. Trent did at
least give some examples or cases which I

1333
02:07:06,640 --> 02:07:12,119
think would at least somewhat respond to
what Matt's asking for here, the dead

1334
02:07:12,439 --> 02:07:15,920
versus that someone was deceived or that
someone was intense. I mean, Matt

1335
02:07:15,000 --> 02:07:20,159
does this thing where it's like you
give your statement, you say a bunch

1336
02:07:20,199 --> 02:07:26,680
of stuff, Matt asked a bunch
of questions and acts like you never said

1337
02:07:26,680 --> 02:07:30,479
anything and just kind of ignores all
the stuff that you said. That's like

1338
02:07:30,560 --> 02:07:34,279
a classic math thing, needing to
deceive that someone was mistaken. Nobody has

1339
02:07:34,359 --> 02:07:38,600
to lie for any of this.
They can just be wrong, or we

1340
02:07:38,760 --> 02:07:42,680
can just have stories that don't accurately
represent the facts. At the time.

1341
02:07:43,880 --> 02:07:45,439
So if a claim isn't false,
falsifiable, and there's no way to show

1342
02:07:45,439 --> 02:07:48,760
it's wrong, we can't reasonably accept
it as correct. And if we're left

1343
02:07:48,840 --> 02:07:54,079
with no physical evidence about the existence
of Jesus, or the interactions of Jesus,

1344
02:07:54,239 --> 02:07:57,199
or his death and resurrection, what
we're left with. By the way,

1345
02:07:57,199 --> 02:08:00,960
I highly recommend, as I posted
this week, if you read the

1346
02:08:01,159 --> 02:08:05,520
russ Manion paper Contingency of Knowledge,
which I posted as a kind of a

1347
02:08:05,600 --> 02:08:11,760
classic presentation of tag, then you
know that Russ doctor Manyua had a good

1348
02:08:11,920 --> 02:08:16,479
section responding to the nonsense that Matt's
talking about right here, and he points

1349
02:08:16,520 --> 02:08:26,640
out the inadequacy of verification and falsification
testimony. Now, I'm not willing to

1350
02:08:28,159 --> 02:08:31,319
dig in on whether or not the
Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. I don't

1351
02:08:31,319 --> 02:08:33,880
think they were. I don't think
that most reasonable scholars aren't going to say

1352
02:08:33,880 --> 02:08:37,199
these are our witnesses. But it
doesn't matter to me because even if they

1353
02:08:37,239 --> 02:08:41,479
were all eyewitnesses, we already know
that eywitness testimony is unreliable under the best

1354
02:08:41,520 --> 02:08:45,279
circumstances. In this case, we
don't know who's testimony I witnessed second or

1355
02:08:45,319 --> 02:08:48,560
third hand we can't investigate it at
all. The things that they say happened

1356
02:08:48,720 --> 02:08:52,399
don't have corroborating evidence. They don't
have supporting physical evidence we don't have,

1357
02:08:52,119 --> 02:08:58,720
so again, not true. There
are multiple extra biblical attestations to all kinds

1358
02:08:58,760 --> 02:09:03,760
of events in the New Testament.
For example, Josephus's writings about the destruction

1359
02:09:03,840 --> 02:09:07,680
of Jerusalem. I mean, those
aren't corroborations of everything in the Bible,

1360
02:09:07,760 --> 02:09:13,359
but they are extra canonical corroborations of
things in the Bible. So this is

1361
02:09:13,520 --> 02:09:18,880
just patently false on a basic level
in terms of just historical claims. Any

1362
02:09:18,920 --> 02:09:24,119
way to question them about their reliability. We don't have any way to talk

1363
02:09:24,199 --> 02:09:26,880
to them to determine, you know, are these stories accurate? You know,

1364
02:09:28,000 --> 02:09:31,159
do they overlap. What we do
know is that the Eastern narrative from

1365
02:09:31,239 --> 02:09:37,000
the different conspoels does not line up
and cannot be reconciled with the different accounts

1366
02:09:37,000 --> 02:09:39,039
of it. But in the absence
of any physical evidence, we're left with

1367
02:09:39,680 --> 02:09:43,039
assessing the nature of the claim and
the nature of the reports. If it's

1368
02:09:43,039 --> 02:09:48,039
an extraordinary claim, and it needs
to be an extraordinary claim, as it

1369
02:09:48,039 --> 02:09:54,119
would be really remarkable to I mean, if Christianity is true, the resurrection

1370
02:09:54,359 --> 02:10:00,479
isn't an extraordinary claim. I mean, what you consider extraordinary or mundane is

1371
02:10:00,720 --> 02:10:03,520
actually going to be determined by your
worldview and criteria as a whole. So

1372
02:10:05,239 --> 02:10:09,399
this is just begging the question,
Matt, because what's in dispute is actually

1373
02:10:09,520 --> 02:10:13,439
the truth or falsity of Christianity,
which both of these parties don't seem to

1374
02:10:13,520 --> 02:10:18,359
realize that. They think it's a
debate over a fact of the resurrection.

1375
02:10:18,119 --> 02:10:22,079
No, what's in dispute is world
views as a whole. So no,

1376
02:10:22,279 --> 02:10:30,880
Matt is begging the question to say
that it's an extraordinary claim when that's the

1377
02:10:30,960 --> 02:10:35,359
thing that's in question. Right,
If Christianity is true, it's not extraordinary.

1378
02:10:35,399 --> 02:10:39,399
It's a fundamental fact of reality.
The resurrection is the most fundamental fact

1379
02:10:39,439 --> 02:10:43,239
of all of reality. I mean
some Maximus even says that right, all

1380
02:10:43,279 --> 02:10:52,680
of reality is basically unified and transfigured
in the cross, right and its cosmological

1381
02:10:52,760 --> 02:11:00,439
recapitulatory significance. So I mean,
again, they don't understand that this debate

1382
02:11:00,840 --> 02:11:05,000
is actually prior to the question of
evidences. Jesus eight Figs. For our

1383
02:11:05,079 --> 02:11:09,000
salvation. The claim needs to be
extraordinary because of the narrative, So you

1384
02:11:09,079 --> 02:11:13,840
know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Oh wait a minute, is that

1385
02:11:13,960 --> 02:11:18,319
actually true? Everybody's heard that.
I've said it, other people said it.

1386
02:11:18,720 --> 02:11:20,960
I accept that aphorism for what it
means, but not as it's written,

1387
02:11:22,039 --> 02:11:28,840
because all claims require sufficient evidence?
And what all claims require sufficient evidence?

1388
02:11:28,159 --> 02:11:31,520
Matt? Is it true that that
claim requires sufficient evidence? And what

1389
02:11:31,720 --> 02:11:35,520
is the sufficient evidence? From you, as a basic bitch empiricist that all

1390
02:11:35,600 --> 02:11:39,000
claims require sufficient evidence? Oh,
that's right, that's David Hume one on

1391
02:11:39,079 --> 02:11:43,039
one, and you can't do that. It's a sufficient evidence to believe a

1392
02:11:43,119 --> 02:11:46,960
claim is going to differ based on
how consistent that claim is with reality.

1393
02:11:48,520 --> 02:11:54,159
Monday's begging the question as if you
have some a priori, easy, self

1394
02:11:54,239 --> 02:12:00,560
evident, clear access to reality.
Does this guber not understand that to say

1395
02:12:01,039 --> 02:12:05,880
that claims have to match up to
reality is a gigantic metaphysical claim. And

1396
02:12:05,000 --> 02:12:13,359
this goober doesn't even believe in metaphysics
in claims benefit from having a common pool

1397
02:12:13,439 --> 02:12:20,319
of knowledge and evidence within reality.
This is so mindless, dude, I

1398
02:12:20,359 --> 02:12:26,680
mean, I don't think he could
actually make it. This dude could not

1399
02:12:26,960 --> 02:12:35,239
pass a metaphysics class. So he
doesn't even know what he's talking about.

1400
02:12:35,279 --> 02:12:41,239
Like, he's trying to argue about
claims as if they don't have metaphysical content,

1401
02:12:41,319 --> 02:12:45,640
saying that facts have to match up
to reality. Dude, do you

1402
02:12:45,720 --> 02:12:50,600
understand that when you say reality,
you have entered into the domain of metaphysics.

1403
02:12:50,439 --> 02:12:54,920
Matt doesn't even know what metaphysics is, right, he doesn't even realize

1404
02:12:54,960 --> 02:13:00,439
he's in the domain of metaphysics.
And to do this, you have a

1405
02:13:00,479 --> 02:13:05,560
whole lot of work to do,
because you're an empiricist, Bro, a

1406
02:13:05,720 --> 02:13:13,560
skeptic, an empiricist skeptic, and
now you're making grand claims about facts matching

1407
02:13:13,680 --> 02:13:18,680
reality. Again, totally ignorant of
the last four or five hundred years of

1408
02:13:18,720 --> 02:13:24,960
philosophy, which would laugh at him. Precisely at that very point, you

1409
02:13:26,039 --> 02:13:31,039
don't have You don't get a privileged
access to reality, Bro, until you

1410
02:13:31,279 --> 02:13:35,720
answer the claim the challenges of Humankan, Well, that figs exist. We

1411
02:13:35,760 --> 02:13:37,960
know that dogs exist, we know
that people name their dog. No,

1412
02:13:39,039 --> 02:13:41,680
that's precisely what you don't know.
You don't know that figs exist, dogs

1413
02:13:41,760 --> 02:13:46,880
exist, that these claims have any
meaning or import or connect to anything in

1414
02:13:46,920 --> 02:13:50,800
the external world. Matt. That's
what David Hume points out, which you

1415
02:13:50,960 --> 02:13:56,840
tried to quote. David Hume,
you don't even get the dude you're quoting.

1416
02:13:56,479 --> 02:14:03,119
He's quote. He's critiquing you,
Matt. Don't you understand David Hume

1417
02:14:03,960 --> 02:14:09,479
is the consistent skeptic who's critiquing you. Guber, these funny things, and

1418
02:14:09,560 --> 02:14:13,680
it's not extraordinary to think that somebody
might name their dog Piggy. We know

1419
02:14:13,760 --> 02:14:16,039
that figs exist and they're eaten,
so it's not extraordinary to claim that Jesus

1420
02:14:16,119 --> 02:14:20,439
had a fig unless Jesus didn't exist
or figs weren't around at that time.

1421
02:14:20,800 --> 02:14:26,199
Although we have a strange claim of
Jesus cursing a fig tree for not producing

1422
02:14:26,279 --> 02:14:31,520
figs when it wasn't in season,
which I would argue isn't something that a

1423
02:14:31,680 --> 02:14:37,600
divine entity knowledgeable about figs and fruit
seasons would do. And it seems bizarre

1424
02:14:39,279 --> 02:14:43,920
this Guber doesn't understand the fig tree
represents Israel. I mean, wow,

1425
02:14:45,079 --> 02:14:50,000
this guy is like he did he
really just argue that God wouldn't curse a

1426
02:14:50,039 --> 02:14:56,279
fig tree because he should know as
a divine being that figs don't bloom.

1427
02:14:56,640 --> 02:15:01,079
So he thinks that Jesus cursed the
fig tree because there weren't. He doesn't

1428
02:15:01,079 --> 02:15:05,039
even understand the fig tree represents his
rule and the curses. Oh wow,

1429
02:15:05,439 --> 02:15:07,039
man, this guy is something else, a curse a fig tree. But

1430
02:15:09,279 --> 02:15:13,560
I can't say whether or not that
actually happened. Maybe it didn't happen,

1431
02:15:13,680 --> 02:15:16,199
and it's just there to teach another
lesson. I have a hard time going

1432
02:15:16,239 --> 02:15:20,159
through some of these things and saying, yes, that's being reported as this

1433
02:15:20,319 --> 02:15:24,520
actually happened. That is a big
problem. I have a hard time.

1434
02:15:24,760 --> 02:15:28,239
I don't see. I have a
hard time, Matt. That is a

1435
02:15:28,479 --> 02:15:35,279
descriptor of a psychological state. You're
reporting to us psychological states of affairs.

1436
02:15:35,239 --> 02:15:37,920
That's cool, brot. Nothing to
do with a debate or an argument.

1437
02:15:39,359 --> 02:15:43,520
So what evidence do we have?
Copies of copies of translations, of copies

1438
02:15:43,560 --> 02:15:48,279
from unknown sources that may have been
but probably weren't eyewitnesses, And even if

1439
02:15:48,279 --> 02:15:50,920
they had been eyewitnesses, it wouldn't
be sufficient to confirm that someone actually rose

1440
02:15:50,960 --> 02:15:56,239
from the dead. What sort of
evidence would we expect for a claim or

1441
02:15:56,279 --> 02:16:01,479
someone rose from the dead depends on
the timeframe, sure, back in first

1442
02:16:01,520 --> 02:16:05,439
century Judea, probably not a lot. You don't have a way to test

1443
02:16:05,560 --> 02:16:07,800
for sure. That somebody is dead. You don't have like X rays,

1444
02:16:07,840 --> 02:16:11,439
you don't have DNA. Well,
but the question is, if this story

1445
02:16:11,520 --> 02:16:16,079
is true, then Jesus was divine
and God exists, and what sort of

1446
02:16:16,159 --> 02:16:20,640
evidence could a God provide? Well, God could provide the best evidence possible

1447
02:16:20,720 --> 02:16:24,039
such that there would be no reasonable
debate to be had at all. Well,

1448
02:16:24,119 --> 02:16:28,319
this is just assuming that there's no
fall and that all men are rational

1449
02:16:28,439 --> 02:16:33,719
and they just believe whatever the best
evidences are presented. No, that's not

1450
02:16:33,840 --> 02:16:37,440
true, right, I mean,
if the Christian story is true, then

1451
02:16:37,559 --> 02:16:41,399
part of that doctrine is the fall. And a corollary of the doctrine of

1452
02:16:41,440 --> 02:16:46,559
the fall is that men don't believe
what is true just willy nilly because they

1453
02:16:46,559 --> 02:16:52,760
should. They in fact rebel against
the truth, right, They suppress the

1454
02:16:52,840 --> 02:16:56,600
truth in unrighteousness, and they don't
come to the light lest there needs be

1455
02:16:56,639 --> 02:17:00,840
exposed Romans one, John three.
So no, it does doesn't follow from

1456
02:17:00,879 --> 02:17:05,799
the fact that just because God exists, he should and ought to and would

1457
02:17:05,879 --> 02:17:11,399
therefore make everybody just clearly believe on
the basis of clear public evidence. There

1458
02:17:11,479 --> 02:17:15,879
is clear public evidence. That was
Jesus's point in the parable. But even

1459
02:17:16,000 --> 02:17:20,840
though one rides from the dead,
they still won't believe. Trent. Hello,

1460
02:17:20,040 --> 02:17:24,639
you hear this. Even though one
rides from the dead, they still

1461
02:17:24,639 --> 02:17:28,840
won't believe. Even though you convince
Matt of the resurrection of the dead,

1462
02:17:30,920 --> 02:17:37,600
he still won't believe. Theas often
claimed that it's more believable because it's a

1463
02:17:37,680 --> 02:17:41,879
miracle. It's more believable because the
first people to the tomb were women,

1464
02:17:41,920 --> 02:17:48,680
and women weren't trusted Matt, that's
not what Trent's argument was. Theis often

1465
02:17:48,840 --> 02:17:52,120
argued that wasn't Trent's argument. Why
that straw man, Dude, are you

1466
02:17:52,280 --> 02:17:56,879
replying to Trent or are you replying
to a bunch of other people who aren't

1467
02:17:56,920 --> 02:18:00,520
there. Nobody would put these details
in, so therefore they must be true.

1468
02:18:00,520 --> 02:18:03,719
But that's like saying, you know, that's exactly what the butler that's

1469
02:18:03,040 --> 02:18:07,280
Trent didn't make this argument. So
Matt does this all the time too,

1470
02:18:07,360 --> 02:18:11,360
where he responds to straw men that
his opponent isn't making. Say if he

1471
02:18:11,440 --> 02:18:16,440
did do it, if it's on
par or worse than the evidence offered by

1472
02:18:16,520 --> 02:18:18,680
someone trying to sell me a bridge, someone trying to get me started in

1473
02:18:18,760 --> 02:18:22,680
there as their underling in a multi
level marketing campaign or the money that my

1474
02:18:22,879 --> 02:18:26,879
Nigerian prince has set aside for me. Then the evidence isn't strong and no

1475
02:18:26,959 --> 02:18:31,000
amount of pretending will change that.
It is. So another problem here,

1476
02:18:31,120 --> 02:18:35,760
Crackers in the pantry fallacy, right, this is the assumption that all things

1477
02:18:35,799 --> 02:18:37,799
are proven and known in the same
way. I immediately called this out with

1478
02:18:37,840 --> 02:18:41,440
Matt. He didn't understand what I
was saying. He still doesn't understand this.

1479
02:18:41,920 --> 02:18:45,399
I even asked Matt if he agreed
that everything is proven in the same

1480
02:18:45,440 --> 02:18:48,040
way, and he said, no, some things are proven in different ways.

1481
02:18:48,399 --> 02:18:50,799
And yet here is Matt going back
to the same stupid argument as if

1482
02:18:50,840 --> 02:18:54,360
everything is proven in the same way, just put some empirical evidence in front

1483
02:18:54,399 --> 02:18:58,040
of me and then it will be
probable or improbable. But Matt, I

1484
02:18:58,479 --> 02:19:01,680
pointed out that there's all kinds of
things that we believe in that are not

1485
02:19:01,840 --> 02:19:07,799
demonstrable empirically, that you believe in, such as presuppositions, And Matt said,

1486
02:19:07,799 --> 02:19:11,639
there's no argument for presubgens. They
just are okay. But Matt,

1487
02:19:11,680 --> 02:19:15,600
you said, don't believe in anything
less there's empirical evidence for it. Matt's

1488
02:19:15,639 --> 02:19:20,719
philosophy is garbage. And nonsense.
It is total, incoherent, make it

1489
02:19:20,840 --> 02:19:26,440
up on the spot, bullshit,
unreasonable to believe it because there isn't sufficient

1490
02:19:26,559 --> 02:19:31,520
evidence, no physical evidence, nothing
about this claim with pass muster today there's

1491
02:19:31,600 --> 02:19:33,239
no body, no tomb, no
blood, no sword, no cross,

1492
02:19:33,399 --> 02:19:37,879
no DNA, no burial reps.
Matt, I don't I'm not going to

1493
02:19:37,920 --> 02:19:41,879
grant you any of that because you
don't have a theory of evidences at all.

1494
02:19:41,920 --> 02:19:48,200
You don't have a coherent theory or
justification for proof at all, for

1495
02:19:48,399 --> 02:19:52,399
knowledge at all, for evidence at
all, for meaning at all, for

1496
02:19:52,760 --> 02:19:58,440
sentences at all. It's despite the
fake strouducture and no witnesses to question currently,

1497
02:19:58,719 --> 02:20:05,840
no prime scene investigators, no findings
of fact at all. I understand

1498
02:20:05,319 --> 02:20:09,760
and appreciate, as I'm imagine,
being so philosophically naive that you think that

1499
02:20:09,920 --> 02:20:16,200
there's just this thing called facts.
It's like there's just like uninterpreted brute data

1500
02:20:16,479 --> 02:20:20,920
and you just go look at it
and then it's the Ah, it's the

1501
02:20:20,040 --> 02:20:24,879
fact, right, Like I look
over here at the chalk dot Com and

1502
02:20:24,079 --> 02:20:28,000
like, look at the fact,
right, The fact, the fact,

1503
02:20:28,239 --> 02:20:31,040
the fact, that fact, that
fact, the fact, that fact,

1504
02:20:31,280 --> 02:20:33,319
the fact, the fact that fact, that fact, right, like the

1505
02:20:33,479 --> 02:20:35,799
like the the ask yourself level stuff
here, right, this is the level

1506
02:20:35,840 --> 02:20:39,239
of they're all on the same level, these people, like that's how they

1507
02:20:39,280 --> 02:20:41,399
all think. Uh, And I
want to remind you that if you don't

1508
02:20:41,479 --> 02:20:46,639
want to think at that low level, right, what do we what we

1509
02:20:46,799 --> 02:20:50,360
what do we be doing around these
parts? We be doing the daily we

1510
02:20:50,520 --> 02:20:56,799
be doing the seven Wonders now,
so it's a wonder of the seven wonders.

1511
02:20:56,920 --> 02:21:01,000
That's how I'm able to do this? How was I able to talk

1512
02:21:01,200 --> 02:21:07,719
for multiple hours yesterday or the day
before, multiple hours again today on discord

1513
02:21:07,840 --> 02:21:13,719
and then also come here and do
this energetic response multiple hours. Chalk dot

1514
02:21:13,799 --> 02:21:20,200
com baby, and they are of
course the official sponsor of Jason Aalysis.

1515
02:21:20,280 --> 02:21:24,520
They are one of our key sponsors. If you go over there right now,

1516
02:21:24,639 --> 02:21:33,120
you can become a magical energetic argument
boy like me. If you want

1517
02:21:33,239 --> 02:21:35,879
that argument fire like I've got,
how do I argument with such fire?

1518
02:21:37,639 --> 02:21:39,440
Chalk dot com helps me out.
That's how they do it. She legit,

1519
02:21:39,639 --> 02:21:45,079
it's legit, go right there.
Promo code j forty forty percent off

1520
02:21:45,200 --> 02:21:48,639
anything. We don't know how long
they're going to have all these supplies due

1521
02:21:48,680 --> 02:21:54,079
to the supply chain shocks of Klaus
and the World Economic Forum and all their

1522
02:21:54,120 --> 02:22:00,239
goober goon minion operations. This is
an antisoy operation we got going here,

1523
02:22:00,319 --> 02:22:05,719
right, We're talking about guys committed
to fighting Gilbates, Klaus and the Soy

1524
02:22:05,879 --> 02:22:09,280
Army. How do we do that
with chalk dot com? Now I've still

1525
02:22:09,319 --> 02:22:13,159
taken Tongcat. I had to take
a break. So you can't take like

1526
02:22:13,280 --> 02:22:15,719
a bunch of chalk at once,
so you have to kind of cycle it.

1527
02:22:16,879 --> 02:22:20,040
So I took a break from the
tongue Cat to do Seven Wonders and

1528
02:22:20,120 --> 02:22:24,600
the Daily and then as I said, I'm going to do this the Irish

1529
02:22:24,680 --> 02:22:28,760
moss later. But Irish moss is
good for the for the ladies, ladies,

1530
02:22:30,239 --> 02:22:33,799
and just even the the idea the
sound of Irish moths. I mean,

1531
02:22:33,879 --> 02:22:39,520
does that just sound kind of more
like a girl leprechauns moss. I

1532
02:22:39,639 --> 02:22:46,120
think of women Irish Heirish mos ladies. The lassies love the Irish moars.

1533
02:22:46,680 --> 02:22:50,520
Anyway, I don't know where I
got that, but that's what we do.

1534
02:22:50,639 --> 02:22:54,159
Run here. It's all improv it's
all on the spot. The tongcat

1535
02:22:54,879 --> 02:22:58,440
boost t naturally proven in studies go
check it out. They have hundreds,

1536
02:22:58,600 --> 02:23:03,799
five hundred, six hundred and five
star reviews. Go read on chalk dot

1537
02:23:03,879 --> 02:23:07,680
com. They got boodifrom Instagram because
they're based there. You go, what

1538
02:23:07,799 --> 02:23:13,719
else do you need to know?
They're a red pill based company and they're

1539
02:23:13,799 --> 02:23:16,600
my boys. So again, you
want to support this show, you want

1540
02:23:16,600 --> 02:23:20,879
to support me, you got to
do it by supporting our sponsors. And

1541
02:23:22,000 --> 02:23:26,079
chalk dot com is an official Jays
Analysis sponsor, so you know they're good

1542
02:23:26,159 --> 02:23:31,879
dudes. Former believer that there are
testimonies here that people find compelling, and

1543
02:23:31,040 --> 02:23:37,040
I could probably speculate as to what
it is that convinces people, and the

1544
02:23:37,159 --> 02:23:41,799
fact that Matt is a former believer
and the fact that Matt doesn't find things

1545
02:23:43,239 --> 02:23:48,799
convincing is totally irrelevant to a debate. Do you remember this? The great

1546
02:23:48,840 --> 02:23:52,639
example of this is the Boston Tabash
debate. Right, this, It's a

1547
02:23:52,719 --> 02:23:58,079
classic because Tabosh keeps doing this as
if it's an argument. Right, He

1548
02:23:58,200 --> 02:24:01,040
keeps saying, I find it hard
to believe that a God would do this.

1549
02:24:01,680 --> 02:24:05,719
I find it hard to believe that
God made it the case that this

1550
02:24:05,959 --> 02:24:11,040
is how it is. And what
does Bonson constantly say, that's just a

1551
02:24:11,120 --> 02:24:16,559
reporting of a psychological state. It's
not an argument, doctor Deboche. That's

1552
02:24:16,680 --> 02:24:20,840
not an argument, Doctor Deboche,
that isn't an argument. Matt doesn't understand

1553
02:24:20,959 --> 02:24:28,159
that reporting psychologically descriptive states about what
he finds convincing and doesn't find convincing isn't

1554
02:24:28,159 --> 02:24:33,280
an argument, and that shows that
Matt doesn't really know what arguments are.

1555
02:24:33,639 --> 02:24:37,760
Is that keeps people in belief,
but it is not the physical evidence.

1556
02:24:37,200 --> 02:24:43,920
It is not what is reasonable.
The psychological motivations for why people believe or

1557
02:24:43,920 --> 02:24:48,239
don't do not believe this or that
is also isn't an argument. It is

1558
02:24:48,719 --> 02:24:56,079
probably the extraordinary narrative, the emotive, the emotion that people feel and connect

1559
02:24:56,120 --> 02:25:01,680
with it. I mean, I
could have a psychological motivation to believe something

1560
02:25:01,760 --> 02:25:05,559
that happens to be true, and
I can have a psychological motivation to believe

1561
02:25:05,600 --> 02:25:09,879
something that actually happens to be false. So psychological motivations don't have anything to

1562
02:25:09,959 --> 02:25:13,239
do with what's true or false.
Fear of finding out you were wrong,

1563
02:25:13,440 --> 02:25:18,120
fear of dying and not going on
to an eternal paradise, fear of being

1564
02:25:18,280 --> 02:25:24,079
the odd one out when everybody around
you believes. I have experienced those same

1565
02:25:24,399 --> 02:25:28,360
concerns for the Christians out there.
Again, Matt doesn't matter, Like,

1566
02:25:28,440 --> 02:25:31,159
none of this is an argument.
So does Matt understand what a debate is?

1567
02:25:31,600 --> 02:25:35,959
Like It's like he's doing the reverse
version of an evangelical testimony, right,

1568
02:25:37,040 --> 02:25:41,040
Like the evangelical I just want to
talk about how my life was in

1569
02:25:41,200 --> 02:25:45,280
shambles, and like I prayed and
Jesus came to me, and like,

1570
02:25:45,440 --> 02:25:48,840
if you're out there, if you're
hurting. This is the reverse version of

1571
02:25:48,879 --> 02:25:54,760
that where Matt thinks that giving his
atheist testimony and deconversion story counts as an

1572
02:25:54,840 --> 02:25:58,120
argument. No, it doesn't.
Who believed this? And you believe all

1573
02:25:58,239 --> 02:26:03,239
kinds of super natural things, and
many of you believe in demons and angels

1574
02:26:03,319 --> 02:26:07,120
and all of the things that go
along with this, because you've accepted the

1575
02:26:07,159 --> 02:26:13,360
supernatural. The only reason this feels
reasonable to people is because they've already accepted

1576
02:26:13,520 --> 02:26:18,559
other things that aren't reasonable to accept. We have no way currently to investigate

1577
02:26:20,079 --> 02:26:26,399
or confirm the supernatural at all.
We can't confirm, so this again relies

1578
02:26:26,520 --> 02:26:33,319
on a specific presupposition and rabid doctrine
of what counts as investigation, proof and

1579
02:26:33,360 --> 02:26:39,280
evidences. And until Matt shows us
that we should believe that everything should be

1580
02:26:39,399 --> 02:26:43,200
believed on the basis of empirical sense
data, then we're not going to listen

1581
02:26:43,239 --> 02:26:48,600
to Matt. But Matt can't prove
that everything has to be demonstrable by sense

1582
02:26:48,680 --> 02:26:52,959
data, because that's impossible, and
it's a contradiction that anything supernatural exists.

1583
02:26:52,040 --> 02:26:56,840
We can't confirm that anything supernatural interacts
with reality. And to say that,

1584
02:26:56,479 --> 02:27:03,399
well, we've seen the of these
people who we don't know, we can't

1585
02:27:03,479 --> 02:27:09,280
investigate from a long time ago,
and it's just so darn extraordinary and we

1586
02:27:09,399 --> 02:27:13,079
can't think of a better explanation,
then it likely happened. Therefore it's reasonable

1587
02:27:13,120 --> 02:27:18,719
to believe it. I cannot get
on board with that, and it frustrates

1588
02:27:18,799 --> 02:27:22,360
me. That's the only little area
where I will give Matt a point,

1589
02:27:22,520 --> 02:27:30,440
because I do agree that really the
weakness in Trent's you know, evidential spiel

1590
02:27:30,559 --> 02:27:37,479
throughout the middle of his opening statement, it doesn't lead me to think that

1591
02:27:37,719 --> 02:27:43,200
I there's any necessary reason to connect
this to Christianity, or that if even

1592
02:27:43,200 --> 02:27:48,200
if Jesus rose in the dead,
that that's supposed to on your already existing

1593
02:27:48,319 --> 02:27:52,799
evidential as bases, why is that
supposed to get me to accept Christianity.

1594
02:27:52,719 --> 02:27:58,840
It's a non sequitur. It's only
a sequitur. It only follows if Christianity

1595
02:27:58,920 --> 02:28:01,920
is true. But that's the thing
that's in question. So I'll give Matt

1596
02:28:03,079 --> 02:28:07,239
one point, just at this point, that other people can't see this,

1597
02:28:07,479 --> 02:28:09,000
because if I were to come to
you with the story like this today,

1598
02:28:09,079 --> 02:28:13,399
if it didn't have the history and
the baggage not of actually being true,

1599
02:28:13,840 --> 02:28:20,280
but of being convincing enough to foster
a bunch of followers, nobody would reasonably

1600
02:28:20,479 --> 02:28:24,040
all right, let me take that
back, almost nobody would argue that they

1601
02:28:24,120 --> 02:28:28,319
could reasonably accept it today. And
when ney of the people who are accepting

1602
02:28:28,360 --> 02:28:33,360
these sorts of claims are also at
odds with science, and it frustrates me

1603
02:28:33,440 --> 02:28:39,760
that someone could, I don't know, fear getting a vaccine. Oh here

1604
02:28:39,840 --> 02:28:48,040
we go. So Matt's account of
science and disagreeing with science and disagreeing with

1605
02:28:48,159 --> 02:28:50,120
what he takes to be the majority
of view, which is how he began

1606
02:28:50,319 --> 02:28:56,559
remembers like what's reasonable believe Matts seemed
to connect to the majority of what is

1607
02:28:56,680 --> 02:29:01,719
considered reasonable, which that itself is
absurd and arbitrary and incoherent. There's no

1608
02:29:01,879 --> 02:29:07,440
reason there's no way that we know
prima fascia what the majority position necessarily is.

1609
02:29:07,600 --> 02:29:13,360
That begs the question why should we
accept the majority position? There have

1610
02:29:13,360 --> 02:29:18,079
been many cases where the majority of
people believe something completely ridiculous. Matt himself

1611
02:29:18,120 --> 02:29:20,959
admits this when he thinks, admits
that most people in the world have some

1612
02:29:22,200 --> 02:29:30,360
view of theism or the supernatural,
so most people consider it rational to believe

1613
02:29:30,600 --> 02:29:37,440
in the supernatural. Therefore, on
Matt's own grounds, it should be reasonable

1614
02:29:37,479 --> 02:29:39,120
to believe in this. This is
just so silly, Like Matt is just

1615
02:29:39,280 --> 02:29:46,159
totally Matt has no self awareness,
Like he's not totally incapable of self reflection

1616
02:29:46,840 --> 02:29:52,920
and understanding the pure garbage nonsense that
he spits out for fear of being microchipped

1617
02:29:54,000 --> 02:29:56,159
or it being the mark of the
beast. Well, they accept claims that

1618
02:29:56,280 --> 02:30:05,280
don't have good evidence. He threw
in his little scientism affirmation, and I

1619
02:30:05,360 --> 02:30:09,120
guess he's gonna learn the hard way. But yeah, that was interesting that

1620
02:30:09,200 --> 02:30:13,639
he threw that in at the end
there. But yeah, I mean,

1621
02:30:13,280 --> 02:30:20,680
does Matt know anything about the history
of science and scientific abuse and the countless

1622
02:30:22,200 --> 02:30:33,000
instances and examples where science was rife
with fraud, with experimentation. No,

1623
02:30:33,959 --> 02:30:37,760
but those things are historical facts,
even in Matt's own admission they would be

1624
02:30:39,079 --> 02:30:43,840
recent, recent history. Well,
he's not interested in that. He's interested

1625
02:30:43,879 --> 02:30:50,879
in a pragmatic, low iq basic
bitch idea that if you just follow the

1626
02:30:50,959 --> 02:30:54,600
majority of science, like the t
dump stuff, like the level of stuff

1627
02:30:54,639 --> 02:30:58,920
that t dump says right where it's
true because most scientists say it, Are

1628
02:30:58,000 --> 02:31:01,440
you serious? Number one? That's
a that's a fallacy, dummy, like

1629
02:31:01,799 --> 02:31:09,559
it's nothing is true because a bunch
of people think it. All right,

1630
02:31:09,719 --> 02:31:11,959
Thank you Matt, Thank you Trent. Those are two excellent opening statements.

1631
02:31:13,479 --> 02:31:15,959
I'm going I'm gonna make it an
executive decision here, if that's okay.

1632
02:31:16,079 --> 02:31:18,399
We kind of did agree upon it
before the debate began, even though there

1633
02:31:18,479 --> 02:31:26,040
was I will admit that really that's
all atheists have is rhetoric and storytelling,

1634
02:31:26,719 --> 02:31:31,680
the appeal to emotion. I mean, the master of that is uh freaking

1635
02:31:31,159 --> 02:31:35,319
what's his name? Sam Harris?
Right when we did multiple deconstructions of Sam

1636
02:31:35,399 --> 02:31:43,399
Harris's I mean literally, the whole
presentation of Sam Harris is emotional appeals.

1637
02:31:43,600 --> 02:31:48,200
Like that's it. These people don't, like, do they not know what

1638
02:31:48,479 --> 02:31:52,760
fallacies. I don't think they do. I really don't think that they understand

1639
02:31:52,959 --> 02:31:58,319
that you can't do fallacies in a
debate, and a skilled debater will just

1640
02:31:58,399 --> 02:32:03,559
call them out. Trent's a pretty
skilled debater, so I really hope that

1641
02:32:03,639 --> 02:32:07,479
he calls out a lot of this
just nonsense from Matt confusion. What I'd

1642
02:32:07,559 --> 02:32:11,440
like to do is do two eight
minute cross examinations. This should open it

1643
02:32:11,520 --> 02:32:15,280
up to just kind of twenty minute
general chat between the two of you,

1644
02:32:15,399 --> 02:32:18,159
because I, well, man,
I remember, well, this is going

1645
02:32:18,200 --> 02:32:22,840
to get confusing, frad. I
remember Dilla Hunty sounds weird to do that,

1646
02:32:22,920 --> 02:32:30,239
like I'm a sergeant or something.
I remember Dilla Hunty saying that the

1647
02:32:30,319 --> 02:32:33,799
original email only said just thirty to
forty five minutes discussion, which I don't

1648
02:32:33,799 --> 02:32:37,280
know. I guess you're you're in
charge, but I'm fine whatever the original

1649
02:32:37,360 --> 02:32:41,040
said. You're the host. The
reason I like the idea of you guys

1650
02:32:41,120 --> 02:32:43,600
beginning with eight minute cross examinations.
It'll put one of you in the driver's

1651
02:32:43,639 --> 02:32:48,840
seat to kind of drill into the
points the other was making, and you

1652
02:32:48,959 --> 02:32:50,840
can be rude during that time.
You can you can cut them off,

1653
02:32:50,920 --> 02:32:56,280
you can press them. Oh,
wait what whoa whoa, whoa, whoa

1654
02:32:56,280 --> 02:33:03,200
whoa. Matt Frad says, you're
allowed to interrupt, be rude, cut

1655
02:33:03,319 --> 02:33:07,399
them off. Whoa Wait a minute. I thought that was the reason I'm

1656
02:33:07,440 --> 02:33:16,440
a bad guy, so pines with
a quietness, Matt Frad. It's a

1657
02:33:16,559 --> 02:33:24,920
double standard. So if I do
those things, I'm bad. When Matt

1658
02:33:26,120 --> 02:33:28,479
allows it on his channel for his
people, No, nothing wrong with that.

1659
02:33:28,680 --> 02:33:33,520
Totally cool, have at it,
bro. Do you see the constant,

1660
02:33:33,879 --> 02:33:39,079
just total double standard of the Roman
Catholics, Like how long can they

1661
02:33:39,200 --> 02:33:43,040
milk this and keep this up?
Right? I mean, Lofton and his

1662
02:33:43,239 --> 02:33:50,360
goober crew are three years into whining
and crying about me being mean three years

1663
02:33:50,360 --> 02:33:56,399
ago. These are the Crusaders,
right, the suns of the Crusading Knights

1664
02:33:56,639 --> 02:34:03,200
are three years into whining and crying
about me being mean three years ago.

1665
02:34:05,120 --> 02:34:09,760
And here's Matt Frad, who,
of course said what a year ago?

1666
02:34:11,639 --> 02:34:13,600
Which I don't give a crap about
his channel. I don't, I don't

1667
02:34:13,600 --> 02:34:18,120
even I wouldn't even go on there. But he made it explicit that he

1668
02:34:18,159 --> 02:34:22,559
would never host someone like me on
his channel. So I'm a toxic person.

1669
02:34:22,879 --> 02:34:26,840
But here's Matt saying in the cross
examination, you can be rude,

1670
02:34:26,879 --> 02:34:31,200
you can cut them off. Dude. This is such just lame hypocrisy.

1671
02:34:31,319 --> 02:34:39,799
I mean, these guys are like
paper tigers. Dude. It's just it's

1672
02:34:39,879 --> 02:34:43,879
so fake and gray. Then maybe
you're trying to give me a little give

1673
02:34:43,920 --> 02:34:48,040
me a little eway here. I
come in with a reputation. Well see,

1674
02:34:48,079 --> 02:34:50,079
it'll be good. Well you'll have
eight minutes to just sort of be

1675
02:34:50,239 --> 02:34:54,719
full Matt, dilla hunt Matt,
how is it that it's cool to be

1676
02:34:54,040 --> 02:34:58,760
rude and cut people off when it's
like an atheist? But if I do

1677
02:34:58,879 --> 02:35:01,639
it, i' I'm a bad person. Literally, this guy thinks I'm a

1678
02:35:01,760 --> 02:35:05,680
toxic person because of the very things
that he just said Matt can do.

1679
02:35:07,000 --> 02:35:09,559
I mean, this guy is a
total hypocrite. Dude. It'll be great.

1680
02:35:09,920 --> 02:35:13,959
I'm fine with whatever. Tear me
up, Trent, Okay, well

1681
02:35:13,959 --> 02:35:16,360
i'd like to I think we do. We'll do that if and then we'll

1682
02:35:16,360 --> 02:35:18,399
go into twenty minutes just the two
of you can chat and we'll see how

1683
02:35:18,479 --> 02:35:22,600
civil and logical we can both be. But before we do that, I

1684
02:35:22,719 --> 02:35:26,239
want to say Jay Die would never
come on my channel. I would never

1685
02:35:26,440 --> 02:35:35,360
host a toxic personality I feel hurt
and ashamed. I wept many nights,

1686
02:35:35,520 --> 02:35:41,040
many years. I filled my whole
beast ie full of me tears because Jay

1687
02:35:41,120 --> 02:35:46,239
Dyer hurt me feelings. I would
never ever allow any of their toxic personality

1688
02:35:46,719 --> 02:35:52,639
to toxify my channel. My channel
is a place of love, a place

1689
02:35:52,719 --> 02:35:56,840
of honor, a place of healing, a place of me sucking on fat

1690
02:35:58,000 --> 02:36:03,200
cigars, drinking cake icing directly out
of a beer stein, giving that over

1691
02:36:03,280 --> 02:36:09,719
to Ibarra, sharing beer steins full
of cake icing with Eric Ebara. And

1692
02:36:09,799 --> 02:36:16,719
I would just never, ever,
ever, ever ev allowed Jake Dyer here

1693
02:36:16,360 --> 02:36:22,799
because the goal of points of a
quitas is to fill those points full of

1694
02:36:22,239 --> 02:36:31,799
cake icing and to build back better, build back better. By the way,

1695
02:36:31,520 --> 02:36:35,719
Matt, if you'd like to get
rude, if you'd like to maybe

1696
02:36:35,760 --> 02:36:39,559
even say a no, no,
knotty word, perhaps even the S word,

1697
02:36:39,079 --> 02:36:46,680
feel free, a big thank you
to our sponsor. I'm going to

1698
02:36:46,719 --> 02:36:54,639
skip past this priod. The one
who is doing the cross examining is welcome

1699
02:36:54,799 --> 02:36:58,639
to interrupt the other debater, to
press them, to cut them off.

1700
02:36:58,680 --> 02:37:01,000
And the dude, what are you
sure? I mean? We might have

1701
02:37:01,319 --> 02:37:07,559
a hurt feeling if we allow this
toxicity on our channels. Matt, are

1702
02:37:07,600 --> 02:37:09,840
you sure you want to do that? I mean, this could lead to

1703
02:37:09,799 --> 02:37:15,920
tears, It could lead to people
going on eating binges. Perhaps a borrow

1704
02:37:16,079 --> 02:37:18,639
did this many times after our I
heard is. I was so mean,

1705
02:37:20,000 --> 02:37:22,799
I mean, are you sure you
want to allow this toxicity? Matt?

1706
02:37:22,920 --> 02:37:26,639
I mean, this is like we're
in dangerous territory. We're in the freaking

1707
02:37:26,719 --> 02:37:35,680
danger zone right when to the dangersone, Matt is literally getting like edge lord

1708
02:37:35,920 --> 02:37:41,520
danger zone here. I mean we
might even have like we literally might have

1709
02:37:41,719 --> 02:37:50,040
hurt feelings. I've got feelings.
Use I mean, whoa dude? Whoa

1710
02:37:50,399 --> 02:37:54,760
dial it back here? Right?
Dial it back? This isn't considered being

1711
02:37:54,879 --> 02:38:01,040
rude. This is just so that
the debates can ask questions regarding the opening

1712
02:38:01,079 --> 02:38:03,840
statements. I suppose that we just
made and so we'll start with yeah.

1713
02:38:03,840 --> 02:38:07,479
But if I do that, I'm
so evil. I mean, it's just

1714
02:38:07,760 --> 02:38:13,200
unbelievable the level of just the depths
of evil that I would that I would

1715
02:38:13,239 --> 02:38:18,239
resort to eight minutes for Trent to
cross examine Matt, and then Matt will

1716
02:38:18,280 --> 02:38:24,440
have eight minutes. So Trent,
whenever you're ready, sure, and Matt,

1717
02:38:24,520 --> 02:38:28,079
just for common ground. I also
am irked by Christians who deny basic

1718
02:38:28,159 --> 02:38:33,959
aspects of science. I am very
urket at those those who deny the efficacy

1719
02:38:33,000 --> 02:38:37,520
of vaccines, the fact the universe
is billions of years old. So for

1720
02:38:37,639 --> 02:38:45,200
find common Graundy, I share your
frustration. I want to ooh mm,

1721
02:38:46,719 --> 02:38:50,559
Trent, you just you went down
a few notches in my respect for you,

1722
02:38:50,879 --> 02:38:54,959
because this is, uh, this
is this is getting into the really

1723
02:38:54,079 --> 02:38:58,040
norm et your stuff. And I
mean, I know that this is not

1724
02:38:58,200 --> 02:39:09,120
tomorrow's top, but yeah, you
know, there's a whole other domain that

1725
02:39:09,319 --> 02:39:16,040
everybody here knows I cover, which
I cover on Lord Voldemort's show once every

1726
02:39:16,799 --> 02:39:22,840
week or so, the fourth Hour, and you know that's going on for

1727
02:39:24,000 --> 02:39:28,159
a year now, and as I'm
sure everybody over here knows, when we

1728
02:39:28,360 --> 02:39:33,360
do that, we get to speak
to millions of people. And that's a

1729
02:39:33,399 --> 02:39:35,680
great, awesome, blessing thing.
I love it. I'm very honored.

1730
02:39:35,719 --> 02:39:39,200
I'm so happy to be able to
speak to millions of people. And the

1731
02:39:39,319 --> 02:39:46,200
other thing that that domain allows is
that I get to talk to and interact

1732
02:39:46,319 --> 02:39:50,719
with a lot of very intelligent,
very professional people too, in a lot

1733
02:39:50,760 --> 02:40:03,079
of different domains. And so this
lame nor mey like Bro, Buddy fest

1734
02:40:03,600 --> 02:40:13,079
of please Matt, I hope you
don't think I'm a fundamentalist. I love

1735
02:40:13,159 --> 02:40:20,600
science too, Bro, and I
shun anyone who would be so brazen as

1736
02:40:20,680 --> 02:40:24,079
to embrace conspiracy theory. I would
never do that. I would never do

1737
02:40:24,200 --> 02:40:30,319
that. You know. A big
point, A big part of why that

1738
02:40:30,680 --> 02:40:37,159
sphere of Matt Fraud and his crew
won't don't want to have anything to do

1739
02:40:37,239 --> 02:40:41,120
with me is actually over those issues. So let's remember it's not just an

1740
02:40:41,159 --> 02:40:46,239
issue of debates about theology and philosophy. There's geopolitical things that play into this.

1741
02:40:48,959 --> 02:40:52,559
And the irony here is that some
of those people in that crew have

1742
02:40:52,719 --> 02:40:58,719
actually had people on that wrote the
books that I cover, like David Wimhoff.

1743
02:40:58,799 --> 02:41:01,879
Now I'm just saying that, Okay, if we're going to have a

1744
02:41:01,959 --> 02:41:05,639
bridge of common ground, a lot
of the people from your Goober crew have

1745
02:41:05,799 --> 02:41:11,680
interviewed David Wimhoff. I've lectured through
and talked about the totality of that gigantic

1746
02:41:11,760 --> 02:41:16,719
book, and it's part of my
Global Elite book series. Now I have

1747
02:41:16,879 --> 02:41:24,079
been and lectured through over fifty of
these writings. I speak to millions of

1748
02:41:24,120 --> 02:41:28,799
people a week about these writings.
The people that I speak to include people

1749
02:41:28,920 --> 02:41:33,479
at the White House, people in
intelligence agencies, people in foreign governments who

1750
02:41:33,639 --> 02:41:41,000
listen to you know who. So
for you goobers to act like you are

1751
02:41:41,079 --> 02:41:46,280
in some privileged, normy position,
you're not and you don't know what you're

1752
02:41:46,319 --> 02:41:52,959
talking about. And I would decimate
and demolish and destroy every one of you

1753
02:41:52,639 --> 02:41:58,159
on any of these other topics too, So let's get that very clear.

1754
02:41:58,159 --> 02:42:03,840
I oh, I would love one
of you goobers to step up and debate

1755
02:42:03,920 --> 02:42:09,840
me on the geopolitical stuff. I
will demolish you, now. Father.

1756
02:42:09,959 --> 02:42:15,280
Damn it says don't say demolish a
person in a debate. I'm not literally

1757
02:42:15,360 --> 02:42:18,559
saying I'm going to beat them up, dude, I'm not literally being mean.

1758
02:42:18,399 --> 02:42:24,000
That's called rhetoric. Rhetoric is part
of debate. But I just want

1759
02:42:24,040 --> 02:42:26,959
to tell these guys who are so
full of themselves, they think they're so

1760
02:42:28,079 --> 02:42:33,120
intellectual and they're so superior or so
sophisticated, you don't even know what you

1761
02:42:33,159 --> 02:42:39,000
don't know. And I really wish
one of you guys would step up and

1762
02:42:39,159 --> 02:42:46,319
debate on something other than the theology, because when it comes to the topic

1763
02:42:46,440 --> 02:42:52,520
of the geopolitical issues that all of
these three goobers right here just touched on.

1764
02:42:52,200 --> 02:42:58,079
I will demolish you. I will
destroy you. You won't last five

1765
02:42:58,200 --> 02:43:03,319
minutes in a debate with me over
the geopolitical stuff. Now I'm happy,

1766
02:43:03,479 --> 02:43:05,280
and it's great. We're gonna have
a good time tomorrow night. Definitely,

1767
02:43:05,399 --> 02:43:09,079
it's gonna be civil. We're gonna
get on the topics of you know,

1768
02:43:09,200 --> 02:43:15,399
natural theology, epistemology. That's great, dude. None of you would last

1769
02:43:15,559 --> 02:43:20,440
five minutes. I will make you
look ridiculous because I know for a fact

1770
02:43:20,760 --> 02:43:26,520
from what I've already heard, not
only are the people in this discussion totally

1771
02:43:26,600 --> 02:43:31,200
ignorant of philosophy except for Trent.
Trent is not ignorant philosophy when it comes

1772
02:43:31,239 --> 02:43:35,239
to geopolitics. These dudes would cry. I will make them cry. If

1773
02:43:35,280 --> 02:43:39,239
they debated me on this topic,
they wouldn't last five minutes, guaranteed.

1774
02:43:39,840 --> 02:43:46,920
Please please, Matt, please,
Trent, please, other Matt, please,

1775
02:43:46,120 --> 02:43:50,680
any of your Roman Catholic goobers,
I will debate you on the geopolitics.

1776
02:43:50,920 --> 02:43:56,040
In fact, guess what I could
probably get you to come debate on

1777
02:43:56,600 --> 02:44:01,520
Lord Baldemort's channel. Millions of people
will watch the debate. I can set

1778
02:44:01,559 --> 02:44:07,319
that up. I please, any
of you goobers please come debate me and

1779
02:44:07,440 --> 02:44:11,200
you can have an audience of millions. Matt Frad thinks that he's like this

1780
02:44:11,360 --> 02:44:16,559
snobby, like so superior. You
know, guy, dude, when I

1781
02:44:16,600 --> 02:44:18,520
go on Lord Baltimore's show, I
talk to ten times. What you have,

1782
02:44:20,600 --> 02:44:24,920
Matt? Would you please come discuss
on Lord Baltimore's show with me?

1783
02:44:26,079 --> 02:44:28,959
Would you like to have a debate. I'm talking about Matt Frad here or

1784
02:44:28,479 --> 02:44:33,200
Matt Dill, Hunty or Trent because
you guys are you guys are stepping over

1785
02:44:33,319 --> 02:44:39,760
into another domain where I will get
fearce. I'm ready to debolish here and

1786
02:44:39,840 --> 02:44:46,319
that would go for anybody, any
of you normy supporters of the norminess please

1787
02:44:46,760 --> 02:44:52,440
please come debate me on the fourth
hour. The reasonable I believe so frankly,

1788
02:44:52,520 --> 02:44:56,920
there are Catholic Stephen who believe things
about the Catholic faith that I don't

1789
02:44:56,920 --> 02:45:00,440
share because I believe they're being unreasonable. So okay, if you questions I

1790
02:45:00,520 --> 02:45:03,719
have, okay, But uh,
I mean Matt doesn't care about this right,

1791
02:45:03,799 --> 02:45:07,719
Like the more that we try to
placate and try to Oh, Matt,

1792
02:45:07,799 --> 02:45:13,000
please please I believe in theistic evolution, I believe in Big Bang,

1793
02:45:15,000 --> 02:45:16,559
but please, I believe in the
stabbes. Please don't think I'm irrational,

1794
02:45:16,600 --> 02:45:20,399
Matt, Please don't think I'm a
fundamental Who cares what this guober thinks?

1795
02:45:20,760 --> 02:45:26,200
Do you know? I mean the
whole posture of this debate is like cucking

1796
02:45:26,280 --> 02:45:30,000
to the atheist. That's the point
here, right, like, who cares

1797
02:45:30,040 --> 02:45:33,680
what this guober thinks? This guber
can't give an account for anything. You

1798
02:45:33,760 --> 02:45:37,559
said something really interesting, you said
two thousand years ago. It could be

1799
02:45:37,719 --> 02:45:43,639
reasonable for someone to believe in geocentrism
because that's just how the world appeared.

1800
02:45:43,040 --> 02:45:46,399
That's the way the evidence was.
Did I hear that right? Well,

1801
02:45:46,399 --> 02:45:48,079
I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if I tied that

1802
02:45:48,120 --> 02:45:52,680
to two thousand years ago at some
point when it passed it was reasonable.

1803
02:45:52,319 --> 02:45:56,159
All of the best evidence, the
most reasonable conclusion was that the Earth orbit

1804
02:45:56,200 --> 02:45:58,959
did the Sun. Yes, I'm
just saying because like five hundred years ago,

1805
02:46:00,079 --> 02:46:03,239
people believe that's when we two thousand
years ago is pretty pretty uniform.

1806
02:46:03,559 --> 02:46:05,479
Okay, So if that's the case, then is it reasonable for people to

1807
02:46:05,559 --> 02:46:11,559
live according to this motto? Things
are as they appear unless evidence shows otherwise.

1808
02:46:16,840 --> 02:46:22,639
No, what would you consider faulty
about that kind of way of approaching

1809
02:46:22,680 --> 02:46:26,200
the world. It is, It's
one of those things that I would say

1810
02:46:26,280 --> 02:46:31,120
is probably generally true. And by
the way, thanks thanks for the comment

1811
02:46:31,159 --> 02:46:33,360
earlier. I'm not I don't want
to take any any of your time up,

1812
02:46:33,479 --> 02:46:37,719
but it's been frustrating to me to
watch people who deny vaccines and COVID

1813
02:46:37,760 --> 02:46:43,239
and all that stuff. But so
Matt, we're so worried about the frustrations

1814
02:46:43,280 --> 02:46:46,200
and the Dane and the and the
and how much it pained you to see

1815
02:46:46,239 --> 02:46:50,239
people be anti science. I mean, uh, I better stop or else

1816
02:46:50,280 --> 02:46:54,559
I'm gonna I am gonna actually get
mean if I don't stop now. Right,

1817
02:46:54,719 --> 02:46:58,840
So, like Matt Frad doesn't want
any ball a team, don't being

1818
02:47:00,040 --> 02:47:07,319
main only channel, be main fosters. We may have a Falster's don't be

1819
02:47:07,520 --> 02:47:11,079
main. But I'm about to get
mean, So we better stop to say

1820
02:47:11,159 --> 02:47:13,120
things are as they appear in less
evidence shows otherwise. Is the sort of

1821
02:47:13,239 --> 02:47:18,879
truism that feels right and maybe a
good kind of starting rule. But we

1822
02:47:18,440 --> 02:47:22,600
already have, at this point in
human history a good understanding of how how

1823
02:47:22,719 --> 02:47:28,000
we can be fooled optical illusions,
let's say, and mirages. We know

1824
02:47:28,120 --> 02:47:33,440
those sorts of things exist, and
so now I would say that while generally

1825
02:47:33,559 --> 02:47:39,760
speaking, we should lost. So
this is cross examination. I'm detecting filibustering

1826
02:47:39,840 --> 02:47:41,959
here, right. Matt wants to
blab and like, you know, not

1827
02:47:43,239 --> 02:47:48,399
let Trent corner him. Which I
don't blame him because I'm sure Trent will

1828
02:47:48,760 --> 02:47:52,399
demolish him. But Mats is blabbing, which I think he's just filibustering.

1829
02:47:52,600 --> 02:47:56,879
Utually, trust our senses and how
things first appear. We have to do

1830
02:47:58,040 --> 02:48:03,399
so tentatively with the knowledge that we
unless evidence shows us as things appear,

1831
02:48:03,479 --> 02:48:09,399
that's not the way they are.
Well the It's one thing to say I'm

1832
02:48:09,479 --> 02:48:11,200
convinced that this is likely to be
the case, and it's another thing to

1833
02:48:11,200 --> 02:48:13,680
say I think this is the case. And what I worry about is that

1834
02:48:13,760 --> 02:48:18,319
this statement would be like, oh, I'm right and rationally justified until you

1835
02:48:18,440 --> 02:48:24,799
prove me wrong. Let's go to
the meat of this. I've filled the

1836
02:48:24,840 --> 02:48:30,479
blank. The belief in Jesus' resurrection
is unreasonable because and I tried to I

1837
02:48:30,520 --> 02:48:33,200
think you put down multiple things at
the very beginning. He says something like,

1838
02:48:33,520 --> 02:48:39,479
it's unreasonable because it's not consistent with
what we know to be true or

1839
02:48:39,520 --> 02:48:41,879
in accord with reality. Is there
a way you could give me, like

1840
02:48:41,959 --> 02:48:45,840
a one or two sentence if that's
correct, or more needs to be added

1841
02:48:45,920 --> 02:48:48,920
on? Belief in the resurrection is
unreasonable because I kind of at the beginning

1842
02:48:50,000 --> 02:48:52,319
not consistent with what we know to
be true. A reasonable belief has to

1843
02:48:52,360 --> 02:48:54,760
be consistent of what we know to
be true. This is what you said

1844
02:48:54,799 --> 02:49:09,280
earlier, at the closing of my
opening. It was it's not reasonably because

1845
02:49:09,319 --> 02:49:15,520
there isn't sufficient evidence. There isn't
physical evidence, there's you can not so

1846
02:49:16,200 --> 02:49:20,399
I don't know if this we just
cetimonial accounts me okay, but part of

1847
02:49:20,440 --> 02:49:35,440
it is looks like there's some Internet
slippage going on here, So let me

1848
02:49:35,520 --> 02:49:39,000
refresh the page thirty eight in.
I don't think we're going to make it

1849
02:49:39,120 --> 02:49:43,440
this whole debate, but I don't
think this is this debate doesn't isn't going

1850
02:49:43,520 --> 02:49:46,959
to go that long. I mean
this is going to be over pretty quick

1851
02:49:46,680 --> 02:49:56,200
because I think Matt's about to get
rent rent pretty bad. So direction clip

1852
02:49:56,959 --> 02:50:00,680
for some reason, the video keeps
freezing, so I don't know what's going

1853
02:50:00,719 --> 02:50:03,319
on here? Is am I still
coming through to you guys? Or is

1854
02:50:03,479 --> 02:50:09,799
the is it getting choppy? Have
you investigated here? We go reasonably because

1855
02:50:09,879 --> 02:50:15,040
there isn't sufficient evidence. There isn't
physical evidence, there's none of this.

1856
02:50:15,120 --> 02:50:20,319
We just have testimonial accounts. Okay, But part of it is you also

1857
02:50:20,440 --> 02:50:26,799
said that it's like it's an extraordinary
event, because resurrections don't happen. They've

1858
02:50:26,799 --> 02:50:33,000
ever been confirmed. Right, Okay, how many resurrection claims have you investigated?

1859
02:50:35,600 --> 02:50:39,000
Well, just from the Bible,
we have Jesus' lazaruses, and then

1860
02:50:39,200 --> 02:50:43,760
all of the saints who rose up
out of their graves and marched on Jerusalem

1861
02:50:43,799 --> 02:50:48,760
in the middle of it. I
find no compelling evidence for any of those.

1862
02:50:50,559 --> 02:50:56,399
There was a I'm sorry, right, were you eluding? I'm curious

1863
02:50:56,440 --> 02:51:01,200
if you have how many? How
just I'm the question is just how many

1864
02:51:01,360 --> 02:51:05,399
resurrection claims outside of the Bible have
you investigated to see if this does happen?

1865
02:51:07,319 --> 02:51:09,840
Well, I don't know what we're
going to call investigating. I saw

1866
02:51:09,879 --> 02:51:13,959
a YouTube video that purported to be
of a resurrection, but it it there

1867
02:51:15,040 --> 02:51:18,040
was no way to investigate it.
If there's no way to look into the

1868
02:51:18,120 --> 02:51:22,479
details of the claim beyond the claim
itself. I don't know what investigation can

1869
02:51:22,559 --> 02:51:26,680
happen. I don't know how to
investigate something that to supposedly well. In

1870
02:51:26,000 --> 02:51:33,159
Craig Keener's two volume work on Miracles, he lists about six hundred resurrection claims.

1871
02:51:33,159 --> 02:51:35,959
I think about five hundred of them. Are you know at least more

1872
02:51:35,000 --> 02:51:41,239
than five hundred or none are outside
of the Bible. Let's say only five

1873
02:51:41,319 --> 02:51:43,680
percent of them, you know,
you thirty of them? You could contact

1874
02:51:45,000 --> 02:51:50,440
witnesses or things like that. It
seems like I don't know who Craig Keener

1875
02:51:50,639 --> 02:51:52,399
is, but I don't. If
I was Matt, I would be like,

1876
02:51:52,680 --> 02:51:56,600
I don't. I mean, as
a skeptic, I don't care that

1877
02:51:56,840 --> 02:52:01,559
some guy has a book that claims
to have five hundred resurrections, right,

1878
02:52:01,680 --> 02:52:07,040
I mean, why would I accept
this over any other book that has claims

1879
02:52:07,040 --> 02:52:11,680
of resurrection. So I'm not saying
that I necessarily disagree with where I'm waiting

1880
02:52:11,719 --> 02:52:16,040
to see where Trent's going with this. But I know if I was Matt,

1881
02:52:16,159 --> 02:52:20,000
what I would say. There are
these claims of resurrection out there,

1882
02:52:20,440 --> 02:52:24,319
so is your answer the question how
many resurrection claims outside of the Bible.

1883
02:52:24,360 --> 02:52:33,680
Have you investigated The answer is one
by watching a YouTube video. So I

1884
02:52:33,879 --> 02:52:39,360
don't know how this is remotely relevant
because what I say is, I'm well,

1885
02:52:39,479 --> 02:52:45,239
it's relevant, Matt, because you're
saying that the resurrect like resurrections don't

1886
02:52:45,360 --> 02:52:48,440
happen. It's an extraordinary event.
It's not consistent with reality, and that's

1887
02:52:48,479 --> 02:52:52,760
a shame and you. But I'm
wondering, what's the evidence for that claim?

1888
02:52:52,000 --> 02:52:54,520
Now, this is a good point. I like where he's going because

1889
02:52:56,000 --> 02:52:58,200
I mean, obviously Trent's not a
presopositionalist, but it's kind of in the

1890
02:52:58,319 --> 02:53:05,319
vein of, you know, of
that type of critique. So he's trying

1891
02:53:05,360 --> 02:53:09,600
to pin Matt on Matt's own criteria, which is great and that this is

1892
02:53:09,680 --> 02:53:13,879
probably where Matt's going to fold and
get mad. And you already see Matt's

1893
02:53:13,879 --> 02:53:18,079
a little uncomfortable there in his gamer
chair where he's like, how's is relevant?

1894
02:53:18,280 --> 02:53:20,879
Well, it's relevant because it's the
very thing that you're doing, dude,

1895
02:53:22,440 --> 02:53:26,840
it's the most relevant thing. What
is the evidence for that claim?

1896
02:53:26,920 --> 02:53:31,319
If resurrections were known and we would
have sign No, Matt, he didn't

1897
02:53:31,360 --> 02:53:33,920
ask you the evidence for the claim
of resurrections. He asked you about how

1898
02:53:35,040 --> 02:53:39,719
you go about investigating, on your
view of empiricism, claims of resurrections and

1899
02:53:39,760 --> 02:53:41,920
how you disprove them. If he
journals on them, people would be getting

1900
02:53:41,920 --> 02:53:46,920
Nobel prizes for demonstrating resurrections. People
would be coming on the news to say,

1901
02:53:46,000 --> 02:53:50,239
hey, here's a resurrection, which
is what happened with the YouTube video

1902
02:53:50,319 --> 02:53:56,000
that was purportedly a resurrection. I'm
not a resurrection investigator, but of the

1903
02:53:56,079 --> 02:54:03,319
ones Craig Keener investigated. But Matt, you were making claims about the status

1904
02:54:03,360 --> 02:54:07,399
of resurrections. So if you're not
a resurrection investigator, as an empiricist,

1905
02:54:07,840 --> 02:54:09,879
how do you know, Because as
an empiricist, you're going to be bound

1906
02:54:09,959 --> 02:54:18,280
to empirical sentence data, and to
deny resurrections requires that you know and investigate

1907
02:54:18,360 --> 02:54:24,000
and disprove these cases on empiricist grounds. How many resurrections did he confirm actually

1908
02:54:24,079 --> 02:54:28,360
happened. Well, he's providing the
evidence there for other people to look at.

1909
02:54:28,399 --> 02:54:31,799
So I'm just curious. You know, you don't you say it doesn't

1910
02:54:31,840 --> 02:54:35,280
happen, But there are claims out
there even today, but they're not investigating,

1911
02:54:35,280 --> 02:54:41,239
So let me do you believe those? Do you believe you can ask

1912
02:54:41,319 --> 02:54:43,479
me in your cross examination, Matt. That's fine. Uh, okay,

1913
02:54:43,520 --> 02:54:46,559
here's the next one. You say
that we don't have sufficient evidence for the

1914
02:54:46,639 --> 02:54:52,799
resurrection. So that's why it's unreasonable
to believe that what would what would sufficient

1915
02:54:52,840 --> 02:54:58,760
evidence for Jesus resurrection look like?
I listed this is a good question because

1916
02:55:00,239 --> 02:55:05,479
this is getting to the question of
Matt's criteria of evidence, which Trent did

1917
02:55:05,520 --> 02:55:07,840
bring up at the beginning, and
so this is a good question. The

1918
02:55:07,920 --> 02:55:11,159
thing, it would be nice to
be able to show that we have good

1919
02:55:11,200 --> 02:55:13,680
reason to think that a person existed, that they died, and that they

1920
02:55:13,840 --> 02:55:20,600
rose afterwards, something other than just
a story and claims. So he asked

1921
02:55:20,639 --> 02:55:26,360
them for what would count, and
Matt said evidence. Well, Trent's asking,

1922
02:55:28,079 --> 02:55:30,840
in your view, what would count
as good evidence, and Matt's saying

1923
02:55:31,360 --> 02:55:35,799
good evidence, that is there physical
evidence for this? Okay, So what

1924
02:55:37,000 --> 02:55:39,159
is the physical evidence for an event
in the past, Matt, that you

1925
02:55:39,159 --> 02:55:43,520
would accept? I mean, Matt's
just kind of moving the question back like

1926
02:55:43,639 --> 02:55:48,239
every time, Well, I'll believe
it on good evidence. What's good evidence?

1927
02:55:48,799 --> 02:55:54,639
Well, physical evidence? Okay,
what's physical evidence that's good of something

1928
02:55:54,680 --> 02:56:00,440
in the past. Matt, is
it refine? Is it reasonable to believe

1929
02:56:00,559 --> 02:56:05,719
that Jesus was crucified under ponscious pilot? I don't know where Trent's going with

1930
02:56:05,799 --> 02:56:09,639
that, but I would have continued
pressing Matt on what he's not answering already.

1931
02:56:09,959 --> 02:56:16,200
I don't think so. Okay,
So do you think that all historians

1932
02:56:16,879 --> 02:56:22,479
in the world that teach at major
universities it's unreasonable for them that they believe

1933
02:56:22,559 --> 02:56:26,840
Jesus was crucified? There this is
a good point. This is where Matt's

1934
02:56:26,840 --> 02:56:31,000
going to slip up, because this
is something that Trent raised at the very

1935
02:56:31,079 --> 02:56:35,799
beginning, which is that the fact
that you don't think that it's reasonable doesn't

1936
02:56:35,959 --> 02:56:43,440
count as a defeater for someone else
believing something, right, because Matt believes

1937
02:56:43,520 --> 02:56:48,120
that, you know, other people
can believe things that he disagrees with for

1938
02:56:48,319 --> 02:56:52,239
good reasons. Right. So Trent's
going to ask him, this is the

1939
02:56:52,319 --> 02:56:54,520
part I think that Lewis clipped out. Trent's going to ask him that,

1940
02:56:56,680 --> 02:57:01,120
you know, do you believe that
all of this scholars in all the universities

1941
02:57:01,200 --> 02:57:09,239
who do believe in the death of
Christ, that they all believe something unreasonable

1942
02:57:09,399 --> 02:57:16,559
because you disagree with it. For
them to believe it, perhaps perhaps it's

1943
02:57:16,559 --> 02:57:18,799
not reasonable for them to believe it, For them to teach it as this

1944
02:57:18,959 --> 02:57:24,840
is what is believed is not problematic. No, I'm saying that. So

1945
02:57:24,959 --> 02:57:33,360
you're saying it's unreasonable to affirm that
Jesus was crucified under ponscious pilot. This

1946
02:57:33,479 --> 02:57:35,200
is what I'm saying that. I
am not convinced. I am not personally

1947
02:57:35,239 --> 02:57:39,799
convinced that that's the case. But
that's not what we're I'm not interested in

1948
02:57:39,920 --> 02:57:46,040
what you're convinced by exactly bingo.
Right, So Trent nailed him right there,

1949
02:57:46,319 --> 02:57:50,840
that that is the very thing Bonton
hits on in the Bonton Tabash debate.

1950
02:57:50,000 --> 02:57:56,959
Right, We're not interested in your
reporting of psychological states. That's a

1951
02:57:56,000 --> 02:58:01,639
psychological report. We are interested in
the argument, Matt, And what's the

1952
02:58:01,840 --> 02:58:05,840
argument for or against these criteria of
evidence. What's the argument for or against

1953
02:58:07,360 --> 02:58:11,200
believing that it's irrational to think Jesus
rose from the dead. So this is

1954
02:58:11,959 --> 02:58:16,920
the spot, This is exactly where
Lewis clipped it. This is where Trent

1955
02:58:16,040 --> 02:58:20,639
really nails Matt, and Matt just
falls apart here because you agree, there's

1956
02:58:20,639 --> 02:58:26,079
a difference between what would convince you
and what is reasonable to believe. Are

1957
02:58:26,120 --> 02:58:28,559
there any things out there are?
Well, let me ask you a question.

1958
02:58:28,840 --> 02:58:35,280
Are there any things? Yes?
That was actually admitted at the beginning.

1959
02:58:35,479 --> 02:58:39,120
So Matt just contradicted himself. You
don't believe, but you think it's

1960
02:58:39,159 --> 02:58:45,639
reasonable for other people to believe.
Yeah, exactly, other people at different

1961
02:58:45,680 --> 02:58:48,719
times. Yes, as I already
alluded to. But no, of course

1962
02:58:48,760 --> 02:58:54,040
I think I'm reasonable. Okay,
So I'm not saying you're not reasonable.

1963
02:58:54,040 --> 02:58:58,559
I'm saying there are other Sorry,
we might be running out of That was

1964
02:58:58,639 --> 02:59:03,239
to me on track. Did you
want to finish that question? Have Matt

1965
02:59:03,280 --> 02:59:07,440
responded and all that him go?
No, Like I gave an example in

1966
02:59:07,600 --> 02:59:11,000
my opening statement, like, at
least from what I saw with your engagement

1967
02:59:11,000 --> 02:59:16,600
with Alex O'Connor, you do not
believe in person? What's wrong? What

1968
02:59:16,719 --> 02:59:18,600
the hell does Alex O'Connor have to
do with this? You've mentioned him twice

1969
02:59:20,120 --> 02:59:24,000
he's an atheist. What the discussion
wasn't about? Uh, Matt, why

1970
02:59:24,000 --> 02:59:28,959
are you getting mad? Brouh?
It perfectly relates to the question because it's

1971
02:59:30,000 --> 02:59:37,559
an example of a situation where you
disagreed with cosmic skeptics veganism, but you

1972
02:59:37,639 --> 02:59:41,520
don't think that it's unreasonable for him
to have the position. So Matt realizes

1973
02:59:41,600 --> 02:59:46,280
he's caught, and that's why he
says that, Okay, what I'm trying

1974
02:59:46,319 --> 02:59:50,840
to find is that there is a
belief you're not convinced of, but you

1975
02:59:50,920 --> 02:59:56,280
wouldn't say is unreasonable. Do you
think article veganism that Alex endorse is unreasonable?

1976
02:59:56,399 --> 02:59:58,840
Right? Yes? And I was
getting ready to get that to that

1977
03:00:00,040 --> 03:00:05,479
in my response. So but yeah, all I wondered was because there are

1978
03:00:05,520 --> 03:00:07,959
things I reasonly disagree with others.
I don't know if you do, but

1979
03:00:07,000 --> 03:00:13,399
it's your turn, all right.
So I mean, does everybody see the

1980
03:00:13,920 --> 03:00:16,360
stupid thing that Matt just did there? I mean, that's a huge problem

1981
03:00:16,559 --> 03:00:20,200
what he just did, Matt.
I'll give you nine minutes stuck whenever.

1982
03:00:20,479 --> 03:00:28,000
And this is that This means that
basically Trent won this debate precisely because Matt's

1983
03:00:28,120 --> 03:00:37,319
whole argument hinges on this reporting of
psychological states being an argument. And if

1984
03:00:37,399 --> 03:00:41,520
that's not an argument, then Matt
hasn't really provided any example, justification or

1985
03:00:41,559 --> 03:00:46,680
criteria for why he doesn't accept the
testimonies of people about resurrections. Now,

1986
03:00:48,040 --> 03:00:50,200
maybe the resurrection testimons are false,
but the point is that Matt's got to

1987
03:00:50,239 --> 03:00:56,680
give an account for evidences, proofs, and reasons on his worldview that can't

1988
03:00:56,760 --> 03:01:03,799
rely on descriptors of what Matt finds
unconvincing, right, which is reporting his

1989
03:01:03,920 --> 03:01:09,120
own psychological state. Reporting your own
psychological state is not an argument for why

1990
03:01:09,920 --> 03:01:15,360
it's unreasonable to believe in a resurrection. So, yeah, the first time

1991
03:01:15,360 --> 03:01:18,719
I've had an advertisement in mid debate, especially one for a debating a dating

1992
03:01:18,799 --> 03:01:20,440
site, and since I'm neither catholic
nor single, I'll just skip it.

1993
03:01:20,559 --> 03:01:28,559
But that was kind of cool.
But nobody asked you about the ad,

1994
03:01:28,920 --> 03:01:35,520
so you'll skip it. I mean, it certainly wasn't an offer, Like

1995
03:01:35,600 --> 03:01:37,799
what are you talking about? So
I wanted to thank Trent from the start

1996
03:01:37,840 --> 03:01:41,239
because he said something that was incredibly
true and that other people frequently get wrong.

1997
03:01:41,719 --> 03:01:46,120
He's like, I'm on a channel
where they're advertising stuff. I'll skip

1998
03:01:46,200 --> 03:01:50,840
it. It didn't relate to you, dude, what are you talking about?

1999
03:01:50,120 --> 03:01:56,120
Opening, Which is my position is
is not to show that it's not

2000
03:01:56,360 --> 03:02:00,079
reason or that it's not reasonable believe
it. That it did happen, and

2001
03:02:00,200 --> 03:02:03,840
not to show that it's reasonably that
it did not happen. I don't have

2002
03:02:03,879 --> 03:02:05,799
to be convinced that it didn't happen. I just am unconvinced that it did.

2003
03:02:07,159 --> 03:02:09,639
And so on the issue of Alex
So Matt doesn't understand the difference between

2004
03:02:11,079 --> 03:02:13,520
reporting psychological states and making arguments.
I mean, that's really what we conclude

2005
03:02:13,559 --> 03:02:18,719
from those, whether or not his
ethical veganism is reasonable. No, I

2006
03:02:18,760 --> 03:02:22,120
don't think it's reasonable. Of the
claims that Craig Keener, Since you referenced

2007
03:02:22,200 --> 03:02:26,239
him found about resurrections, how many
of them was he able to confirm actually

2008
03:02:26,280 --> 03:02:33,079
occurred? Well, I don't know, because I haven't spoke with him about

2009
03:02:33,120 --> 03:02:37,040
how many he believes happened. I
think, how many do you believe happen?

2010
03:02:41,399 --> 03:02:43,319
I don't know. I've heard a
claim. Well, there's one by

2011
03:02:43,360 --> 03:02:48,200
a guy named Simon Kimbongu in nineteenth
century and Africa, who had a reputation

2012
03:02:48,280 --> 03:02:52,879
for raising people from the dead that
Robert Price cited as an example of having

2013
03:02:54,000 --> 03:02:58,680
evidence similar or less than to Jesus. And that's possibility. But I'll be

2014
03:02:58,719 --> 03:03:05,719
frank, I haven't investigated them thoroughly
because I'm not setting out to debunk them.

2015
03:03:07,079 --> 03:03:09,760
They could have happened, they couldn't
have happened. It doesn't really change

2016
03:03:09,360 --> 03:03:16,600
my major views on things. No, wait a minute, now, I

2017
03:03:16,079 --> 03:03:26,920
agree in principle with Trent's point there, But what Trent just conceded there kind

2018
03:03:28,000 --> 03:03:31,639
of concedes the whole point of this
debate. If it doesn't really matter that

2019
03:03:31,920 --> 03:03:39,159
these people were resurrected, then doesn't
that presuppose that Jesus's resurrection is something unique

2020
03:03:39,159 --> 03:03:43,879
and different. So if jesus resurrection
is something unique and different, it's unique

2021
03:03:43,920 --> 03:03:48,399
and different than these other resurrections that
Trent doesn't really care about confirming or denying

2022
03:03:48,079 --> 03:03:54,639
because the system of Christianity is true. So it's not actually a debate or

2023
03:03:54,639 --> 03:04:00,200
an argument about the fact of the
resurrection. It's actually an argument about the

2024
03:04:00,319 --> 03:04:05,639
systems themselves. Atheism as a worldview, Christianity as a whole world being paradigm.

2025
03:04:07,360 --> 03:04:09,680
So I haven't really set out to
say they don't happen, but I'm

2026
03:04:09,719 --> 03:04:16,479
open to them having happened. It's
quite possible. Okay, if I was

2027
03:04:16,559 --> 03:04:22,040
mad, I would at least likely
happening now or that resurrection. Sorry,

2028
03:04:22,079 --> 03:04:26,479
so you notice that Matt wasn't sophisticated
enough at all to basically do anything.

2029
03:04:26,520 --> 03:04:31,399
I mean, Matt hasn't given any
argument other than to state his own status

2030
03:04:31,520 --> 03:04:37,079
of unbelief. Okay, yeah,
we know, Matt, like you're here

2031
03:04:37,559 --> 03:04:41,360
as an atheist. We know you
don't find all this stuff convincing, or

2032
03:04:41,440 --> 03:04:46,360
else you wouldn't be an atheist.
So where's the argument? Still waiting?

2033
03:04:46,040 --> 03:04:50,520
But again, Matt doesn't know the
difference between reporting psychological states and arguments,

2034
03:04:52,120 --> 03:04:58,840
which some stories it's it's possible,
but I think that it would be very

2035
03:05:00,079 --> 03:05:05,879
infrequent. How do you know it's
possible because because Jesus rose from the dead,

2036
03:05:07,120 --> 03:05:13,840
And now Matt is not intentionally swift
enough to see that he's actually hit

2037
03:05:13,920 --> 03:05:18,040
on a good point. But the
point you can, you guys can see

2038
03:05:18,040 --> 03:05:22,079
the point I would make here,
right, So, the only reason Trent

2039
03:05:22,200 --> 03:05:26,280
believes that resurrections are possible is because
he believes in the resurrection of Christ.

2040
03:05:26,280 --> 03:05:31,799
In other words, because he's a
Christian. So the Christian paradigm determines Trent's

2041
03:05:33,520 --> 03:05:37,479
belief system in terms of what is
and is impossible. But if Trent understood

2042
03:05:37,559 --> 03:05:41,479
that, then he would be a
presuppositionalist, and he would admit what we

2043
03:05:41,719 --> 03:05:46,959
think, he wouldn't be doing this
type of argumentation, and you know,

2044
03:05:48,120 --> 03:05:52,520
just sort of assuming that things aren't
theory laden and whatnot, because the very

2045
03:05:52,559 --> 03:05:58,399
things he's saying basically admit that beliefs
and belief systems are part of a web,

2046
03:05:58,559 --> 03:06:05,639
and that the the individual beliefs and
words and meanings are theory laden.

2047
03:06:07,040 --> 03:06:09,399
And if they're theory laden, then
it's a comparison of worldviews. Oh,

2048
03:06:09,840 --> 03:06:13,399
I mean, that's the thing we're
debating. You don't get to assume that.

2049
03:06:13,559 --> 03:06:16,319
How do you if you're if you
hang on, if your belief that

2050
03:06:16,479 --> 03:06:20,840
that resurrections are happening now is based
on the fact that you think now,

2051
03:06:20,920 --> 03:06:24,239
I will actually get mad a point
here. This is actually a good point,

2052
03:06:24,440 --> 03:06:31,399
right, because Trent is presupposing that
resurrections are possible, and they're possible

2053
03:06:31,559 --> 03:06:37,319
because of the supposed stack of evidence
that makes it plausible or possible that Jesus

2054
03:06:37,440 --> 03:06:43,719
resurrected. But the meaning of resurrection
isn't independent of the rest of Christianity.

2055
03:06:43,879 --> 03:06:48,879
So if Matt swift enough, he
should call him out and say, well,

2056
03:06:48,879 --> 03:06:52,600
the resurrection only has the meaning that
you think it has in the Christian

2057
03:06:52,639 --> 03:06:58,399
paradigm. There's no brute factuality about
resurrections, like having some significance outside of

2058
03:06:58,399 --> 03:07:03,879
the Christian parent or not. This
is resurrected. That doesn't mean that your

2059
03:07:03,920 --> 03:07:07,159
belief is reasonable. That just is
a cascading unreasonableness. Well, no,

2060
03:07:07,319 --> 03:07:11,399
because I gave an argument for why
it's reasonable to believe Jesus rows from the

2061
03:07:11,479 --> 03:07:15,399
dead based on the evidence provided,
and so if he rose from the dead

2062
03:07:15,399 --> 03:07:18,319
and he's divine, he could have
power to work miracles today or throughout history.

2063
03:07:18,760 --> 03:07:24,079
So you're basically saying that you're willing
to accept a claim of a resurrection

2064
03:07:24,319 --> 03:07:30,319
as reasonable without any physical evidence.
Well, what what kind of physical evidence

2065
03:07:30,559 --> 03:07:33,559
would a resurrection have, especially one
in the past. We would just be

2066
03:07:33,639 --> 03:07:37,079
trying when it comes to a claims
are in the past. Everything is in

2067
03:07:37,120 --> 03:07:41,959
the past, right, I'm asking
you, well, are you willing to

2068
03:07:41,040 --> 03:07:46,120
accept a claim of resurrection is reasonable
in the absence of any physical evidence.

2069
03:07:46,399 --> 03:07:50,399
Here's where Matt's messing up, because
Matt doesn't understand that altern has to do

2070
03:07:50,559 --> 03:07:56,079
is keep turning the question back on
him about the criteria of proof and evidences.

2071
03:07:56,040 --> 03:08:00,799
Right, That's what Trent already did. And I'm SU's going to continue

2072
03:08:00,840 --> 03:08:03,600
to do it because Matt is missing
the whole point. Mean by physical evidence,

2073
03:08:05,360 --> 03:08:07,879
well do we have you know,
I mean the criteria that Matt is

2074
03:08:07,959 --> 03:08:13,239
going to demand for physical evidence of
things in the past is literally going to

2075
03:08:13,399 --> 03:08:18,719
undercut the possibility of all history.
That's so dumb, and Matt can't grass

2076
03:08:18,799 --> 03:08:22,799
this doctor's reports on the cause of
illness and death and then a period of

2077
03:08:22,879 --> 03:08:26,680
time where they were confirmed to be
dead, and then a period of time

2078
03:08:26,719 --> 03:08:28,479
where they were confirmed to be living
again after that, And this is so

2079
03:08:28,719 --> 03:08:35,319
low IQ like, So we should
doubt all people's deaths until we have doctor's

2080
03:08:35,479 --> 03:08:39,399
reports that confirm the time of death
and a period in which they can be

2081
03:08:39,479 --> 03:08:41,760
watched to see for sure that they're
dead. I mean, on Matt's grounds,

2082
03:08:41,840 --> 03:08:46,639
we don't have any good reason to
believe in anyone's death without that.

2083
03:08:46,600 --> 03:08:50,639
This is so silly with medical examinations, and how do you know you're not

2084
03:08:50,799 --> 03:08:58,959
just being can Okay, So you're
saying to be reasonable, I think I

2085
03:08:58,040 --> 03:09:01,600
see your tracking here. For it
to be reasonable to believe in resurrection,

2086
03:09:01,799 --> 03:09:05,840
you'd have to affirm a person did
exist and they died and they were seen

2087
03:09:05,959 --> 03:09:13,000
alive after their death in some cases. The important points there I was I

2088
03:09:13,040 --> 03:09:18,120
was specifically asking about with a lack
of physical evidence, and the physical evidence

2089
03:09:18,159 --> 03:09:22,239
that I would be talking about is
medical scientific evidence. About that in picture,

2090
03:09:22,440 --> 03:09:26,879
it's not that you know, that
wouldn't be physical evidence. That would

2091
03:09:26,920 --> 03:09:31,799
be another kind of testimonial evidence from
someone like a doctor who says, Yep,

2092
03:09:31,920 --> 03:09:35,600
this person is dead, because I'm
very familiar with what you know,

2093
03:09:35,639 --> 03:09:39,360
what, Matt doesn't really have a
coherent account of what would actually constitute physical

2094
03:09:39,440 --> 03:09:43,920
evidence, and he doesn't understand that
again, that's all going to be like

2095
03:09:43,200 --> 03:09:48,200
based on presubpositions, right, and
assumptions that this is a reliable piece of

2096
03:09:48,239 --> 03:09:50,879
physical evidence, that a doctor really
wrote this, right, and he just

2097
03:09:50,959 --> 03:09:54,399
admitted that you could be conned.
Well, yeah, but so could you.

2098
03:09:56,200 --> 03:10:01,680
So your own criteria of what counts
as physical evidence can't give an account

2099
03:10:01,760 --> 03:10:05,879
for physical evidence, right. It's
begging the question, and it would undercut

2100
03:10:05,920 --> 03:10:11,239
its own self. It's a dead
person. Now, modern medicine is fairly

2101
03:10:11,319 --> 03:10:15,760
new, so in older resurrection accounts
like the one we're currently debating, we

2102
03:10:15,840 --> 03:10:20,000
would have to rely on other kinds
of testimony. And I think it's very

2103
03:10:20,239 --> 03:10:22,559
likely, Well, basically, what
happened is that Jesus did die from crucifixion

2104
03:10:22,920 --> 03:10:26,719
based on all the details and all
the accounts related there. So you're willing

2105
03:10:26,799 --> 03:10:35,680
to accept that an individual rose in
the dead with nothing more than just testimonial

2106
03:10:35,719 --> 03:10:41,360
evidence. It's amazing to me that
this debate is progressing like this without actually

2107
03:10:41,440 --> 03:10:46,200
just getting into epistemology. I mean, that's what's at root here. Maybe

2108
03:10:46,399 --> 03:10:50,479
Trent thinks that if he went into
that route, Matt would like, you

2109
03:10:50,559 --> 03:10:52,639
know, skip out, because he
would be like, I'm not here to

2110
03:10:52,719 --> 03:10:56,000
debate of postemology. I'm here to
debate the rose reduction. You know.

2111
03:10:56,520 --> 03:10:58,760
Maybe that's why he doesn't kind of
push on that domain, or maybe he

2112
03:10:58,760 --> 03:11:03,239
will later. I don't know,
but I mean it should be evident by

2113
03:11:03,280 --> 03:11:09,440
now that, like, isn't it
obvious that these two people have totally different

2114
03:11:09,879 --> 03:11:16,559
criteria of truth and evidence and that
that's a prior question to arguing about the

2115
03:11:16,639 --> 03:11:20,200
resurrection itself, because Matt doesn't have
he seemed, I mean, at least

2116
03:11:20,200 --> 03:11:24,520
Trent has some ideas of what would
count as evidence and that kind of a

2117
03:11:24,639 --> 03:11:28,399
coherent presentation of how we would go
about that and what that would entail.

2118
03:11:28,000 --> 03:11:37,000
Matt doesn't even seem to have any
clear idea about distinguishing evidence, what counts

2119
03:11:37,000 --> 03:11:43,799
as evidence, the criteria of evidence, and his own psychological descriptive state of

2120
03:11:43,879 --> 03:11:48,120
unbelief, like he doesn't know the
difference. Well, how do we know

2121
03:11:48,239 --> 03:11:50,840
that anything happened in the past?
I don't know why you won't answer the

2122
03:11:50,959 --> 03:11:56,200
question I'm asking. He's asking you. He's answering your question on the basis

2123
03:11:56,239 --> 03:12:00,319
of what you're saying. If what
you're saying is true, Matt, then

2124
03:12:00,399 --> 03:12:05,200
really we wouldn't know anything about the
past. And so Matt doesn't actually adhere

2125
03:12:05,239 --> 03:12:09,440
to the empiricism that he claims to
adhere to. He's not really a skeptic.

2126
03:12:09,920 --> 03:12:11,239
He's a skeptic when he wants to
be a skeptic, and then a

2127
03:12:11,360 --> 03:12:16,600
dogmatist when he wants to be,
you know, making an argument or trying

2128
03:12:16,600 --> 03:12:20,799
to refute people, or trying to
argue for evidences. Are you're saying you're

2129
03:12:20,840 --> 03:12:24,399
willing? Are you saying you're willing
to believe a resurrection with nothing more than

2130
03:12:24,479 --> 03:12:30,840
testimonial evidence. I am willing to
believe that Jesus Christ died by crucifixion under

2131
03:12:30,840 --> 03:12:33,200
conscious pilot. It is not the
question I asked, why is it any

2132
03:12:33,280 --> 03:12:37,520
time I asked a question to go
back to something that's not the answer.

2133
03:12:37,959 --> 03:12:39,959
Is it my time to ask questions
or not? I thought this whole thing.

2134
03:12:41,040 --> 03:12:43,280
You can ask to be able to
interrupt, to read direct. I'm

2135
03:12:43,440 --> 03:12:48,040
willing to let you answer if you
will answer the question objection your honor non

2136
03:12:48,159 --> 03:12:52,760
responsive? Are you saying you are
are you saying are you going to keep

2137
03:12:52,799 --> 03:12:56,959
trying to talk over me while I'm
asking the question again? Are you saying

2138
03:12:56,319 --> 03:13:01,319
that you are willing to believe that
a resurrection occurred based only on testimonial evidence.

2139
03:13:05,479 --> 03:13:07,680
Will you allow me to answer the
question sufficiently? I promise I can

2140
03:13:07,719 --> 03:13:11,559
do it in less than thirty seconds. It's a yes or no question,

2141
03:13:11,760 --> 03:13:16,479
Trent, Well, it may not
be, Matt, because you might be

2142
03:13:16,600 --> 03:13:22,399
setting up a false either or,
so you don't. You can't force a

2143
03:13:22,520 --> 03:13:28,479
person to answer in an either or
or a yes or no if it's a

2144
03:13:28,559 --> 03:13:33,680
loaded question. Right, So Matt
is acting like there's no such thing as

2145
03:13:33,760 --> 03:13:39,120
loaded questions, and Matt's getting nervous
because he's he's losing, all right,

2146
03:13:39,200 --> 03:13:43,600
And the same this exact same thing
happened in the debate with me, where

2147
03:13:43,959 --> 03:13:48,840
when Matt wasn't able to either understand
or apply to the arguments I was giving.

2148
03:13:48,399 --> 03:13:52,159
He starts getting like this, right, and this is a way to

2149
03:13:52,280 --> 03:13:56,200
filibuster and deflect and get away from
the actual meat of the matter. Right.

2150
03:13:56,760 --> 03:14:00,840
So there's multiple reasons why people do
this. Some debate, but I

2151
03:14:00,920 --> 03:14:03,159
think that if you look at the
body language and look at Matt's kind of

2152
03:14:03,200 --> 03:14:07,600
shifting around and moving around in his
gamer chair, you can tell he's getting

2153
03:14:09,440 --> 03:14:13,799
mad because it's not that Trent isn't
answering his question. It's that Matt doesn't

2154
03:14:13,920 --> 03:14:18,159
like the answer that he's getting and
it's causing him to be a little you

2155
03:14:18,239 --> 03:14:22,200
know, he's getting a little nervous. Yes, I believe that people can

2156
03:14:22,280 --> 03:14:26,600
testify to things that happen, not
what I asked. I said, are

2157
03:14:26,680 --> 03:14:31,319
you will fine? Yes? Yes, yes, If you only want to

2158
03:14:31,319 --> 03:14:35,280
answer know, then yes, it's
not interesting. I wouldn't have conceded that.

2159
03:14:35,520 --> 03:14:41,239
I would have said, you just
because you're the interlocutor, you don't

2160
03:14:41,280 --> 03:14:45,079
get to ask loaded questions, right, So that's the way I would have

2161
03:14:45,120 --> 03:14:50,280
responded to that. I'm not saying
that he's necessarily making a bad move in

2162
03:14:50,440 --> 03:14:54,319
conceding that to Matt. Uh we'll
have to see where it goes. I'm

2163
03:14:54,639 --> 03:14:58,239
I'm not here for interesting. I'm
here to find out what's reasonable. And

2164
03:14:58,399 --> 03:15:01,319
here's the crux of it, which
we have this discussion. Well, Matt,

2165
03:15:01,440 --> 03:15:05,120
actually he asked you multiple times what
counts is reasonable and what counts as

2166
03:15:05,159 --> 03:15:11,959
proof and evidence? And your attempt
to explain that was garbage gibberish because I

2167
03:15:11,000 --> 03:15:15,479
don't I don't have any follow up
questions after this. And that is this,

2168
03:15:16,440 --> 03:15:20,959
You are willing to accept that are
an extraordinary, miraculous event occurred based

2169
03:15:20,000 --> 03:15:24,079
only on testimony, and I am
not. That's it. That is the

2170
03:15:24,159 --> 03:15:28,040
foundational difference between our epistemology. I
will. Well, the problem with this

2171
03:15:28,280 --> 03:15:33,959
is that now now he's Matt's using
big words which he doesn't know epistemology.

2172
03:15:33,840 --> 03:15:41,600
I mean again, if Jesus was
raised from the dead, then it's not

2173
03:15:43,040 --> 03:15:48,200
extraordinary that people rise from the dead, Right, So Matt keeps just saying

2174
03:15:48,319 --> 03:15:54,360
that it's extraordinary, it's extraordinary extraordinary, which Matt hasn't shown that it's actually

2175
03:15:54,360 --> 03:16:01,200
extraordinary, because it's only extraordinary if
Christianity isn't true or Matt's view is correct.

2176
03:16:01,360 --> 03:16:05,440
Right, Matt's skepticism and atheism is
the case, then it is.

2177
03:16:05,719 --> 03:16:09,159
But I mean that's what's in debate
here. So both sides kind of keep

2178
03:16:09,760 --> 03:16:13,639
making arguments as if their positions are
true. So we've seen this from Trent

2179
03:16:13,719 --> 03:16:18,719
and we've seen it from Matt.
But Matt is really kind of unraveling here.

2180
03:16:20,280 --> 03:16:26,840
Not except that the physical understanding of
the universe was suspended for an individual

2181
03:16:28,000 --> 03:16:31,959
based only on testimonial accounts. It
is unreasonable, Matt. You don't have

2182
03:16:31,040 --> 03:16:37,280
an account for the physical understanding of
the universe. And I drilled this home

2183
03:16:37,360 --> 03:16:39,760
in our debate about ten times in
a row, where I kept asking you

2184
03:16:39,959 --> 03:16:46,040
for an account for the principle of
induction, which underlies science and your supposed

2185
03:16:46,520 --> 03:16:50,159
naturalistic understanding of the universe. Right, so you think that there's a scientific

2186
03:16:50,600 --> 03:16:56,040
materialist account for the universe which rests
upon the principle of induction. I said,

2187
03:16:56,200 --> 03:16:58,920
can you please give an account for
the principle of induction? You didn't

2188
03:16:58,920 --> 03:17:01,879
know what that was or how to
do that, and you said there is

2189
03:17:01,920 --> 03:17:03,600
no account for it. So,
actually, Matt, it's you that is

2190
03:17:03,680 --> 03:17:07,840
the dogmatist and the arbitrary person here. Well, that is how you get

2191
03:17:07,920 --> 03:17:11,719
conned, is how magicians us no, I didn't. But it's my time,

2192
03:17:11,879 --> 03:17:16,000
isn't it. If you want to
pontificate, go ahead. I did,

2193
03:17:16,319 --> 03:17:20,280
and now I'm done. Why is
the acting like this? I mean,

2194
03:17:20,520 --> 03:17:26,120
this guy like can't debate right,
like he when he does this,

2195
03:17:26,799 --> 03:17:30,680
he shows that it's and it's not
because you can't get heated in a debate.

2196
03:17:31,120 --> 03:17:35,239
It's not like if you get heated, oh you're losing because you get

2197
03:17:35,360 --> 03:17:37,760
no debates get heated. They get
you know, they're passionate. They you

2198
03:17:37,840 --> 03:17:45,879
know that that's part of debate,
right, and so there's nothing like it's

2199
03:17:46,000 --> 03:17:48,639
talksic masculinity if you get here.
I mean, what did Matt Frad say?

2200
03:17:48,680 --> 03:17:52,239
You can interrupt, you can get
heated, you can you know,

2201
03:17:52,440 --> 03:17:54,399
be rude. But really, Matt
again, I thought I thought that I

2202
03:17:54,680 --> 03:17:58,959
was toxic for being that way in
a couple of debates, and here you

2203
03:17:58,040 --> 03:18:01,920
are saying you can do that.
They're getting heated. By the way,

2204
03:18:01,959 --> 03:18:09,200
where's Matt like getting hurt and telling
other Matt to leave? Right? Shouldn't

2205
03:18:09,239 --> 03:18:20,040
Matt Frid be telling Matt d to
leave because he's being toxic here? I

2206
03:18:20,120 --> 03:18:22,799
mean, I don't know if if
Matt thinks that that was some kind of

2207
03:18:22,879 --> 03:18:31,440
own like he's he's popping you know, like raisinets or like milk duds in

2208
03:18:31,520 --> 03:18:33,639
his mouth, like that was some
big self owned there. You should have

2209
03:18:35,079 --> 03:18:37,639
let me show you this, because
this is what he did was funny.

2210
03:18:37,680 --> 03:18:45,120
He's like popping milk duds in his
mouth after that kind of heated little band

2211
03:18:45,319 --> 03:18:50,440
there. Look at this. Watch
this accept that are an extraordinary, miraculous

2212
03:18:50,479 --> 03:18:54,319
event occurred based only on testimony,
and I am not. That's it.

2213
03:18:54,319 --> 03:19:01,120
That is the foundational difference between our
epistemology. I will not accept that the

2214
03:19:01,280 --> 03:19:07,760
physical understanding of the universe was suspended
for an individual based only on testimonial accounts.

2215
03:19:07,840 --> 03:19:11,639
It is unreasonable. That is how
you get conned. That is how

2216
03:19:11,719 --> 03:19:15,959
magicians question. No, I didn't. But it's my time, isn't it.

2217
03:19:16,079 --> 03:19:20,920
Yeah, Matt, it's your time
to do cross examination. Gibber does

2218
03:19:20,959 --> 03:19:24,280
he not know? I mean,
this guy doesn't even know what he's doing

2219
03:19:24,360 --> 03:19:28,120
in the debate to the extent of
what you do in debate, right like

2220
03:19:28,239 --> 03:19:35,200
you do opening statements and then you
cross examine. And Matt's just ranting about,

2221
03:19:35,760 --> 03:19:41,440
yeah I did, and now I'm
done. Watchn't pop up milk butt

2222
03:19:41,479 --> 03:19:48,719
in his mouth? Here, it's
like, I mean, dude, like,

2223
03:19:48,000 --> 03:19:54,760
did you think that was some kind
of own by ranting pontificating? So

2224
03:19:56,079 --> 03:20:01,840
you just wasted your cross examination with
with that? Yeah, good job,

2225
03:20:01,920 --> 03:20:07,639
dude, really good job. Okay, now I'm looking forward to this part,

2226
03:20:07,719 --> 03:20:11,280
and I think we'll get the super
chats right over this because the next

2227
03:20:11,319 --> 03:20:18,680
part Trent's gonna cross examine Matt and
the Wow. Right, Like, I'm

2228
03:20:18,159 --> 03:20:22,520
it was already kind of heated.
So I'm gonna bet that Matt's gonna get

2229
03:20:22,680 --> 03:20:28,079
pretty uncomfortable now. But Trent might
back off and not want to get into

2230
03:20:28,280 --> 03:20:31,159
agitated. I would I would go
full in. I'll be like, just

2231
03:20:31,280 --> 03:20:35,799
drill into that dude and pin him. Matt, how would you like to

2232
03:20:35,840 --> 03:20:39,079
proceed? All right? Let me
is a discussion time? But I just

2233
03:20:39,120 --> 03:20:48,280
try wait, just discussion time.
So two so opening statements and then cross

2234
03:20:48,440 --> 03:20:52,959
examinations and nothing else. I thought
you were doing a formal debate. Now

2235
03:20:54,000 --> 03:20:56,639
it's discussion time. Come on,
dude. This would have been perfect for

2236
03:20:56,920 --> 03:21:01,159
Trent to just nail him. Yeah. Well we'll move into twenty minutes of

2237
03:21:01,200 --> 03:21:03,920
discussion. I want to kind of
maybe kick it off by asking each of

2238
03:21:03,000 --> 03:21:07,000
you a question. Would that be
okay, Trent, do you think that

2239
03:21:07,520 --> 03:21:16,680
uniformity of the laws of nature provide
evidence against miracles? I think, well,

2240
03:21:16,719 --> 03:21:22,200
actually, no, the uniformity of
the laws of nature are necessary for

2241
03:21:24,200 --> 03:21:26,840
something to be a miracle. In
my opening statement, I gave the example

2242
03:21:26,879 --> 03:21:31,840
of a life jacket, like you
notice an orange life jacket because the water

2243
03:21:31,959 --> 03:21:37,680
around it is totally this is you
know, really it really would have been

2244
03:21:37,719 --> 03:21:43,559
so much better if they had done
another like rebuttal or cross examination, because

2245
03:21:43,559 --> 03:21:46,840
I mean he could have just like
bodied Matt right, like he could he

2246
03:21:46,920 --> 03:21:54,440
could have just like demolished this this
guber And I mean Matt is a you

2247
03:21:54,520 --> 03:21:58,159
know, kind of the king of
self owns, So I don't guess that's

2248
03:21:58,200 --> 03:22:05,719
absolutely nests area. But it looks
like in the description of the show they

2249
03:22:05,840 --> 03:22:11,120
go for open discussion, which I'm
going to skip past a lot of this

2250
03:22:11,959 --> 03:22:15,920
and I'm just going to go to
the closing statement. So let's see if

2251
03:22:16,000 --> 03:22:20,000
Trent kind of nails him in that, we'll listen to the question that's asked

2252
03:22:20,040 --> 03:22:24,360
to Matt, but then we may
have to skip copte different So if you

2253
03:22:24,479 --> 03:22:28,799
didn't have uniform laws of nature,
we wouldn't have any way The word miracle

2254
03:22:28,799 --> 03:22:33,079
actually comes from a Greek word that
means sign. So if God were to

2255
03:22:33,120 --> 03:22:37,319
make a sign of his intervention in
the world, it have to be different

2256
03:22:37,680 --> 03:22:41,159
from the natural world around us.
Otherwise we just say, oh, well,

2257
03:22:41,600 --> 03:22:45,120
that's like how everything goes. We
wouldn't we wouldn't notice it. So

2258
03:22:45,959 --> 03:22:50,159
I don't think that it's evidence against
it. I think rather that we have

2259
03:22:50,280 --> 03:22:52,799
to think, Okay, well,
I agree with Matt. We should try

2260
03:22:52,840 --> 03:22:54,879
to figure out how the world is. But the world is a strange place,

2261
03:22:56,360 --> 03:23:01,360
and so there are things that upset
the apple card it and this may

2262
03:23:01,479 --> 03:23:05,000
be one of them. And so
I say, is this an exception to

2263
03:23:05,079 --> 03:23:07,319
a general rule we have just like
we have discovered other exceptions. For example,

2264
03:23:07,559 --> 03:23:11,559
for fifteen hundred and I promised to
be done for fifteen hundred years.

2265
03:23:11,559 --> 03:23:15,120
In Europe, people thought swans were
always white. That was their uniform experience.

2266
03:23:15,559 --> 03:23:18,600
But then there was testimony in sixteen
ninety seven that black swans have been

2267
03:23:18,639 --> 03:23:20,879
found in Australia. But it wasn't
like, oh, we can't possibly believe

2268
03:23:20,920 --> 03:23:22,639
that. It's like, oh,
it might need a little bit more.

2269
03:23:24,159 --> 03:23:28,159
But if it's sincere reliable testimony that
actually shows the world's very different from what

2270
03:23:28,239 --> 03:23:28,959
we know, and I think the
same can be done for the resurrection.

2271
03:23:30,600 --> 03:23:33,120
Matt, why don't you respond to
that question? Then I'll ask you a

2272
03:23:33,239 --> 03:23:35,760
question and I have Trent respond and
then you guys can get into it is

2273
03:23:35,799 --> 03:23:39,319
just how you want to do it. Well, this is I just want

2274
03:23:39,360 --> 03:23:41,200
to ask each of you one question
and give you Tom both time to respond,

2275
03:23:41,200 --> 03:23:43,920
and then I'll let the two of
you go at it. So I

2276
03:23:43,040 --> 03:23:46,280
just wanted to give Matt a chance
to respond to you. There. So

2277
03:23:46,479 --> 03:23:50,040
yeah, Actually, I'm in agreement
with Trent. I the law and in

2278
03:23:50,200 --> 03:23:52,840
order for something to be considered a
miracle, it must violate the laws of

2279
03:23:52,920 --> 03:23:58,799
nature. There needs to be ordered. So, Matt, on what basis

2280
03:23:58,840 --> 03:24:03,040
do you believe that there are laws
of nature? As a supposed skeptic who

2281
03:24:03,280 --> 03:24:07,399
is now citing David Hume, I
mean, David Hume points out that you

2282
03:24:07,559 --> 03:24:11,680
can't justify belief in the laws of
nature because you don't have a justification for

2283
03:24:11,840 --> 03:24:18,879
induction, and you're trying to cite
David Hume, and now you're what not

2284
03:24:18,360 --> 03:24:22,639
following David Hume. I mean,
again, if you're going to say that

2285
03:24:22,719 --> 03:24:24,159
there are these things, you're going
to have to give an account for them,

2286
03:24:24,159 --> 03:24:30,319
because on Matt's own standard of justification, his own standard of what's rational

2287
03:24:30,399 --> 03:24:35,920
to believe, it's only believe things
that you have sufficient strong empirical evidence for.

2288
03:24:37,840 --> 03:24:41,000
But what is the empirical evidence for
a law of nature, a universal

2289
03:24:41,079 --> 03:24:45,840
state of affairs? Matt as an
empiricist, Oh, you don't have a

2290
03:24:45,920 --> 03:24:48,760
basis to believe that, And if
you read David Hume you would know that.

2291
03:24:48,120 --> 03:24:50,799
Or to recognize the thing that's different. That's not controversial at all.

2292
03:24:52,360 --> 03:24:56,360
I think it's absolutely hilarious though,
at all the people in chat who are

2293
03:24:56,479 --> 03:25:00,159
claiming that I'm angry and rude when
during my questioning time, I'm just trying

2294
03:25:00,200 --> 03:25:05,280
to get a question across. Uh
oh, Matt's butt her that the audience

2295
03:25:05,479 --> 03:25:09,799
is laughing at his emotional outburst where
he's obviously butt her. I mean,

2296
03:25:11,479 --> 03:25:15,559
yeah, Matt, you are losing, and I would say you pretty much

2297
03:25:15,639 --> 03:25:22,200
already lost. If Trent can really
kind of drill into the nonsense that you

2298
03:25:22,559 --> 03:25:26,440
you've been saying for the last hour. Funny, oh my message everywhere in

2299
03:25:26,479 --> 03:25:28,680
the chat. That's that, That's
just how it goes. Actually, I

2300
03:25:28,719 --> 03:25:31,319
mean I could drive that. I
wish I could drive. I wish I

2301
03:25:31,360 --> 03:25:33,760
could drive to Austin. I'm only
three hours away from you. We could

2302
03:25:33,760 --> 03:25:39,159
grab a beer or whatnot. It's
it's just folks. Once the quarantines over

2303
03:25:39,280 --> 03:25:43,079
do it, I will when this
quarantine's over, I'm up for my second

2304
03:25:43,159 --> 03:25:46,120
inoculation in like two weeks. I
think, what is this? Like,

2305
03:25:46,239 --> 03:25:50,760
what's this? This the sacrament of
the stabb's here? This is ridiculous.

2306
03:25:50,799 --> 03:25:56,120
They're like, uh, I mean, what's in these pints that Frad is

2307
03:25:56,200 --> 03:26:01,520
serving up? Is it like pints
of pure soul? I mean if you

2308
03:26:01,639 --> 03:26:05,680
look at the rotond appearance of aquinas, probably is right. I mean,

2309
03:26:05,920 --> 03:26:11,520
like, uh, you know,
I think I'll pass on the soy pints

2310
03:26:11,600 --> 03:26:20,719
with with Frad and and del Hunty, there we can do in the studio

2311
03:26:22,159 --> 03:26:26,319
atment. Well, I'm older,
so I'm older and diabetic, so I

2312
03:26:26,360 --> 03:26:28,719
got my appointment. All right,
here's a question for Matt. I'll let

2313
03:26:28,760 --> 03:26:33,159
you cringe, is right? Dude? What what are they even talking about?

2314
03:26:33,399 --> 03:26:39,479
Let's go get oh, I can't
have diabetes, like dude. Wilford

2315
03:26:39,520 --> 03:26:41,920
Brinley respond and then Trent you can
respond to him, and then I'll let

2316
03:26:41,920 --> 03:26:46,399
the two of you feel free to
have a conversation. How does Matt have

2317
03:26:46,479 --> 03:26:50,159
an audience? I literally don't,
like, they're just mean a giant horde

2318
03:26:50,239 --> 03:26:56,159
of like just the most low IQ
Internet people, like, how does this

2319
03:26:56,280 --> 03:27:05,440
guy still have followers after like dozens
of self owns that are mean material that

2320
03:27:05,520 --> 03:27:07,479
should be viral? I mean,
I just don't get it. Matt can

2321
03:27:07,639 --> 03:27:16,319
testimonial evidence alone make a belief reasonable
on his own note, But the testimonial

2322
03:27:16,399 --> 03:27:20,719
evidence is always viewed within the pool
of things we already understand. If you

2323
03:27:20,760 --> 03:27:24,680
say I got a new puppy last
night, that is reasonable for me to

2324
03:27:24,760 --> 03:27:28,879
accept because I know that puppies exist
and people get them for pets, and

2325
03:27:28,200 --> 03:27:33,600
there's nothing extraordinary that everything about that
your claim is consistent with what I already

2326
03:27:33,639 --> 03:27:37,200
know and understand to be true about
reality. Okay, So Matt, like,

2327
03:27:37,680 --> 03:27:46,079
dude, do you understand how many
times you've contradicted yourself? Because you

2328
03:27:46,280 --> 03:27:52,520
just asked if testimonial evidence was enough
to believe in a claim of Trent about

2329
03:27:52,559 --> 03:27:58,399
five minutes ago, and when Trent
said yes, you laughed. So,

2330
03:27:58,680 --> 03:28:03,360
Matt Frod just asked you basically the
same type of question and you said yes.

2331
03:28:05,000 --> 03:28:07,719
Because if somebody says they got a
puppy, it's reasonable to believe that.

2332
03:28:09,440 --> 03:28:15,239
So you do believe that it's reasonable
to believe in testimonial evidence alone.

2333
03:28:15,879 --> 03:28:20,639
But you laughed at Trent for saying
that it's reasonable to believe in testimonial evidence

2334
03:28:20,680 --> 03:28:24,600
alone. Dude, Matt, you're
a joke why experience and evidence, So

2335
03:28:24,760 --> 03:28:30,840
it's not you could view that as, oh, I'm your testimony alone is

2336
03:28:31,000 --> 03:28:33,959
enough, But that's a colloquial thing. That is us saying I will take

2337
03:28:33,959 --> 03:28:37,000
you at your word. But the
truth is when I say that, I'm

2338
03:28:37,040 --> 03:28:41,520
saying I will take you at your
word considering all the mountains of evidence I

2339
03:28:41,559 --> 03:28:45,879
have about how the universe already works. Yeah, but that's begging the question

2340
03:28:46,079 --> 03:28:50,959
because the debate is about resurrections and
whether they're reasonable, and you're basically saying

2341
03:28:50,079 --> 03:28:58,840
that I will only accept resurrections if
they're reasonable. And then when you say

2342
03:28:58,079 --> 03:29:05,920
what's reasonable is testimonial evidence, and
you say testimonial evidence plus physical evidence,

2343
03:29:07,639 --> 03:29:11,159
But there's no physical evidence of things
in the past, so it is reasonable

2344
03:29:11,280 --> 03:29:16,479
for testimonial evidence only in my criteria
what counts as evidence, which is physical

2345
03:29:16,520 --> 03:29:22,959
evidence. But Matt, you're just
you're just you just admitted that the very

2346
03:29:22,079 --> 03:29:26,360
thing that you called out Trent for
is something that you can accept for you

2347
03:29:26,559 --> 03:29:31,280
when it fits your presuppositions of what's
rational and reasonable. So it's it's a

2348
03:29:31,319 --> 03:29:37,159
circle here, right. So Matt
believes that resurrections can only be known or

2349
03:29:37,319 --> 03:29:43,920
proven through the very things that undercut
the possibility of anything from history being true.

2350
03:29:45,639 --> 03:29:52,000
Matt doesn't understand that his criteria are
undercutting the possibility of Matt knowing anything

2351
03:29:52,040 --> 03:29:58,920
about history. Trent, Okay,
Uh Yeah. What I would say is

2352
03:29:58,000 --> 03:30:03,559
that in the vast majority of cases, testimony is sufficient. MAT's got a

2353
03:30:03,639 --> 03:30:07,760
giant pizza hut glass, like like
he's got a pizza hut glass that he

2354
03:30:07,920 --> 03:30:13,159
what did he take to e from
pizza hut like full of like mountain dew

2355
03:30:13,360 --> 03:30:18,719
or like what's what is? What
is? I bet Matt is a doctor

2356
03:30:18,799 --> 03:30:24,200
Pepper kind of guy, right,
I mean, he's got a giant pizza

2357
03:30:24,280 --> 03:30:28,639
hut glass full of doctors. But
in some cases we we might need a

2358
03:30:28,719 --> 03:30:31,520
little bit more. So I think, for example, the resurrection, I

2359
03:30:31,559 --> 03:30:39,079
think we have very good testimony.
So we have we have testimony going back

2360
03:30:39,079 --> 03:30:43,520
to Saint Paul, who was an
eyewitness of the Original Disciples, so we

2361
03:30:43,680 --> 03:30:48,079
have good evidence to believe, and
even atheistic scholars, as I said,

2362
03:30:48,200 --> 03:30:52,079
like Paula. Fredericks and Richard Carrier
and on this would say that the original

2363
03:30:52,120 --> 03:30:56,399
disciples claim Jesus rose from the dead
and this was motivated by a genuine experience

2364
03:30:56,440 --> 03:31:01,040
that they sincerely thought this had happened. So yeah, I agree, Like

2365
03:31:01,079 --> 03:31:05,719
that testimonial is something one person's testimony
for the mundane. For something that's extra

2366
03:31:05,840 --> 03:31:09,000
mundane, I might need more testimony
if it's a group of people and they're

2367
03:31:09,079 --> 03:31:13,879
willing to suffer costly punishment for a
firm. Yeah. This is where all

2368
03:31:13,920 --> 03:31:18,280
of this evidentialist resurrection stuff is terrible, Like it just falls apart, Like

2369
03:31:20,280 --> 03:31:24,120
I mean, it's not it's a
non sequitor from the fact that the apostles

2370
03:31:24,600 --> 03:31:30,000
went from being scared to being willing
to die that the system of Christianity is

2371
03:31:30,040 --> 03:31:35,040
true, right, because it's that's
only a good argument if Christianity is true.

2372
03:31:35,120 --> 03:31:39,399
But that's what's in question. I
mean, aren't there countless people who

2373
03:31:39,479 --> 03:31:43,600
die for false religions? So the
fact that a person is willing to die

2374
03:31:43,680 --> 03:31:46,719
for the for the position has nothing
to do with its truth or falsity.

2375
03:31:46,840 --> 03:31:52,639
Ultimately, so, uh, this
is just piss poor, just terrible classical

2376
03:31:52,799 --> 03:31:56,639
evidentialist arguments that always fail and will
never convince the atheists because they're not challenging

2377
03:31:56,639 --> 03:32:01,719
its presuppositions. This belief, then, that starts to raise the likelihood the

2378
03:32:01,760 --> 03:32:07,040
belief is true most things we believe
about. Nearly everything we believe the world,

2379
03:32:07,079 --> 03:32:09,120
for example, is based on testimony. Like, yeah, this is

2380
03:32:09,159 --> 03:32:13,120
a great point, right, I
mean, Matt believes all kinds of things

2381
03:32:13,239 --> 03:32:16,680
merely on the basis of testimony.
And I even had one of my friends

2382
03:32:16,719 --> 03:32:20,399
a long time ago he called into
Matt's show back when he did the local

2383
03:32:20,479 --> 03:32:28,120
Austin show and ask Matt on what
basis he believes in all of his scientific

2384
03:32:28,239 --> 03:32:31,239
research that he claims to believe in. In other words, Matt, did

2385
03:32:31,280 --> 03:32:37,520
you go verify the papers independently and
all the scientists that write those papers?

2386
03:32:37,120 --> 03:32:39,920
Well, of course, Matt,
No, I haven't done that. Oh

2387
03:32:41,479 --> 03:32:48,079
so you believe on testimony of what's
reported about science papers and scientific peer reviewed

2388
03:32:48,120 --> 03:32:54,799
research studies that those are true,
but you haven't investigated any of those studies

2389
03:32:56,159 --> 03:33:01,799
empirically on your own. And Matt
was like no, and then he hung

2390
03:33:01,879 --> 03:33:05,760
up on the guy, because Matt
doesn't want to go in the areas where

2391
03:33:05,760 --> 03:33:09,639
he's trapped. In my opening statement, if you went on Matt's conclusion and

2392
03:33:09,719 --> 03:33:13,159
he even said it was not reasonable
to believe Jesus was crucified, you're going

2393
03:33:13,239 --> 03:33:18,440
to abandon ancient history and scholarship.
Yes, this is a great point.

2394
03:33:18,719 --> 03:33:22,040
That was what I was just saying. Everything Matt's saying, Matt doesn't even

2395
03:33:22,079 --> 03:33:26,920
realize is going to undercut all of
historical research. It's not reasonable. So

2396
03:33:26,159 --> 03:33:33,920
now all historical claims are unreasonable on
Matt's system. I said I wasn't convinced

2397
03:33:33,959 --> 03:33:37,360
it was reasonable. I didn't say
it was not reasonable. Yeah, it

2398
03:33:37,479 --> 03:33:45,760
doesn't matter Matt that you're not convinced, because that's a reporting of psychological states

2399
03:33:46,120 --> 03:33:48,399
and that's irrelevant to a debate and
not an argument. All right, we

2400
03:33:48,479 --> 03:33:52,840
have eighteen minutes. Trent should have
pressed him again on that, because Matt

2401
03:33:52,920 --> 03:33:56,440
just again made a serious no.
No, you guys have a conversation and

2402
03:33:56,639 --> 03:34:01,040
then we'll take thirty minutes of Q
and A after that. So if you're

2403
03:34:01,079 --> 03:34:03,120
in the livestream right now, just
this doesn't go anywhere. If if Trent

2404
03:34:03,200 --> 03:34:07,600
doesn't boiled out, drill down,
and just kind of just in the whole

2405
03:34:07,680 --> 03:34:09,959
Matt thing. Then what we're going
to move on to the super chats?

2406
03:34:09,000 --> 03:34:16,479
All right, well, how do
we do this without? I enjoy talking

2407
03:34:16,520 --> 03:34:20,000
with you at your fuck I do
too, And and that's gosh. I

2408
03:34:20,040 --> 03:34:22,399
wish people could understand that more than
just because you know there might be a

2409
03:34:22,479 --> 03:34:28,000
minute of rar doesn't mean that we're
you know, so you talked about all

2410
03:34:28,079 --> 03:34:31,559
Matt cares about as how he's perceived
by the audience who we're all just kind

2411
03:34:31,600 --> 03:34:35,159
of mocking him and making funny of
it. He's like, it's funny that

2412
03:34:35,239 --> 03:34:39,079
he's all but her and bothered by
this. Uh, and he's trying to

2413
03:34:39,239 --> 03:34:43,760
like dial it back and dial it
down because he realized he looks ridiculous having

2414
03:34:43,799 --> 03:34:46,280
more testimony. And I'm on record
as saying the plural of anecdote doesn't datus.

2415
03:34:46,479 --> 03:34:50,760
So it doesn't matter how many testimonials
you have, that alone is not

2416
03:34:50,959 --> 03:34:54,879
going to be enough. And unless
you hear that in the broader stream of

2417
03:34:54,920 --> 03:34:58,399
things and the way I've ex wait
a minute, Matt, So now it

2418
03:34:58,520 --> 03:35:05,680
doesn't matter how many people attest to
something you said at the very beginning of

2419
03:35:05,840 --> 03:35:13,879
your whole thing that it's reasonable to
believe whatever most people believe. How do

2420
03:35:15,040 --> 03:35:16,840
people follow this guy? Like?
This is like? What in this is

2421
03:35:16,920 --> 03:35:22,760
that? Like my mom? Okay, this dude is like a walking like

2422
03:35:24,120 --> 03:35:28,479
mean like just spits out like from
minute to minute. It's just like another

2423
03:35:28,559 --> 03:35:33,200
contradiction. I don't like doing this, but my mom is a fundamentalist Southern

2424
03:35:33,239 --> 03:35:35,360
Baptist Christian who believes. Oh well, if we're going to get in the

2425
03:35:35,399 --> 03:35:39,840
domain of uh like psychological motivations,
which you know, Matt seems to like

2426
03:35:39,920 --> 03:35:46,120
to play psychoanalysts and figure out the
motivations existentially why people believe things. Maybe

2427
03:35:46,200 --> 03:35:50,319
now we're beginning to see that Matt's
still an edgy seventeen year old rebelling against

2428
03:35:50,319 --> 03:35:54,920
his mom has seen demons. Okay, now, I'm happy to believe that

2429
03:35:56,079 --> 03:35:58,959
my mom thinks that she has seen
something, but that doesn't mean that I'm

2430
03:36:00,360 --> 03:36:03,479
I'm justified in accepting that what she's
actually that she's correct about what she's seen.

2431
03:36:05,120 --> 03:36:09,399
Same with people who are abducted by
aliens or claim custory people who claim

2432
03:36:09,440 --> 03:36:15,079
their abduct by So it sounds like
you're epistemology because if you noticed my opening,

2433
03:36:15,319 --> 03:36:18,360
here we go finally yes, try
go into his epistemology, which is

2434
03:36:18,440 --> 03:36:30,760
garbage. It's nonsense. Oops,
I hit the pause buttony man, I

2435
03:36:30,840 --> 03:36:48,159
didn't use like natural quick question?
Would you set through a free twelve minute

2436
03:36:48,239 --> 03:36:52,319
video if I promise to share how
I've helped stupid? Hold on, let

2437
03:36:52,360 --> 03:37:00,959
me get transformed. The mediocre lives
as a result of it. So the

2438
03:37:01,239 --> 03:37:07,000
screen is frozen, So hold on
a second. I think that the belief

2439
03:37:07,120 --> 03:37:11,799
is reasonable. For example, Matt
Matt is not convinced of Alex O'Connor's ethical

2440
03:37:11,920 --> 03:37:16,079
veganism, but I doubt Matt would
say Alex is unreasonable for being an ethical

2441
03:37:16,200 --> 03:37:22,120
vegan. Likewise, Matt's personal doubts
about the resurrection are irrelevant to whether belief

2442
03:37:22,159 --> 03:37:26,639
in the resurrection is reasonable. Instead, Matt has to defend an objective standard

2443
03:37:26,719 --> 03:37:31,959
for what makes beliefs reasonable or unreasonable. So let me offer three tests to

2444
03:37:31,000 --> 03:37:37,040
see all right? Reason? For
example, Matt Matt is not convinced of

2445
03:37:37,120 --> 03:37:43,200
Alex O'Connor's ethical veganism, but I
doubt Matt would say out, all right,

2446
03:37:43,479 --> 03:37:46,639
we're gonna have to go to the
super chest because my computer frozen out

2447
03:37:46,680 --> 03:37:54,479
there. I might be able to
pull it back up. We were just

2448
03:37:54,520 --> 03:37:58,840
getting to the good point. I
want to see if Trench I think that

2449
03:37:58,879 --> 03:38:03,159
the belief is reason goes after it. For example, Matt Matt is not

2450
03:38:03,280 --> 03:38:07,879
convinced to Alex O'Connor. Here you
are fifty eight. That's a wide spectrum

2451
03:38:07,959 --> 03:38:11,719
to go from, Hey, it's
unusual for somebody to win the lottery even

2452
03:38:11,719 --> 03:38:16,719
though it happens all the time.
About what she's seen. So give me

2453
03:38:16,840 --> 03:38:18,760
just one second, I'm gonna pull
it back up because the window kind of

2454
03:38:20,559 --> 03:38:35,200
collapsed there. Same with people who
are abducted by it? Can you guys

2455
03:38:35,200 --> 03:38:39,399
hear that? Is that kind of
the right or claims people who claim their

2456
03:38:39,440 --> 03:38:43,959
abduct by So it sounds like EU
epistemology because if you notice in my opening

2457
03:38:43,000 --> 03:38:50,200
statement, I didn't use like natural
supernatural, use unusual because like alien abduction,

2458
03:38:50,280 --> 03:38:52,879
that's a natural occurrence. Well,
what's the difference between, Like,

2459
03:38:54,079 --> 03:38:58,399
there are plenty of things that are
unusual in my life, but usual and

2460
03:38:58,559 --> 03:39:03,639
unusual unusual is Like, that's a
wide spectrum to go from, Hey,

2461
03:39:03,680 --> 03:39:05,719
it's unusual for somebody to win the
lottery even though it happens all the time.

2462
03:39:09,760 --> 03:39:13,600
I guess, like, what do
alien abductions, resurrection claims. It

2463
03:39:13,719 --> 03:39:20,680
seems like what they have in common
is they're disputed h and it don't happen

2464
03:39:20,840 --> 03:39:24,520
very often. That seems to be
like just basically what they have in common.

2465
03:39:24,799 --> 03:39:28,959
So, like what would we use
to determine, Like, like,

2466
03:39:28,319 --> 03:39:33,920
when would it be reasonable for someone
to think they had an encounter with an

2467
03:39:33,959 --> 03:39:39,159
extra terrestrial being? I guess I
don't. I don't know what it would

2468
03:39:39,159 --> 03:39:43,079
take. See, here's the thing. We're talking about two different things.

2469
03:39:43,079 --> 03:39:45,159
I don't know what what would it
take for you? Like if I had

2470
03:39:45,200 --> 03:39:50,200
an experience that I was convinced was
being abducted by aliens, that is independent

2471
03:39:50,360 --> 03:39:54,879
from what it would take for you
to believe that I actually was abducted by

2472
03:39:54,920 --> 03:40:01,200
aliens. Okay, what if you
you told told me you had been abducted

2473
03:40:01,200 --> 03:40:05,079
by aliens and you called me,
and like I talked to you at nine

2474
03:40:05,079 --> 03:40:09,799
o'clock at night and you're in Texas, and then you call me at three

2475
03:40:09,840 --> 03:40:11,600
am and you said I was abducted
by aliens and they dropped me off in

2476
03:40:11,680 --> 03:40:18,479
Tokyo, And like, hang on, you just invented something that has potential

2477
03:40:18,559 --> 03:40:26,040
physical evidence that's completely different. You
added something to the story. Well,

2478
03:40:26,280 --> 03:40:28,680
I'd be adding more testimony, Like
there'd be people who would say, like

2479
03:40:28,719 --> 03:40:31,200
I saw You're Japanese fans be like
I saw Matt del hunting in Tokyo.

2480
03:40:31,399 --> 03:40:35,680
And you know it's not just oh
I saw Matt in Tokyo. We could

2481
03:40:35,760 --> 03:40:39,879
prove that I was in Tokyo.
Okay. So this whole debate is over

2482
03:40:41,040 --> 03:40:45,799
the nature of evidence and proofs ultimately, So that's where they're just kind of

2483
03:40:45,840 --> 03:40:50,639
going in circles, and that if
trend doesn't really get to a point here,

2484
03:40:50,719 --> 03:40:56,280
we're gonna have to call it a
night because sorry, two, I'm

2485
03:40:56,280 --> 03:40:58,399
having a lot of fun. I
mean, I'm still ready to go.

2486
03:40:58,479 --> 03:41:03,520
I'm still in energize and I will
be energized ready to go tomorrow lord willing.

2487
03:41:03,600 --> 03:41:09,440
But I'm gonna have to get some
sleep. And I don't think Matt's

2488
03:41:09,440 --> 03:41:13,559
going to recover from this very well. So if that, but if that,

2489
03:41:13,639 --> 03:41:15,520
hell, okay, let's just say
we have the physical evidence there,

2490
03:41:16,159 --> 03:41:24,079
would you then be allowed to go
through this reasoning process. I can't provide

2491
03:41:24,200 --> 03:41:28,559
explanation for how I got to Tokyo, so it must be an extra terrestrial

2492
03:41:28,639 --> 03:41:31,760
explanation. No, no, no, that's a fallacy. Well then how

2493
03:41:31,959 --> 03:41:37,079
would you would that circumstance with the
physical evidence convince you you'd been abducted.

2494
03:41:37,840 --> 03:41:41,639
No, it wouldn't. No.
If my position is I don't have an

2495
03:41:41,639 --> 03:41:45,520
explanation for how this happened, I
don't get to invent one, and I

2496
03:41:45,520 --> 03:41:48,799
don't get to claim it's aliens or
angels or gods or demons or anything.

2497
03:41:48,000 --> 03:41:50,840
If I don't have an explanation,
then I don't have an explanation. As

2498
03:41:50,920 --> 03:41:54,399
much as that sucks, that's the
truth. So even if like there was

2499
03:41:54,479 --> 03:42:00,479
like Independence Day spaceships over the earth, would that I mean, I'm picking

2500
03:42:00,520 --> 03:42:03,959
aliens as I'm just saying, this
isn't a natural, supernatural question. I'm

2501
03:42:03,959 --> 03:42:07,200
trying to figure out, Like you
say, we don't have sufficient evidence for

2502
03:42:07,239 --> 03:42:13,159
the resurrection. But if you can't
tell me what the sufficient evidence is like,

2503
03:42:13,280 --> 03:42:16,719
what would be sufficient evidence like?
If I guess here, I'll ask

2504
03:42:16,799 --> 03:42:20,719
this question and you can rip it
apart if you want. Is your position

2505
03:42:22,559 --> 03:42:26,639
that you have no idea what sufficient
evidence for the resurrection looks like, but

2506
03:42:26,799 --> 03:42:31,200
you're confident you haven't seen such evidence. Correct? In the same way that

2507
03:42:31,559 --> 03:42:35,479
this has asked me quite often about
you know, what would change your mind

2508
03:42:35,479 --> 03:42:39,000
about God and my answer. My
answer is I don't know what would change

2509
03:42:39,040 --> 03:42:41,399
my mind, because it would be
arrogant of me to presume that I have

2510
03:42:41,639 --> 03:42:46,360
the understanding of reality to be able
to tell the difference between a real God

2511
03:42:46,440 --> 03:42:50,600
and a fake God. Or this
is the feigned humility that they always try

2512
03:42:50,639 --> 03:42:52,799
to appeal to, like that their
position is the you know, measured,

2513
03:42:54,040 --> 03:42:56,120
you know, skeptical one. And
oh, I'm not arrogance, so I'm

2514
03:42:56,120 --> 03:43:01,280
not going to try to claim.
But Matt doesn't understand that the dogmatism that

2515
03:43:01,360 --> 03:43:09,920
he propounds actually assumes and makes all
kinds of metaphysical dogmatic claims and basically weighs

2516
03:43:09,280 --> 03:43:15,200
it, basically slants the evidence such
that there is no evidence that Matt would

2517
03:43:15,280 --> 03:43:18,840
accept. Is what this amounts to. And so Trent's inadvertently, i think,

2518
03:43:18,879 --> 03:43:22,559
getting to the point of presuppositionalism,
which is that the problem of the

2519
03:43:22,600 --> 03:43:28,079
atheist is not a lack of evidence, it's a bad will. And that's

2520
03:43:28,120 --> 03:43:33,479
what romans One says. Men aren't
lacking in facts and evidence. In fact,

2521
03:43:33,559 --> 03:43:39,040
they misinterpret the facts and evidence willfully. According to romans One, some

2522
03:43:39,239 --> 03:43:43,799
being this just powerful enough, or
a strong delusion, or an evil demon

2523
03:43:43,920 --> 03:43:48,200
or whatever else. But if there
is a God, that God absolutely knows

2524
03:43:48,239 --> 03:43:52,920
what would convince me and has not
provided that evidence yet. Okay, but

2525
03:43:54,000 --> 03:43:56,760
then here's my follow up question.
If you don't know what the sufficient evidence

2526
03:43:56,799 --> 03:44:01,239
looks like, you have no idea
what it looks like, how can you

2527
03:44:01,360 --> 03:44:05,520
be convinced you haven't seen it?
Because what if you've failed to recognize it?

2528
03:44:05,680 --> 03:44:07,840
And be like if I this is
actually a good point, right,

2529
03:44:07,959 --> 03:44:13,920
because Matt has not ever given a
consistent, coherent theory of evidences and proofs

2530
03:44:13,799 --> 03:44:18,319
and what is the sufficient evidence in
proof it's necessary? And yet he keeps

2531
03:44:18,360 --> 03:44:22,239
saying that there is no proof.
I haven't seen it, I can't find

2532
03:44:22,280 --> 03:44:24,520
it, we don't know it,
nobody knows. It's not possible, blah

2533
03:44:24,559 --> 03:44:28,079
blah blah blah blah, and Trent
just keeps asking him, Okay, but

2534
03:44:28,559 --> 03:44:35,079
that assumes that you have a criteria
of proof an evidence, and that you

2535
03:44:35,200 --> 03:44:39,040
know what is and isn't sufficient,
But you're saying that you can't presume to

2536
03:44:39,120 --> 03:44:43,000
have that. So Matt is literally
talking out of both sides of his mouth,

2537
03:44:43,239 --> 03:44:46,079
said I have no idea what a
hygrometer looks like, but I know

2538
03:44:46,239 --> 03:44:50,000
I haven't seen one. Seems like
you've left yourself open to you've missed it

2539
03:44:50,040 --> 03:44:52,959
because you don't know what it looks
like. I would never say if I

2540
03:44:54,040 --> 03:44:56,799
don't know what a hygrometer looks like, I would never say I know that

2541
03:44:56,879 --> 03:45:01,479
I haven't seen one. Okay,
could they say that I haven't seen something?

2542
03:45:01,520 --> 03:45:05,079
I don't know what I'm saying?
Is that so? And all the

2543
03:45:05,120 --> 03:45:09,760
opportunities for somebody to prevent sufficient evidence
what they have presented are full fallacies and

2544
03:45:09,879 --> 03:45:13,479
testimony. There's no physical evidence.
There's nothing that would rise to the level

2545
03:45:13,479 --> 03:45:20,600
of being admissible in a courtroom.
Uh, Matt, Actually testimonies are admissible

2546
03:45:20,600 --> 03:45:24,520
in courtrooms, which you said you
don't accept. I mean, does Matt

2547
03:45:24,639 --> 03:45:35,799
not know that like courtrooms use testimonies
of witnesses. Okay, well, at

2548
03:45:35,879 --> 03:45:41,319
least in a courtroom. And I've
heard you make this analogy before, and

2549
03:45:41,440 --> 03:45:46,319
I think it's problematic for claims related
to history because a courtroom is not actually

2550
03:45:46,639 --> 03:45:52,040
ordered towards a courtroom is not ordered
towards finding the truth. There are biases

2551
03:45:52,079 --> 03:45:56,319
in the courtroom to prevent the punishment
of the innocent right, So you know,

2552
03:45:56,799 --> 03:46:01,879
so I mean, like, I'm
sorry, go ahead, I mean,

2553
03:46:01,239 --> 03:46:05,200
well, like we don't do.
We can't try somebody twice, even

2554
03:46:05,200 --> 03:46:09,959
if we get new evidence like it's
it's slated so that we'd rather let and

2555
03:46:11,120 --> 03:46:13,360
it's you know, a guilty person
go free. It's not just about finding

2556
03:46:13,440 --> 03:46:16,799
truth. It seems like I'm just
I'm wary of those kinds of analogies.

2557
03:46:16,840 --> 03:46:18,959
I think we should say, well, what does the evidence point to this

2558
03:46:20,440 --> 03:46:24,840
pass and for me good? That's
the foundation of my epistemology, which is

2559
03:46:24,879 --> 03:46:28,479
what I pointed out in the opening. This is this whole notion about the

2560
03:46:28,520 --> 03:46:31,879
bias in the courtroom to avoid punishing
the innocent is exactly the same thing.

2561
03:46:33,040 --> 03:46:39,559
Is I have a bias in my
epistemology to avoid being conned. Oh you

2562
03:46:39,719 --> 03:46:43,879
see, Matt, exactly, thank
you. So now we get MAT's epistemology,

2563
03:46:45,520 --> 03:46:50,040
which he couches as a way to
avoid being conned, but which he

2564
03:46:50,120 --> 03:46:58,520
doesn't realize is actually his own way
to wait and reject the evidence such that

2565
03:46:58,920 --> 03:47:05,719
nothing will count to convince Matt of
anything other than what he finds psychologically convincing.

2566
03:47:05,920 --> 03:47:13,559
So Matt is basically admitting that I
will determine the criteria of evidence and

2567
03:47:13,719 --> 03:47:18,520
what counts as evidence for me,
and nothing else can be evidence. And

2568
03:47:18,639 --> 03:47:22,040
so therefore, since God does not
meet the standard of evidence that I demand,

2569
03:47:22,520 --> 03:47:28,319
there is no God. There you
go. Matt doesn't even realize that

2570
03:47:28,520 --> 03:47:31,719
that's what he's done. So I
think we'll end it there, because I

2571
03:47:31,760 --> 03:47:37,159
mean, Matt really just isn't even
getting the point and duped into believing something

2572
03:47:37,200 --> 03:47:39,920
that isn't true. I want to
believe as many true things as possible and

2573
03:47:39,079 --> 03:47:41,639
as few false things as possible,
and you have to have both, okay,

2574
03:47:41,719 --> 03:47:46,559
But Matt, to talk about the
true and the false requires a criteria

2575
03:47:46,719 --> 03:47:54,479
of truthmaking, and it requires an
account of epistemology, and your empiricism and

2576
03:47:54,520 --> 03:47:58,959
skepticism by definition can do that,
but Matt can it cannot figure that out.

2577
03:47:58,079 --> 03:48:01,760
So let's move on to the superchats. We've gone for long enough,

2578
03:48:01,799 --> 03:48:07,000
and remember, everybody to subscribe to
Jasonalysis to support my work and to support

2579
03:48:07,520 --> 03:48:13,680
this endeavor. And you can also
get forty percent off in the chalk dot

2580
03:48:13,799 --> 03:48:20,120
com store of the supplements the neotropics
that are really really good stuff. I

2581
03:48:20,239 --> 03:48:24,479
highly recommend it. They work.
Try it for yourself just to see.

2582
03:48:24,680 --> 03:48:28,799
And let's get to these superchats.
So there was one from a couple days

2583
03:48:28,840 --> 03:48:37,000
ago that I missed. Victor Ziegler
five dollars. He says, I'm reading

2584
03:48:37,040 --> 03:48:39,719
your book. I absolutely love it. Dude, which one Part one or

2585
03:48:39,719 --> 03:48:41,280
two? Be sure and read part
two if you're only reading part one.

2586
03:48:41,559 --> 03:48:45,520
I was a bit hesitant, as
I'm not much into movies, but the

2587
03:48:45,559 --> 03:48:52,360
way that you entangle basically all the
aspects of the global oligarchy within the context

2588
03:48:52,479 --> 03:48:54,360
of movies is bread. Taking my
hands off to you, go bluss.

2589
03:48:54,399 --> 03:48:58,799
Hey, shout out to Victor Ziegler. You don't like movies, but you

2590
03:49:00,079 --> 03:49:03,040
you are named after the eyes white
shut gut. You're right, bro.

2591
03:49:05,479 --> 03:49:07,680
Joy for ten bucks, Glory to
God, Thank you of your work.

2592
03:49:07,760 --> 03:49:09,559
Jay, Well, thank you very
much. Joy. Much appreciated. Green

2593
03:49:09,600 --> 03:49:15,159
Feathers thirty five dollars. Hey,
awesome, Bro, much appreciated. I

2594
03:49:15,280 --> 03:49:18,120
got to watch your interview with Tristan. Excuse me, beautiful Tristanna. That

2595
03:49:18,399 --> 03:49:22,760
was a great interview. Who was
the dude that popped in trying to debate?

2596
03:49:22,879 --> 03:49:26,719
That was kind of weird. I
was. I thought you and Tristan

2597
03:49:26,719 --> 03:49:31,360
were doing an interview and then this
dude pops in, like with the low

2598
03:49:31,440 --> 03:49:35,120
tier relativism, and I was like, what's going on, but it was

2599
03:49:35,280 --> 03:49:39,959
entertaining, so I will share that
video. So thank you Green Feathers ELC.

2600
03:49:41,159 --> 03:49:43,920
Shout out to ELC from the discord. A big problem problem with the

2601
03:49:45,079 --> 03:49:50,440
arguments here is that Matt could theoretically
be converted to agree with everything that Trent

2602
03:49:50,559 --> 03:49:56,799
says and then go into perennialism.
Yeah, exactly, And if we're not

2603
03:49:56,920 --> 03:50:01,200
arguing for the Christian paradigm, then
the red direction doesn't stand as this it's

2604
03:50:01,280 --> 03:50:05,920
not some vacuum. It isn't it
wasn't an event that occurred in a vacuum.

2605
03:50:05,719 --> 03:50:09,840
The resurrection only makes sense with the
Trinity, It only makes sense with

2606
03:50:09,879 --> 03:50:15,959
the virgin birth and the rest of
the system. Jesus is just one of

2607
03:50:16,040 --> 03:50:20,000
the manifestations of God. If we
can separate and divorce the doctrine of the

2608
03:50:20,079 --> 03:50:24,879
resurrection from the rest of Christianity is
what Elc's great point is absolutely then made

2609
03:50:24,879 --> 03:50:26,559
by Jimbob twenty five dollars. What's
up? He says, I've been using

2610
03:50:28,440 --> 03:50:33,559
any argument against existence of God that
can be used against the existence of truth,

2611
03:50:33,319 --> 03:50:41,399
revealing that no one is without faith. Please critique. Let's see against

2612
03:50:41,399 --> 03:50:48,479
the existence of God would also be
applicable to So any argument that an atheist

2613
03:50:48,559 --> 03:50:56,920
says God doesn't exist because there's no
let's say, physical evidence, right,

2614
03:50:58,040 --> 03:51:03,200
maybe a Matt approach. Could I
take that and replace it with So,

2615
03:51:03,280 --> 03:51:09,799
what you're basically saying is that there's
no reason to believe in truth capital t

2616
03:51:09,959 --> 03:51:16,680
truth in an epistemic way or a
logical way or an objective way. Does

2617
03:51:16,799 --> 03:51:22,120
that work? I like where it's
going. I think that it's kind of

2618
03:51:22,200 --> 03:51:26,719
the Tag approach. I'd have to
sit and think if you could, if

2619
03:51:26,799 --> 03:51:31,959
you could interject truth into every atheist
argument, if it would still hold.

2620
03:51:35,840 --> 03:51:39,479
I tend to think it might,
but I'd have to think about that more

2621
03:51:39,719 --> 03:51:43,920
so. But really good question,
Jimba. I appreciate that volunteer. Three

2622
03:51:43,959 --> 03:51:50,000
dollars. If Matt claimed to be
an empiricist positivest epistemology, Wait, if

2623
03:51:50,079 --> 03:51:54,479
Matt claimed an empiricist positive epistemology,
which he does, and then started to

2624
03:51:54,600 --> 03:51:58,440
undermine Trent's entire metaphysical foundation, do
you think Trent would be sharp enough to

2625
03:51:58,479 --> 03:52:03,159
grassy action and respond, well,
well, I guess we will find out

2626
03:52:03,239 --> 03:52:09,479
tomorrow night, won't we exactly?
Hacksaw Jim Duganism five dollars Glory to the

2627
03:52:09,520 --> 03:52:13,079
Father's Son and the Holy Spirit aim
into that. Fly Daddy two three four.

2628
03:52:15,040 --> 03:52:20,479
Last week you mentioned father deconductor Antoniasis
epistemology lecture is a must watch.

2629
03:52:20,760 --> 03:52:24,719
Uh, it's the one that he
did on Orthodox Shahata, the one with

2630
03:52:24,879 --> 03:52:28,799
Lewis. You said, I looked
this up in five different ones came up

2631
03:52:28,879 --> 03:52:33,959
the one on Orthodox Shahata. Which
one are you referring to? That one?

2632
03:52:33,680 --> 03:52:39,559
So shout out to fly Daddy and
that's the one you're looking for.

2633
03:52:41,000 --> 03:52:50,399
Volunteer three dollars. What if an
atheist in the debate just outright denies justified

2634
03:52:50,440 --> 03:52:56,559
true beliefs and size steps these the
theists framework by claiming that he's a pragmatist

2635
03:52:56,600 --> 03:53:01,959
in epistemology as long as it works
in practice is justified. Well, the

2636
03:53:01,360 --> 03:53:07,479
pragmatism actually isn't a justification because kind
of bound up in the notion of pragmatism

2637
03:53:07,600 --> 03:53:11,920
is some idea of what it means
for something to work right. So in

2638
03:53:11,319 --> 03:53:18,159
that there's a kind of criteria of
value judgments that tell you this works better,

2639
03:53:18,280 --> 03:53:20,440
that works worse. We want to
do what works better. But those

2640
03:53:20,479 --> 03:53:26,399
are all things that don't fit with
pragmatism, right. Primatism is an a

2641
03:53:26,559 --> 03:53:31,520
metaphysical position. Typically it's a deontological
type of position. And yet it's relying

2642
03:53:31,600 --> 03:53:35,120
on these types of things. And
if we don't have to justify our claims,

2643
03:53:35,760 --> 03:53:41,280
then there's no good reasons to believe
in pragmatism, And pragmatism can't just

2644
03:53:41,319 --> 03:53:43,239
say well, we should really believe
in it because it works, because it's

2645
03:53:43,239 --> 03:53:50,559
begging the question works to do what
works for what right? Then it's going

2646
03:53:50,639 --> 03:53:56,440
beyond pragmatism. And if you don't
have to justify your claims, that's essentially

2647
03:53:56,920 --> 03:54:01,760
saying you don't have to give good
reasons for your beliefs. And if that's

2648
03:54:01,799 --> 03:54:09,760
the case, then there's no debate, there's no argumentation. Well, emmanual

2649
03:54:09,799 --> 03:54:18,000
five dollars is challenging beliefs and considering
alternative explanations. Relativism, no, relativism

2650
03:54:18,159 --> 03:54:26,399
is not posing theoretical dilemmas. Relativism
is adopting a position that there's no objective

2651
03:54:26,440 --> 03:54:31,239
truth. When I try to criticize
relativism, I get, you think you

2652
03:54:31,399 --> 03:54:33,760
have the truth. You are narrow
minded, yeah, But for them to

2653
03:54:33,840 --> 03:54:37,600
say you think you have the truth
is to make a truth claim. They're

2654
03:54:37,680 --> 03:54:43,600
being narrow minded. That's the response, Mary is the big dumb dumb ten

2655
03:54:43,680 --> 03:54:48,719
dollars. Hey, I took chalk
and I was actually able to understand some

2656
03:54:48,879 --> 03:54:52,680
of your words. Also, deadlifts
are better. Well, I was never

2657
03:54:52,760 --> 03:54:56,399
telling you to replace weightlifting with supplements. I mean, do both, Bro,

2658
03:54:58,479 --> 03:55:03,319
But thank you for that, dumb
Trent's gonna get counseled five since five

2659
03:55:03,399 --> 03:55:07,559
dollars. Thank you for everything that
you do, Jay, Could God be

2660
03:55:07,680 --> 03:55:11,200
with you tomorrow? Trent doesn't know
what's coming. Well, I think that

2661
03:55:11,280 --> 03:55:16,120
it's gonna be a good discussion.
Obviously I haven't. I haven't laid out

2662
03:55:16,719 --> 03:55:20,879
my hand tonight. So maybe some
of the topics that came up tonight will

2663
03:55:20,920 --> 03:55:24,000
come up tomorrow night. I don't
know. We'll have to see. But

2664
03:55:24,719 --> 03:55:28,079
no, I have a lot of
we have a lot of big guns we're

2665
03:55:28,079 --> 03:55:31,399
going to bring to the table tomorrow
night. So yeah, look forward to

2666
03:55:31,479 --> 03:55:35,799
that. Thank you for that.
Ken throw five dollars and he says nothing,

2667
03:55:37,120 --> 03:55:43,559
thank you doctor GE's treadmill. I
think doctor Gregor's treadmill technician. Thirty

2668
03:55:43,600 --> 03:55:46,920
dollars. I finally caught you live. Are you hyped up on chalk?

2669
03:55:46,079 --> 03:55:52,079
I'm always hyped up? So absolutely
Bro, so definitely go get you some.

2670
03:55:52,799 --> 03:55:56,399
I would like to thank you for
all of the great content. Well,

2671
03:55:56,440 --> 03:55:58,959
hey, thank you for supporting the
great content, and thank you,

2672
03:56:00,000 --> 03:56:05,799
thank you for that. Yes,
tomorrow night's debate is in the community tab,

2673
03:56:07,040 --> 03:56:11,120
so go over to my channel's community
tab. I'll put it in the

2674
03:56:11,120 --> 03:56:16,920
show description here too. It's over
on Intellectual Conservatism Channel by Suan Sona.

2675
03:56:16,239 --> 03:56:20,399
If you haven't seen Suan's debate with
UBI, those are great debates. I

2676
03:56:20,520 --> 03:56:26,920
highly recommend checking those out. And
we'll be doing that tomorrow at seven pm

2677
03:56:26,000 --> 03:56:31,280
Eastern, sixth Central. And yeah, hopefully it'll be a good thing,

2678
03:56:31,520 --> 03:56:37,280
and it's going to be formal too, so there won't be this like half

2679
03:56:37,319 --> 03:56:43,319
of a debate and then do whatever
which Matt Frad had them do. It's

2680
03:56:43,360 --> 03:56:50,360
going to be a consistently back and
forth formal exchange. But one thing I

2681
03:56:50,440 --> 03:56:54,520
do appreciate about Trent is that he's
civil and he doesn't get you know,

2682
03:56:54,600 --> 03:56:56,959
angry, he gets you know,
you can get heated, you can get

2683
03:56:58,000 --> 03:57:03,399
passionate. But I think is a
good debater and I don't anticipate him,

2684
03:57:03,520 --> 03:57:05,760
you know, saying anything stupid or
you know, it's not gonna I don't

2685
03:57:05,760 --> 03:57:11,479
think it's going to devolve into name
calling and being mean or anything like that.

2686
03:57:11,719 --> 03:57:15,360
I think it's going to be a
great discussion, and hopefully we can

2687
03:57:15,479 --> 03:57:22,280
convey both positions, you know,
at least such that he understands what I'm

2688
03:57:22,319 --> 03:57:26,040
saying. Even if he disagrees,
at least hopefully he'll understand it, and

2689
03:57:26,920 --> 03:57:33,200
I'll understand at least all of why
he believes natural theology is the case and

2690
03:57:33,280 --> 03:57:35,600
why it should be accepted. I
mean, I spent a lot of time

2691
03:57:37,239 --> 03:57:39,920
studying and reading that, you know, proponents of natural theology and the Roman

2692
03:57:39,959 --> 03:57:45,479
Catholic tradition, so I think I
know the reasons why. But we'll let

2693
03:57:45,559 --> 03:57:48,440
Trent give his reasons tomorrow. But
anyway, thank you guys and everybody,

2694
03:57:48,479 --> 03:57:48,920
have a good night, and look
forward to