They do the the the the the the the the the the the the the
the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the
the what's up, y'all? Welcome today. We're gonna have an open discussion.
I don't know if anybody's gonna join that I tagged or that I tried
to get the attention of. Of course, I did not expect David like
to join. That's okay. The offer still stands of David I would like
to debate. Of course, I'm more than happy to have that debate.
A lot of people were saying, well, what happened? What spurred this
on? I did a goofy stream last night, joking around. It was
a little edgy, I think for YouTube, so I moved it over to
Rockfinn. You can still go watch that as I recounted our events and things
that we were doing in Miami, and so we'll go back over here to
YouTube. Ascue me to Twitter, and David Ike said no, night,
No Night, constantly recurring maths and Gill Mattray confirm that we live in a
virtual reality simulation created by anything but God. Now you'll notice, if you
pay attention, that this actually contradicts the very next sentence. So he's laying
out his position that when I did this fourth hour of Alex Friday, that
the argument I laid out was just really looking at the structures that we find
in the natural world, you know, Fibonacci sequences in nature, the mathematical
proportionality, design, etc. That we find in the world. I wasn't
doing, strictly speaking, a design argument or what's called a teleological argument.
I was pointing out that there is design in the world, and that that
I think gives us the idea that mathematics is something more than just a human
social construct or an invention of the human mind. So I was making a
different argument. Although some people probably thought, oh, he's just making the
same old design argument, I was actually kind of making a what's called a
divine conceptualist type of argument, the idea that these entities, these mathemamadical principles
and structures, can't just be grounded in the human mind. They can't just
be humans so constructs because they transcend human social limits, social norms, social
construction, they are discovered and the best example of that is Mandelbrot sets.
Those were not invented by the human mind, but actually were discovered and could
only be really demonstrated and examined when we got computers that had enough processing power
to zoom in at really in depth lengths of zooming. And if you go
watch doctor Jason Lyles's presentation on Mandelbrot sets on YouTube, it's really good.
I highly recommend it. He explains a lot of this and explains that they're
not just abstract things in the mind, they are real principles and recurring patterns
in nature. And so I just kind of mentioned a few of these things
in the talk. It wasn't a high tier philosophical argument in the fourth hour.
It was just kind of laying out basic ideas of how I think mathematics
is one of the great ways to illustrate and given an analogy to things that
are not material, that are invariant, that they're not subject to change in
flux. They're discovered, they're not again creations of the human mind. Even
though the symbols that we use. They might be created, they might be
interchangeable. I could use the number in Arabic number seven, or I could
use the V and two i's the Roman numerals to signify the same concept.
So there's an interchangeability when it comes to the symbolic references. But the reference,
the thing that it's referring to, is specific and it's not located anywhere
in the physical world. In other words, you don't look under a tree
or in a microscope to find the number seven or the Mandelbrot sets that we
talk about, or the law of identity or the laws of logic. They're
the types of things that transcend physical limitations and reductionist moves. It's very easy
to demonstrate that. If you didn't watch my debate some years back with stuff
on malnu. The majority of that debate was on that topic. That's still
available. You can go find that if you want to watch that. I
apologize. There's a lot of allergies out here, allergens, pollen boys on
the attack. These trees be bitches, man, they becoming at me NonStop.
The grasses out there too, they're after me. So welcome everybody on
YouTube you with it, like and share. I do have the show call
in link, which is the Twitter status or nut status Twitter link that you
see right here. If you want to call in, use that Twitter link
right there, and you just kind of click into the space your request to
speak and I will bring you on. And now back to David Ike's quote,
what's kind of got this going? And I do have to do a
little bit of celebrating because I didn't expect this to occur this weekend. It's
my first thing to finally break a million views. So I guess if you're
a content creator, which the term is really annoying. I'm sick of it.
You know, it's a milestone to break one hundred thousand subscribers. We
did that a while back, and it's a milestone to break something that gets
a million views. We came really close last year with the in studio interview
with Lord Voldemort. We had a three hour spout Saturday broadcast and I think
we got eight hundred and fifty thousand on that, so but we couldn't get
over a million. So thank you to Alex and David Ike for actually breaking
the million barrier on a video. So between David's page and Alex's page it
surpassed million anyway. So David says in the first comment that the world does
have all these mathematical, geometrical principles, these abstract structures. The fabric of
reality has these mathematical patterns that seem to be there, but they're not anything
that we would think of as created by what you call a god. He's
saying. He think goes on to say, you're looking for a creator of
the matrix, then try the symbolism the Old Testament, the bloodthirsty tyrant that
we're supposed to believe is a God of love. Well, that would contradict
the earlier statement, which is that there's not a God, but there is
a God who created the matrix, but it's a blood thirsty tyrant, imprisoning
God. So the first statement is denying that this reality was created by anything
but a god, anything resembling quote God. But there is a God,
and it's the blood thirsty God or the Old Testament, and that's who created
the matrix that we inhabit, So that those are actually contradictory statements. But
what he's getting out here is, of course the view that we probably all
here know of as gnosticism, the idea that the Old Testament God is a
mean, angry deity, vengeful, prideful, arrogant, etcetera. And then
Jesus came as basically the New Testament ancient hippie, right, He's the hippie
of the ancient world who just came to He was like, you know,
talking a lot of peace and love me. You know. You know it's
if you have like a Boomer uncle that was in Vietnam, you know,
he's gonna be Boomer Garcia. He's going to be telling you about how well
you know, when I was in norm and uh, you know, we
I was on a vision quest. You know, I seen Jesus man,
I seen him, and he came to over the U the uh, he
came over to hill and and he was told me when I was on my
vision, quiz me. And it's all about peace and lover or whatever.
That's the idea that people have here in this world view of who Jesus is.
Now we go and read the actual text of the Old New Testament,
we find it to be very different from Boomer Garcia's conception of Jesus as ancient
world's the ancient world's hippie first hippie. We find, of course, and
we've done many talks on this. I'm not going to rehearse all those talks.
We find that Jesus in the Book of John many times says that he's
the God of the Old Testament, that he's the one that was at Mount
Sinai talking to Moses and giving the law. He's the one who was eternally
generated of his Father, the God of the Old Testament, God the Father.
He's the one who accompanied the Israelites into the Promised Land. He's the
one who appeared to Abraham and was with Abraham in Genesis twelve fifteen seventeen twenty
two. So very contrary to what's actually in the Bible, which David Ike
seems to be taking an issue with, because he does mention the Old Testament
and in the New Testament God of love. This is really the ancient view
of a figure named Marcion. Marcion is an early second century heretic who said
something very close to this, and he believed that the Old Testament God was
this wrathful, evil deity, and that corresponds to what Gnostics ended up calling
the Demiurge the Demiurge is this lower blind, sort of bumbling creator God who
imprisons beings in the physical flesh domain that we inhabit. And since the world
is kind of askew because it's a skance, because we got some people with
you know, eyes that go be going over here and the other eye be
going over there, you know what I'm saying. And we got some people
with a micro pen you know what I'm saying, a nub, so to
speak. And we got some people born with three tight eyes through Okay,
you know what I'm saying. That means that the Creator God was then thus
therefore a bumbling, old crotchety man who couldn't understand what he was doing.
I'm joking, but I'm not. But seriously, they actually will argue that
you got you know, slow boys. That has to be the bumbling joke
of a so called creator God. Now let's talk about what I think is
first of all, the main strength. I don't think the position ultimately has
strength, But let's talk about two. What are the two reasons that most
people think that there might be something to this gnostic Marcianite type of view.
I think the first and probably the strong thing they'll point to that draws people
in is theodysy. The odyssey is the idea that we have to give an
account for the existence of evil. How given the existence of God, or
a God, would we give an account for the rebellion against him that exists
in his creator order? And so the attempt to make sense of this is
called theodicy. And I think that the strength the relative strength. I don't
think that it's actually that coherent of a position, but the relative strength of
Gnoscissism is in their attempt to give an account for the existence of evil.
Now, their account is just simply that there's a lot of crappy things going
on, a lot of terrible things, things that I won't name since we're
on YouTube. You can imagine the types of things. Children have developed,
cancer and so forth, on on and even worse. Therefore, this whole
reality must be some sort of prison simulation, a deception, a cloak of
maya pulled over our senses to dupe us, to deceive us, a dream
reality, a simulation. Thus the popularity nowadays in our tech dominated world of
simulation and theory, which if you don't know, I'm sure many of you
do. But if you don't. This is very close to ancient Platonism or
Gnosticism. Now, before the super dorks jump in to tell me that Platinus
wrote against the Gnostics, I'm very well aware of that. I know the
difference between Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. The basics are still the same, though.
The real difference is the Gnostics tended. And by the way, there's a
zillion different Gnostics sects. So first of all, we had to get rid
of the idea that there's one Gnosticism that's this sort of ancient mystic tradition,
and then there's the evil, mean, persecuting Orthodoxy. That's not true.
If you read Ernaeus's Against Heresies, which is the earliest account that we have
of the many Gnostic sects of the first and second century up to one eight
eight, the first two or three inner pages details dozens and dozens and dozens
of these groups and their particular beliefs. There's the Carpocrationans, there's the Valentinians,
there's the Sethians, there's the Canites, there's the Ebionites. On no,
no, no, on many, many, many dozens of variations on
the ideas of quote Gnosticism or gnosis, the idea that the real way to
be saved is not through a public liturgical worship service and church and sacraments,
not through salvation by faith in Christ and living a Christian life, et cetera.
No salvation is a secret knowledge or gnosis. For example, I'm sure
everybody's heard of freemasonry. I'm not saying that freemasonry is identical to ancient gnosticism,
but it bears similarities, such as the idea that you could, in
masonry, for example, learn certain keywords, phrases, pastcodes, secret names
of God, jabulan blah blah blah, and that this would give you mystical
insight, allow you to climb some ladder of success and perhaps other initiates or
other groups in the afterlife. You're getting some sort of secret that would be
something akin to what we're talking about with ancient gnosticism, where you might be
initiated into a group, you might undergo various rituals, various ceremonies, and
then again they varied in the actual expression in all kinds of extremes. Some
of the gnostics, according to urin Ass, would be very ascetic. Their
approach so almost something like a brahmin or a yogi. Other Gnostics believe that
you should engage in all kinds of wild orgies and licentious parties. So a
much more Antiinomian approach, anti law approach to initiation, so to speak,
and all a manner of spectrum in between constitutes the ancient quote gnostic positions.
So there's not one gnosticism. That's one thing we have to get out of
the way. And so anybody today who is claiming to be a Gnostic is
not in any kind of historical lineage. That's one point we really want to
stress, because a lot of people want to give the impression that they have
this ancient mystic knowledge. For example, when Alistair Crowley, who was influenced
by a Gnostics, when he created a couple of his different cults and sex,
the most famous twentieth century Satanist, Crowley said that he wanted astic Catholic
Church to help draw people away from the existing public visible Catholic Church, and
so he invented a list of Gnostic saints. He came up with a kind
of pseudo Eucharist that was based around menstrual fluids and these kinds of things.
And this was really just kind of a halfway house to get you into the
more hardcore sex magic that he had going in some of his other groups and
cults. And again we see parallels with some of the ancient Gnostic groups who
operated in a Krollian type of way that they seem to work that way.
There's a really long discussion I think by Irnaeus have a guy named Marcus who
was a magician who seems to be very close to the kind of thing that
Croly was trying to set up. If I remember, I remember thinking that
that chapter was very very closely parallel to what you read about with Alistair Crowley,
and I remember the name of his sacked, but he just talks about
him as this guy named Marcus, I think, who had basically a ritual
magic, and he's classed amongst the many Gnostic groups anyway. So their key
argument, their draw is they think that the best account for this world and
for the problem of evil is to just simply say that the world is evil.
Metaphysical reality itself is what evil is. And so salvation is some form
of knowledge, some form of initiat initiatory knowledge which tells you that and then
the project of quote salvation becomes in some way leaving or escaping or transcending this
reality. And yes, you can see that there's obviously pretty close parallels with
Far Eastern religions as well, Buddhism, Hinduism, et cetera. And they
also have kind of similar ideologies. And some scholars and history historians of religion
will trace Gnostic influence from Far Eastern Brahmin type influence or something like this.
The Gnostic influence, by the way, does not go away after the second
century. They continue on in various groups and sects, and they have a
resurgence. If you don't know, we covered a gigantic historical scholarly treatise by
a famous English historian named Malcolm Lambert. He wrote a six to seven hundred
page book called Medieval Heresy that we did an entire lecture through a few years
ago, and in that text he detailed the resurgence of Gnosticism from the Bogamills
in the Middle Ages, and the Boga Mills brought what would become Catholicism.
The Cathari the most famous medieval Gnostic sect. The Kathari ended up being pretty
successful. They took several castles in France and set up a kind of rival
kingdom church, which again sounds a little odd because well, aren't they gnostic?
Why are they? Well, look, not everything has to be consistent
in these positions. Okay, So just because you're a person who thinks that
you have a mystical secret sect doesn't necessarily mean that you can't you start stacking
castles. And that's precisely what happened with the cathar Eye, and there were
a lot of medieval crackdowns on them, and they posed the most significant challenge
to the medieval Church in the West. Ironically, the Bogamills themselves, who
were the kind of lineage of the early Gnostics. They were coming from Bulgaria
to the West, and they brought their version of Gnosticism to the West,
and that became cathari or the perfect, the perfecti, those who are perfect
and beyond the need of the church, sacraments, etc. They had a
rival structure and just a bunch of damned castles and fortresses. I mean,
it's pretty wild. If you read Malcolm Lambert's book, I also have lecture
to that text if you don't want to sit and read a gigantic technical six
to seven hundred page Medieval Heresy Manual. You can go read my lecture,
you go listen to my lectures on my channel. I think I titled that
talk Medieval Heresy, so it should be easy to find anyway. So back
to David Ike's comment then, and then we're going to open it up here
in a minute. I'm going to give a few summarized critiques before we open
it up, so we know what position I'm coming from. And then again,
today's topics are somewhat specific. I'm going to open it up for discussing
the issue of simulation theory, gnosticism, platonism, neo platonism, the David
Ike perspective, if you can make part sounds with your hand and with your
undergarm, that is also welcomed. Because in some of the gnostic views,
they actually talk about this world being farted out out by the deity. So
you live in the fart world. This is the fart dimension, this is
the a bobo dimension, meaning that this dimension was an abortion abration. Those
are again actual Gnostic ideas about this reality, this existence. And let's see,
I oh, I had one other comment that I wanted to make about
the appeal of nostos So the first appeal is that for many people it's a
convincing theodicy or convincing account of the problem of evil. The second appeal is
that it often finds adherents amongst those who go down the conspiracy rabbit hole.
So people who are interested in questions of a philosophical nature, people who will
want to know, you know, what did Plato say? What did Aristol
say? I want to know what the examined life is, as Socrates discussed.
They begin to ask questions. Many times those people ask questions about politics,
geopolitics, who runs the world, what happened on the Big nine day?
The day of the Big nine event? We start asking those kinds of
questions. I asked those kinds of questions. I was an undergrad. I
was asking those kinds of questions taking philosophy classes. I want to know how
who's running the world, what's going on? What's the Is it the banking
elite? Is it the corporate elite? Is it the Democrats? Is it
the Republicans? Is it? The illuminate? Confirm And then for some people
the rabbit hole continues and you begin to think, well, maybe there's this
all pervading, all powerful group that runs it all, and where are they
taking their orders from. Well, then we're led to theories that will maybe
they're the puppet masters of the puppet masters, and who's the puppet masters of
those puppet masters, And then we're led to far Eastern views. You can
begin to see how we might branch over into that because we wait, a
minute, I've been lied to about the Democrats and the Republicans and conservatives and
liberals, and I've been lied to about coke and pepsi and the wars and
the foreign entanglements and the dollar and the based Fiat system, and maybe I've
been lied to about fundamental reality itself. Dude Guss or whatever man this kind
of stuff. And then we're into questioning the royal family. And maybe the
royal family are not from this Earth. Maybe they are from Middle Earth,
maybe they are from wherever. And then we think, well, maybe the
Shamans perhaps had it right. I'm gonna go do my vision quest in Peru
and the Brujos are gonna give me their bruhaha, and I'm gonna trip bowels
and I'm gonna see reality itself, said documentary GMT spirit molecul Right now our
Amazon wish list buying david iBooks has led us to Peru, and we're tripping
balls and we're hunched over in a fetal position looking into the essence of the
universe, and we see the lizards. I'm just being silly, and we
see the lizard nature reality. Man. Now for that type of person,
and I'm not joking, I mean this is a sizeable portion of the population.
Now, many people have gone into the domain of DMT acid trip by
Hiawathka Brew, hose, Shamanism, on on and on, and now they
think we have seen the true reality. Now, I don't deny that those
types of experiences and trips can be very intense, can be even spiritual,
can open up portals and so forth. I've had acid trips, I've had
bad trips, so I understand what it's like. There's also the possibility that
we should consider that perhaps those are also potentialities to delusion, that we can
open ourselves up to the potentiality to being deluded via those experiences, and that
we might think we're getting all of this download of esoteric, transcendental spirit world
wisdom, but maybe it's also deceptive. Maybe we're being told things via the
entities, via the gods. And you'll notice that we've done many videos where
we analyze the DMT trips and the people's experiences with the beings and the entities.
They just seem to parallel all of the ancient religious experiences that people have
in shamanic and pagan religious traditions. And lo and behold every idiot who goes
to Peru when he's twenty and has a trip and discovers the solves the world
and figures out we're all one man. That big revelation that he thinks is
so revolutionary just actually turns out to be every ancient pagan religion's basic idea that
we're all one monism. And so we find out, oh, actually,
these trips and revelations aren't that revelatory. They're pretty ancient, pretty standard,
And for those who go into studying philosophy and metaphysics and so forth, they're
actually pretty low tier, right, because it's not that difficult to figure out
and philosophically suss out that you can't say all reality is one. It doesn't
make any it's an absurdity, and it makes knowledge. And when I say
knowledge, I don't mean knowing a thing and or having a proposition in your
head, but giving an account for knowledge justified true belief. It makes it
impossible if all reality were one and the distinctions that we experience are all illusions.
And typically what happens is somebody's adopting a contradictory, irrational, illogical worldview.
Now you might think, yeah, but that's just the way it is,
dude. Reality just is fundamentally irrational. It's not logical, it's incoherent.
It's mystical. And I can bypass all your logics, all your facts
and your logics. I can bypass all that by my mystical shortcut. Ha
ha ha. I'm more enlightened. I went through the ego death. But
you're just an idiot. You're a fool. Why because you've adopted positions that
make knowing anything and giving an account of anything impossible. And I'll talk about
a couple of those, and then we're going to open it up. For
example, the laws of logic are not things that we just make up to
make things make sense their discoveries. For example, the law of identity is
so fundamental to the possibility of making sentences and predicating that if you deny the
law of identity, knowledge would no longer be possible. You could no longer
make sentences, because it to be able to say that this is that thing
and not that thing requires the law of identity. That means to predicate in
a sentence subject, verb, now, and et cetera. I need to
be able to have the law of identity. I also need the law of
non contradiction, that something can be that thing and not another thing, and
something can't be that thing and another thing. A is not equal to non
a, A equals a. You see how these things go together. They
kind of form the basis not just of nerdy logic stuff that professors are doing
in collegist they're the basis for how we speak. You couldn't have grammar if
you didn't have basic logic. They go together. So to say something,
for example, as absurd as all reality is one or all things are one,
will first of all, be to make a statement that you don't actually
even know that's true. That's called a universal statement. How do you know,
as a finite, singular individual, that all reality is one? Now,
perhaps it is, I don't think it is. Perhaps it is,
But how would you know that you're a finite individual. Ah, well,
you say I possess God consciousness. How are we supposed to believe or know
that you possess God consciousness? How? What is God consciousness? Anyway?
By the way, David Ike doesn't believe in God. God is God consciousness,
and he says things like consciousness having experience of itself in the here and
the now. Again, very generic, unclear, ambiguous phrases. What does
that even mean? Now, let's think of a couple other things that demonstrate
that this is not a possible position to hold. If all reality was essentially
something deceptive and illusory, my coming to know that or to believe that would
also be part of the veil of illusion and deception. So I couldn't even
know that all reality is illusory. If in fact, all reality is illusory,
I would be trapped in an inescapable illusion box that I could not get
out of, because anything I think or come to know as true is also
part of the big deception. You see. Now, that's the most basic,
simple critique of this kind of a position, and you can expand that
into critiquing the ideas of simulation theory. Well, to say that something or
with all reality is a quote. Simulation presupposes that there's a real reality,
a non simulated reality with which to contrast it. But you don't have any
experience of that, so you don't know that that exists. You have no
basis to think that there is the non simulation reality contrasted to and that stands
against and judges the simulated reality. Furthermore, how could you get to it?
How could you know it? If you're in this reality, you see,
you would have to leave it, go to it. Perhaps that's what
the person thinks when they do some sort of a drug experience, something like
that. Oh I did the DMT. I went to the realm of the
clockwork elves. The clockwork elves told me, Bro, what's up. We've
been waiting for you. Welcome to the real reality. Ha yo, we've
been waiting for your dog. By the way, you've been here for five
minutes. Get your ass out of here, back to the fake reality.
I mean, how would you know, first of all, that the clockwork
elves weren't just another part of the simulation. You couldn't you. There's no
way to know that. Now. More absurd than this, too, by
the way, is the idea that there's a simulation and that the evil God
created the simulation? Well, what is it? Now? You're just saying
that, do you do believe in God and creation? But it's a trap,
it's gnosticism. And what does that even mean? That there's an evil
God who created the fake simulation? Is he also a part of the simulation?
Is it simulators all the way up? That's an infinite regress that would
lead to absurdity. How do you know that there's a God that created the
simulation or a being or an angel or an entity or an alien or a
demiurge. What's the justification for that belief? Why ought we think that that's
true? Perhaps it is true? And this is what philosophy does. This
is what epistemology does. Pistemology says, what are the reasons for that belief?
And we'll say that maybe it's true, Maybe it is true that we
live in a gnostic simulation, but we need to know the good reasons for
that belief. And just saying that you had a DMT experience or that you
talk to a African shaman named Credo Mutwah, that's not a good enough basis
to know that worldview is true. That's why philosophy steps in to help us
have good arguments and good reasons for our beliefs, not just any old reasons
for our beliefs. Let me give another example. Most of us, i'm
sure, probably wash our hands after we go t T, after we go
potty. And if I were to ask you, why do you wash your
hands after you go T T after you go potty, and you were to
say, well, I've noticed that every time I wash my hands, bitcoin
goes up. So I wash my hands after going potty because it makes bitcoin
go up. That is a reason that you wash your hands. But it's
not a good reason for washing your hands. Do you see how that's a
bad reason for something that is a reasonable practice. So it's not just giving
any reasons for epistemic justification. It's giving good, coherent, logical reasons for
the belief that you have. So, if you're gonna bring to me a
gigantic metaphysical claim, a big, huge metaphysical narrative about all of reality,
such as the idea that we all inhabit a vast matrix computer simulation like the
Wakowskis movie trilogy, I need good reasons to believe that beyond just your personal
subjective drug experience of a Peruvian shaman or cradle mutwah or whoever. That's why
philosophy and worldviews come into this. Now a couple more points on the contrasting
world views, and then we'll open it up. Here is my little famous
whiteboard, white boy whiteboard. Here's a handful of five or six things that
characterizes the Nosta position, and then a handful of things in the same categories
that characterize the logos Christian perspective. So, if you think about gnosticism and
has the tendency to be morally an epistemically relativist, meaning that there's not a
coherent moral ethical stance in gnosticism because it's anti physical. It's an attempt to
transcend this reality. It really doesn't care anything about right and wrong. Many
gnostics love to tout love. We believe in love, might, love might,
Okay, what does that even mean? Croleyan love, skittles, love,
I mean, what does that even mean? There's no content to it.
It's just empty, ambiguous terminology, phrases, emotions, experiences. There's
not a coherent idea of actually what love is. And so both knowledge claims
and moral claims in gnosticism tend to be relativistic and subjectivist. Now, they
may not believe that all of their beliefs are relativistic. They might think that
it's objectively true that gnosticism is the case, it's the one true thing,
or the ultimate gnosis or whatever that we got attain to. But you're not
going to typically find a coherent objectivist account of why it's wrong to do bad
things, why it's wrong to hurt people or to steal from people. After
all, if this reality is merely a simulation, then it's no more ethically
a stain on my soul to take from someone or to delete them than it
is to delete them in a video game. It's not immoral to delete my
NPC characters in a video Well, then maybe it's not anymore immoral to delete
people. If reality is a simulation, why would that not follow. Secondly,
it is an ahistorical by necessity worldview. History is just part of the
trap, part of the prison, part of the simulation. And if that's
the case, then my history, my past, the world's history, the
world's past, my nation's history, none of those things matter. They have
no telos so gnosticism, because this world is a prison. Its only purpose
is to be a prison, and so beyond that it is purposeless. It's
a disteleological position, especially for this reality and for this world. So it
is ahistorical. It is against your tradition, your heritage, your family,
all of those things that we think are good things. And actually, oftentimes
David I even says this. He said things like, you're not your body,
you're not your family, you're not your history. Where we heard that
kind of stuff again, Gnostics say this. The star seeds say this when
we were playing The Hood Healer, right, the Hood Healer, the dude
that talks about a moon beaver. The moon is a beaver. Now the
moon is a beaver. You are a star seed. Your family is not
your family. You had got thrown into this reality. Same principle. Here,
my life, my time, my history, my past essentially become meaningless,
worthless, relative ezed and something I need to escape from. It's anti
philosophical in the sense that it doesn't it's not concerned with epistemology, ethics,
and metaphysics. It's an anti philosophic position that wants to run from logic,
deny logic, because things like laws of logic, things like then diagrams,
even things like mathematics, numbers, universals, those are all elements of the
prison structure. In the Gnostic world view, it'd be like a prisoner sitting
around being amazed at the prison bars and wow, the look at the I
don't know, elemental structure of the metals that make up the prison bar.
Who cares? You want to get out of there? And so gnosticism,
ironically, if it were consistent, and again, most of these people,
because they are illogical and irrational from the outset, they're not concerned with being
consistent. They will immediately adopt contradictory views and they don't have a problem saying
that. So this world is evil, this world is something to flee from,
it is something to ascend out of. It's a prison. Oh but
just love, might well go love love each other? Might Why isn't love
part of the simulation as well? On what basis do I say that it's
not? If it's not? In other words, if love isn't part of
the simulation and low vibrational frequencies are what we're in, how am I supposed
to know that that's the thing I need to get to maybe the lowest vibrational
frequency is the portal out of this dimension, right, You see what I'm
saying, Like it's just arbitrary, Like why don't I need to be the
most evil mofo to escape through the lowest vibrational frequency portal to get out of
there? You see what I'm saying. It's just absurd. It's all arbitrary
and at Hawk. And it's okay to be arbitrary at Hawk because it's a
position that is inherently anti philosophical and thus irrational. It is not concerned with
reasoning and rationality to be consistent. And by the way, I don't mean
by that rationalism. And if you talk to these people, they will always
say you're being a rationalist. Oh I thought you didn't like the Enlightenment.
Oh no, no, no. Reasoning and rationality are tools that men have.
They're necessary, good tools for operating in this world. Using your reason
is what builds bridges and builds ships and airplanes and all these things that we
use. There's nothing bad about reasoning and the use of rationality. Rationalism is
another thing which is a sort of worshiping of the reasoning process, and by
the way, you could argue that rationalism is also another type of gnostic enterprise,
because rationalists ultimately worship their own gnosis knowledge. Remember Paul says to Timothy,
beware of those who teach the gnosis falsely so called, the knowledge falsely
so called. So this leads to the last point here, which is that
this position, this worldview, is ultimately an incoherent worldview, and thus we
don't know if it's the case. There's no way to give an account for
justify the idea that all reality is a simulation. To know that all reality
is simulation, to know that there's something outside of the simulation, there's just
no basis or way to justify those assertions. In contrast to that, you
would note that our worldview is objective when it comes to knowledge claims and moral
claims. We believe that there is a pro history view. God is not
the opposite of the world, he's not the opposite of history. It has
both good and bad things happening, But ultimately we believe the history is moving
towards atilos, towards a purpose. And so every event in your life,
every day in your life, has meaning and has purpose. It's not something
to flee from. It's not a prison, it's not a trap. It's
something for you to use as a tool as well to better yourself. So
we're not trying to run from this reality and flee the world. And it's
we're prohistory, where pro tilos, pro purpose, pro intentionality, pro design,
we're pro philosophy because we think that life has meaning, life has value.
We should flourish, We should be able to figure out tools and reasoning
and logic in this world, the principles that help us to live better.
We believe that reality and rationality are good things, and that the world is
governed not by irrationality, evil and chaos, but by logos. That fundamental
reality at a universal level is coherent, it is rational, and that rationality,
that coherence, we would say, is not ultimately something impersonal, some
abstract force, but it's rather personal the divine person of the logos, and
thus our worldview, we would argue, is a coherent one. It doesn't
answer every problem, but no worldview can answer every problem, so that would
essentially be an impossible task. Right, Well, your worldview doesn't it solve
every single problem, so it's not true. Okay, Well, narcissism is
far worse. It solves no problems. It just says, yeah, everything
sucks, let's flee this dimension. Man, What does that solve? What
does that actually do? It doesn't do anything other than tell you to,
you know, meditate and leave this reality, do some yoga, bro,
you know, take some drugs, or perhaps as some of the new I'm
not saying that David I teaches this, but some of the New Age teachers,
like doesn't til Swan say that it's no big deal if you unlive.
I'm not saying she's telling people to do that. I'm saying that this is
a controversial teaching that some of the gnostic New ag types have, And I'm
just pointing out that there's nothing that prevents a person from going to that conclusion
in this worldview. Why not if this reality is a simulation, there's nothing
illogical about that. Now. I don't think you should do those things.
I think that would be kind of crazy. It would be evil. But
I don't understand the logic of the It's just kind of like some of the
existentialists to have the same move right, they didn't Camu or somebody say no.
Sartre said something like the ultimate act of the existentialist is to unlive oneself,
and I think that shows that existentialism is an evil philosophy. But I
don't see why in the same type of the world you couldn't like this.
If all this reality is a prison, I mean, there's no why would
there be a value to life? Right? Life would lose its value?
And again, life is just another simulation. I'm getting thirsty, so today
we're going to open it up. Please keep your questions, your comments,
your debates, your views to the topic. Okay, if you come on
talking about conspiracy stuff, unless it's related to David Ike and this worldview,
then I'm not interested. I don't care if you're a wine mom about your
poetry. I don't care about your rat bars. I don't care about any
of that crap except for the topics listed in giant bold letters at the top.
And invariably somebody will come in here, what are y'all talking about?
Y'all see this news story about the tree that burned down with the kittens in
it. No, no, by the way, that's five sence reality.
There was no tree with kittens that burned down, because that's not real,
bro, Because we in this simulation dogh what's up? Shout out to the
chat. We got a thousand live. It's nice to see all y'all ner
chad nerds up in the chat. We got a bunch of chad nerds in
the chat. Wh y'all doing. We're gonna open it up again. Please
please remember, keep your topics to the topic, stay on point. No
mate, oh mate, cheetah ori. You mine your request to speak,
I give you the microphone, you speak, and then we have the discussion.
Remember we are on YouTube. Keep your tomment, your comments and topics
relative to YouTube t O, s et cetera. If you don't, you're
just immediately gonna get blocked. Jacob reality, you have to unmute guys,
gotta umute yourself. Remember this, mh limit put my leby and glasses.
I don't limit. Put my leby and glasses on so I can read out.
What's up? Hey? Hey? I wanted to ask a question about
the cogito. I recently was talking to a sim theory proponent who had some
sort of Cartesian cogeth the defense, and I ran your your critique of Kogi
two on him. Everyhow, you know you couldn't have knowledge of the simulation,
because the means by which you came to the conclusion of that claim would
be part of the simulation, right, so he said, he said that
well, and we got into like the transcendent categories like logic and the self
and the external world. He said, those would only be those would only
be necessary for communicating the meaning of something like the self and the simulation.
So like, in other words, the self would be the only thing that
that's known, like the numana, and then everything else, including the other
transentals, would be the phenomenal. And then so he said that those transcendental
categories, with the exception of the self, are only necessary for communicating propositions,
not the meaning. I don't think he understand I don't think he understands
that can you mute? Man? It's a lot of echoing. So the
first thing that he that it doesn't sound like he can you mute? So
the first thing I don't think he understands is that he doesn't get to make
all those moves that he's making. Oh well, it just refers to this
thing and this thing and this thing and this thing. The critique of the
Cogitow is more radical than that. The critique is that you don't get a
self evident starting point of using language when you haven't justified language and meaning yet,
you don't get to say the cogito, as Kan says, without having
time as a thing that you presupposed because he says I think, therefore I
am thinking is an occurring? Occurring? Is a time determination? Well,
you haven't proven time yet. So people don't even understand what Descartes is trying
to do. Descartes is looking for he's the ultimate foundationalist. He thinks he's
finding the ultimate self evident truth. And all you have to do to refute
that is to point out that it's not self evident. There's nothing self evident
in that truth. And not only is it not self evident, it relies
on a host of things that Descartes has not proven yet. That's all that's
necessary to disprove Descartes and Cartesian philosophy, because if it's not self evident,
then descartes whole project was bankrupt. Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah,
sorry, there's a little bit of a delay that makes sense. Are
you Are you also saying that if his position were true, for the sake
of argument, he couldn't even how can he make the leap from the meaning
the wraw meaning to communicating it with propositions like he's making a leap without justifying.
I mean, so Descartes working before can you mute? There's a lot
of echoes. Descartes is working this out before linguistic philosophy has developed, so
he doesn't even realize that the sentences that he the sentence he writes out is
assuming that words and grammar and all these things exist and have me. So
in order to have the kogut, he has to have these other things be
the case. So I don't think people understand what descartes project was. And
if you understand what it is, if the project fails, it doesn't do
any good. It doesn't work. So you can't just say we will grant
me descartes starting point. How am I gonna grant you the starting point?
If there's why would I grant any starting point? Why grant me my starting
point? God exists? Do you see what I'm like? If they if
the goto fails, there's no granting it. It fails. It's it's not
a self evident truth. That's all. That's all that's required. That's it.
So that you don't even have to go into Okay, but what if
it is true? And then does he get to like make this move but
not this move, Like there's no moves. It's not true, it's not
a self evident truth, and so the whole project fails. And that's what
the whole project was about. I mean, father Deacon near there, would
you like to comment on that. You could probably say that better than me,
if you where you can speak, you might not be h. Does
that make sense, Jacob or not? For clearing that up for me,
I just got kind of tripped up on the whole meaning being. Uh he
was trying to like divorce the meaning itself from the proposition. Yeah, I
kind of tripped up. Well, but it wouldn't even matter if you could
do that, because Descartes is not that's you can't make that move because the
whole, the whole point of Descartes thing is to find the rock bottom most
self evident obvious thing that doesn't rely on something else. Oh well, it
turns out the sentence relies on a bunch of things he hasn't proven yet.
I'm also reading a paper two and I remember dealing with this in epistemology class.
It's called it's famous, it's called the Cartesian circularity. So one second,
just pop it up better to read it. In other words, he
he assumes exactly what he wants to prove. He assumes clear and distinct ideas
to get to God, to establish clear and distinct ideas. The Cartesian circle.
It's known as what would you say about this idea of the self evidence
of the proposition of the Kogito, Like, isn't it just if he if
he's relying on other things, then it's just not self evident, right,
yeah, exactly, And then I guess you'd also ask a question, too,
well, how do we know it's self evident? Yeah? Oh,
because I said so, that's what all these philosophers say. I mean,
that is the deception of deception and philosophy. Like when you're stuck and all
the arguments are against you, you know what you do, Well, it's
self evident, and somehow it's a magic spell on the world that they just
stopped thinking as soon as you say that word. Right, So remember the
project was yes it's correct, or our project is I'm going to eliminate skepticism
by doubting everything I can to find the rock bottom self evident truth that is
indubitable to use the Cartesian lingo. But the problem is that if it's not
a rock bottom solid thing, the project fails and it's not. And then
also you have to assume your methodology to even get to that exactly would have
to be indubitable. But it wasn't because it was admitted to be exactly that
doubt. So you have circularity there too, the whole projects of yeah,
it doesn't get you anywhere, and it's not self evident, so again there's
no, it doesn't. The philosophy student can't then say, well, just
grant me the Kochie tow and let me see if I can work from there.
Well, no, I'm not going to grant you that, because it's
it would be arbitrary. And if we're going to grant that, then we
have to grant everybody else's position, grant my position, the ones for something
I can't see the rest of the name. Am I good talk? Or
hey, well Jay, thanks for letting me letting me come on. Really
appreciate you letting me speak. I've actually spoken to a couple of people you've
spoken to before, Rachel and Matt. Matt, he spoke to him recently.
Anyways, I'm going through Manly P. Hall's Secret Teachings of all I'm
a Christian and uh, I'm starting to notice some contradictions and and it's working
into this conversation as well. Specifically, I've gotten to the to the subject
of Kabbala and I'm understanding Thatala it comes from her Meticism, which also is
uh, it's a found foundation of Platonism, which then goes into Gnoscissism itself.
And so my question it's around the concept of ainsoft would that itself be
an impersonal God? And does that? H does that mean that? Uh?
That like that Cobala itself is a is a pagan concept? Like at
what point does does it become? Yeah. So the foremost scholar of Modernbbolism
in Judaism is Gersham Sholom, and Sholom has several books that he's written where
he says that Kabbalism is essentially just gnosticism, So it pulls from Neoplatonism and
medieval repackagings of gnostic systems to try to create new systems. So correct,
it is absolutely just ancient gnosticism repackaged in Judaic sort of garb and Uh,
if I recall, I mean that's ainsolf is just sort of the the realm
of like potentia and non being. So so there's sort of the spheres and
the emanations. Uh, and then there's dayat, which is like darkness and
non being, and then there's you know, these different names that are given
for these categories or for these dimensions or whatever you want to call them.
Really, yeah, all this stuff is just borrowed from like Greek philosophy.
That's okay, okay, thank you very much. I really appreciate the time,
and I would love the opportunity to speak to you sometime formally on my
show if that's possible. I won't bother you anymore though, thank you very
much. I'm not bothered. Yeah, thank you. Yeah. And I
think you know, Manly P. Hall is not the most reliable of religious
scholars. He gets kind of lazy and sort of cribs together things in that
book Secret Teaching and basically just tries to present all the religions as saying the
same thing. They don't all say the same thing. He says Jesus is
an initiate of the Egyptian mysteries or something like that, which is just simply
not true. Guess gallup, what's up? Hello? Hey, oh hey
Jay, Hey, thanks thanks for your great work. Man. Listen,
I apologize that the answer is no, but would you consider kind of a
brief observation, man, a question about the presuppositions of AI relevant to the
topic today of narcissism kind of yeah, transhumanism and the relationship of mathematics to
reality. Well, I mean, we just did a whole like fourth hour
of The Lord Baltimore's Show with David Patrick Harry because he's writing his dissertation on
transhumanism and gnocissism. So that whole fourth hour, which has pinned on my
wall, is about that. So you know, we don't I don't think
we have to rehearse all that. But what was the second part? Uh?
I just had a comment and a kind of a question about the presuppositions
of AI from a kind of a you know, the perspective of narcissism and
transhumanism. But yeah, if you don't feel this on topic, then I'm
sorry. You know I'm saying. I'm not saying it's not on topic.
I'm saying that we just did a whole hour on that. So yeah,
that's what got my wheel turning. Yeah, I really appreciated that. Yeah,
I mean my my. So, you know, given the fact a
computer program is ultimately, you know, a representation and an interpretation of number
ultimately, and given that mathematical laws precede conception, kind of two things seem
to follow for me. And the first one is a claim that kind of
the active designing a program seems to culminate kind of in an active discovery,
not creation, you know, because you know, the programmer didn't create the
number that ultimately represents the program. And so then I had a question that
follows from that, which is that since you know, quote you know,
so called AI is also you know, just a program and thus just a
number, what could it possibly mean for a number to be intelligent? Yeah,
it doesn't make any sense. There would be a difference between you know,
consciousness and just existence. So you know, trees, rocks, they
exist. That doesn't mean that they're conscious or have you know, self knowledge.
They're not intentional beings, they just are. So consciousness has to be
some thing more than that. And I think that it's right to point out
that, as the famous paper from you know that's I think it's at Oxford
still Gardell Ascher, excuse me, mine's machines in Gardell. That paper argues
that, I mean, algorithms will never be conscious. It doesn't matter how
many more you know, how much more nerd code you put into the thing,
it doesn't suddenly become self conscious. Right, So I think you are
correct. You have to remember too, that the reason why that even possibly
even became a plausible position is because of other philosophical stuff going on in movements.
So you have behaviorism and this turned to materialism in the nineteen twentieth century.
That lead up to once that's kind of accepted, you know, in
academia. Then you get functionalism with Gilbert Ryle identity theories within functionalism, where
it just well what is it to remember what behaviorism does? And this bleeds
into functionalism for what is it to have a thought? Well, the behavior
is a total reductionists. They're totally reductionists. So for us, we know
that our thoughts are private. There's a kind of what it's like experience to
them that you know, I can put into like kind of objective language,
but you never have like complete access to what that's like. And so you
know, for the material scientists. That's you know, that's terrible, it's
it's mysterious. And so behaviorism came along and it was just as in law
logical behaviorism, Well, all it is to have a thought is dispositions to
behaviors, input and output. So if you have you know, we'll just
reduce this, like you said, Jake, to a causal explanation. What
is it to have the thought that it's raining? It's well, when I
have the stimulus come in, then I have a tendency or I do an
action or behavior where I close windows, carry umbrella outs, and that's all
there is to be a thought. So once you get kind of functionalism comes
in, it gives it like kind of a more robust philosophical kind of explanation
of how this could be possible. Then you get the whole Pandora's box of
AI. Well wait a minute, if mind is just realize ability in the
material, right, and it's all of that can be cast down in terms
of causal explanations and materialism. Then once you figure out the kind of function
or program, then it doesn't really matter what you instantiate that in. It
could be silicon chips, right, And then you get out on turning starts
asking us question you know of the turning test, like, well, what
would it take. Well, basically, if you fooled somebody into thinking it
smells like a what is it smells like a duck, quacks like a duck,
it's a duck. So the fact of the matter is that for these
people, it was all this prior philosophy and behaviorism and materialism that enabled them
to go, well, look, obviously, if it's acting intelligently, you
know, and doing this stuff, it is conscious. It is intelligence,
because that's all there is to There's nothing mysterious, right, It's just inputs
and outputs, like you said, and that that's Norbert Wiener and all the
people at MIT and their whole idea of the input outputs signal loop, feedback
loop from the seventies. Yeah. Anyways, I think it's important to realize
that they don't just come up with this. There's a whole history of philosophy
that enables them to actually make these steps and say these ridiculous things. Well,
and to the point of simulation theory too, it could usually turn into
the determinist fallacy, Right, why would we not be in a position like
Sam Harris. Where Wait a minute, if I'm part of a simulation,
a computer program, then I don't have why would I have free will?
Oh? I didn't even think about that. You know, I was making
that argument on Twitter that it's a defeater for knowledge right on other but I
didn't even think about I mean, I think it was a defeater of knowledge.
Well why would why would I think that I'm not part of the program?
Right, And that's I think the whole part of like, oh,
well, this is where the gnostic you know, initiation comes in, where
you get enlightened and you're you're the uber minche that it can exit the system.
Well, well, I mean it feels like I'm still here, so
like, well how do I exit? Right? Is that when I'm tripping
balls on DMT and I'm talking to the clockwork Elves with Terrence McKenna and they're
telling me, you know the world you just realized that was part of the
simulation. Yeah, Like and why wouldn't that be part? Yeah? How
do I know that? That's? Oh, that's the exiting of the suit.
So it ends up being in this sort of mystical irrationality that again doesn't
doesn't give us anything better than where we were before. Right, there's no
quick There's some people who were confused about this. Somebody have asked on Twitter,
why is why is a simulation theory at the theater for knowledge? So
if we just went back as you saw well, traditionally speaking and epistemology,
there's at least three conditions for knowledge, a truth condition, a belief condition,
and a justification condition. So what that means is, well, that
knowledge do you have to have a person who has a belief. That's a
belief condition. The belief has to be true, has to match reality correct.
But that's not because you could have lucky guess or you come up,
you know, to a true belief on accents, you knew the justification reason
a sufficient good reason to actually hold a belief. So my argument is that
we'll wait a minute. It certainly doesn't fulfill the truth condition because by definition,
the simulation's false, it's not real, so you never get to anything
true. Right. And then furthermore, suppose you could under an illusion,
and so if you even came to a true belief that you were in a
matrix, you know that it's a simulation. You came under it under the
influence of something of an illusion, which nobody in the right mind would say,
Well, that's a good reason to come to beliefs. Let's all put
ourself under the influence of illusions and falsehoods and will come to a correct belief.
Yeah. So that also includes, because it's reflexive, the belief that
it's all simulation. Right, So if it's a simulation, you have no
truth condition and you have no justification conditions, so you can't even get to
a true belief that's justified about that's all simulation. So it's it's self defeating.
Yeah, exactly, a great point, Harry. Remember to keep it
YouTube safe. You gotta unmute. Okay, you're not unmuting, so I
can't hear you. Joker Jedi, what's up? Hello? Yo? I
thought I would never be able to speak. You are able. We are
not able to hear you are able? Yeah, I don't need to say
it. Too much. Mental activity, too much rambling two hours, listening
to a lot of stuff. You mean an hour and twenty minutes, So
that's not two hours. It's a lot of mental activity. And yeah,
and what's on your mind? Yeah, what's on your mind? I don't
even know where to start, Okay, I pick somewhere. But what would
you would you like to talk about? I mean, the topics are listed,
so in those topics do you believe in God? Okay? I feel
like those dogmas and the views that you said makes a lot of sense.
Uh. And I understand your critique about people that you know go to places
to take ayauasca and e MT and those things, but those are substances that
they activate your brain and your body and your cells. Uh in a different
way if every body is purified. But most of people, especially in America,
they don't have a good health. They don't eat natural things, so
when they have the experiences, they are not exactly accessing a higher dimension.
They are first just you know, like expelling those that type of energy.
How do I don't have Maybe maybe your body is vomiting out the mushrooms because
your body has taken in a poison. Yeah, yeah, something something.
It's different, the mushrooms and the ayahuaska and different. I feel like different
substances. They they activate different parts of parts of your body. You know,
so science, so I don't need to explain it, because how in
your view would you know whether you're accessing a good spirit in the spirit realm
versus something negative. I feel like things like, you know, intrusive thoughts
or you know, like some psychic attack. People say, I feel it's
smart about energy. It's like, well, how would you know? Okay,
how would you know if it's a good energy or about energy? What's
the standard that tells you it's not about being good or bad energy? It's
about being dense energy or lighter? Okay? So why is the lighter better
than the dance? It's not it's not the dnse energy. They have a
purpose too. So is there is there good and evil? Or no,
there's no good and evil? No, they are just you know, cleaners.
No, is there good and evil at all at all? What?
Sorry? Is there good and evil at all? Or there's no good and
evil at all? Yeah, that's that's a philosophical question. I don't know
if we can Well it's a philosophical debate discussion. So uh, I feel
like more it's energy and the consequences of our actions. So are there good
are there good consequences and bad consequences? Yeah? Okay, So what's the
standard we're gonna beat? Yeah? But if you if you have if you
understand some things the way it works, you can like predict how it will
if it will be good or not good. But I'm asking you what's good
and what's bad? So you keep going in a circle, okay, And
your vision is that there isn't no I believe in good and evil. You
keep saying good, bad, good, bad. This that I want to
know what the standard is for good and bet hm, probably common sense?
So is that different for each person? So it's relative to each person.
Well, Well, if I punch you in the face, I think it's
common sense that I shouldn't do that. Yeah, But if you're trying to
steal from my wife or take her away and kidnap her and I punch you
in her face, that's good. Yeah. Okay, So so puning in
the face is not common sense necessarily good or that it depends it depends on
the environment. Yeah. So we're looking for standards though, and that's that's
the kind of the point of today's discussion is that there's not a standard in
this worldview. So I'm not trying to be mean to you, but we're
going to move on to the next topic. Next in line was Daniel,
what's up Daniel. You gotta hummute, m Daniel. Are you there?
All right? Daniel? You might have to come back out and come back
in Lucas. You gotta hummute? Is it me? Is it my turn?
Yeah? What's up? Jack? Hey? All right? Quick?
So yeah, I'm not here to the debate against anything. I'm kind of
curious here because I used to be Catholic til the age of twenty three.
Then I went the whole deest route. The biggest problem for me was the
problem of evil, and I ran into that whole. I read David Like's
book The Lion Sleeps No More some crazy It's like six hundred pages and all
that stuff. And so my thing is, it is the problem with you
when you go back to the Old Testament, you have you know, job
He basically makes a deal with Satan, a torture one of his most loyal
followers. I don't know why things like this, I think turn people away
from Christianity. And now I'm actually floating in a realm of like this Bernardo
castrip idea that there's a mind, and I'm still I talk to Andrew a
lot of times, and you know, we talk each other on telegram and
kind of go back and forth. So I'm always open to find out if
God is a person or is it just this subjective mind. But like when
it comes to this knowledge thing, but you know, as you and father,
I'm sorry, Anonius, what is I don't know the whole name.
So you're saying, basically your version of reality is God create that this.
I guess you can call it a simulation as well. Right, it would
kind of be like a testing ground for who's worthy to go back to God.
And in the Gnostic view, it's an abortion or a fart, which
would explain my life stinks. Maybe perhaps that maybe that makes it a good
Yeah, no, I think that's a correct contrasting of the two positions.
We would say this world is kind of a training ground for the attaining a
virtue to go to the next level or to the resurrection, right, And
so evil is necessary then in order for us to know what's good, it's
not necessary. It's something that occurred that was permitted, but not necessary because
you could still have multiple goods to choose from. For example, we think
in the Escaton and the resurrection there will still be multiple goods and free will,
but no evil. Right, So it's like going in a candy shop.
It's just all good candy. No, like candy would spikes in it
to kill you, right, no pain? Yeah, So then the agnostic
or whatever, because I've heard about Sophia, I look like I listened to
a few people. I watch your stuff a bunch of times. What I'm
interested. I didn't know you did you did DMT, right, you said
no, I did LSD probably five or six times back in when I was
like eighteen seventeen, eighteen years ago, and five minutes, like you said,
it lasted. I saw Vishnu and Shiva, two Hindu beings. But
when I asked to see God, I went to a room full of eyes.
Right, it was just eyeballs for eternity, and some dude drew the
same picture like literally never you're talking about Alex Gray's art. Yes, that
exact thing, Jake, So in your view, because I know Andrew would
tell me their demons, because that's what he says, like their demons.
Man, I'm like, all right, well maybe, but what the hell
did I see it? I mean, if God is consciousness, because here's
my here's my understanding. If you give God the characteristics of omnipotence, omnipresence
and all the other stuff. He has to be everywhere. So like my
view of God is almost like he is existence, and it kind of goes
with the Tao or like the one. And it seems to me that God,
you guys believe and maybe I know you guys, you're trin you believe
Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit of the Father and all that. And I
know it's not one plus one equals three or whatever. I know that.
I know, I've seen your videos. I study what you're saying. But
like you know, if this God is located in one place, then it
loses that omnip omnipresence, doesn't it. Well, we would say that's dialectics.
It's both and God is God can be incarnate in the person of Christ
and walking around in Jerusalem, and also via his divine nature be omnipresent.
So it's a both and and on either or. And I would say that
I had a bad LSD trip where I saw not a bunch of eyes,
but I saw a point of light that communicated with me for four hours or
so. I think it was something demonic. I do. I do think
that those types of drugs can open us up to the spiritual realm. And
I would say that in most cases, maybe not in every case. I
can't say but it for every case, But I say most cases, it's
typically something to mind it because the messages are given that are given are typically
not things that cultivate cultivate virtues, but rather they typically cultivate arrogance and pride
and vices. And that's typically how we would know to quote judge or discern
between the spirits, like what's it, what's the fruits of this? What's
it telling me to do? And I'm not saying in your case, I
don't know your experience, but most of the time, like the experience that
people have is stuff like oh, the you know, the clockwork elves told
me that we're all one and we need to, you know, stop eating
meat, and we need to you know, worship Mother Gaia and we need
to stop having babies and you know, save the planet and this kind of
bullshit. Well, well, the Shiva destroyed my body. Then I assumed
into Ganeshu the elephant head, which I never seen. Basically, the triangle
the universe has made a golden triangles. That's what it taught me, and
then God just was a bunch of room. I was a room full of
eyes. But another thing I wanted to talk about, what was it?
It was basically the the problem of evil. I think is probably the most
challenging for Christians, is it not? I mean, don't you think that
is the Yeah? It is right. So that's what I think. And
I'm trying to because I do feel as I try to go back and try
to discover what God is because I cover from a Catholic family. Like I
said, Roman Catholic. My grandfather would speak Latin, he wrote in Greek,
he would write to the Vatican, right. And when he was a
young boy at six years old, he was in Italy, said my mom,
she's done a dun in Jailah, which means mom, there's a woman
in the sky. And he explained what this woman looked like, and it
was literally Mother Mary in the black veil with the golden trim, which is
specific in that area of Italy, right, And it was very strange.
So my whole family has these kind of stories. And he was a super
true believer. But I fell away because I was in the Marine Corps.
I went to Iraq and I saw you know, in my experience, I'm
praying to God. I came back alive, my family, Jesus, I
had a rosary in my flack jacket. Others died even though they prayed.
So well, wait a minute, if God has a master plan, why
the help I praying at all? If this guy's going to praise up?
So these are the kind of questions and maybe the fathers that you guys study,
because I know Orthodox is different with Catholicism. I know that you guys
go deep. You don't believe hell is a flame, you're going to burn
the hell? You just your the presence of God makes you suffer, right,
that kind of thing, right, Jack, Right, So there's a
lot more in Orthodox Christianity, which perhaps I would have never left. My
thing is, of course, the miracles and the revelation. So anyway,
I went to this whole. I went to the whole Rupert's spirits, you
know, the non dualist thinkers, the Bernardo Castrups, the Alan Watts was
a big favorite of mine, you know, big influence, the sad guru
type people. I kind of like that won this thing. And when I
talk to Andrews, like, but yeah, bro, it's illogical. Here's
why it's illogical. But anyway, going back to the simulation theory, if
it is a simulation and you guys say you can't even know, it would
be basically you be guessing correctly. But how does that differ from your religion?
You see what I'm saying. Aren't you kind of hoping that your religion
is because I know none of you actually know for a fact that's true.
I'm not saying it's not. Well, one of the points of the transcendental
argument for God is that we're I know, yeah, I know you're familiar
with it. But I'm saying that one of the points is that it's not
just arguing that we're sort of making a leap of faith and that the God
thing makes this thing work. We're saying that the God principle, the metaphysics
of Christianity or the Christianity is really the only way to ground how to have
knowledge. So that's it's a specific logical, philosophical type of argument, and
the position of like simulation theory or something like that would make knowledge impossible.
So it's too too radically different arguments and claims about what's going on. So
simulation theory makes knowledge impossible. We're saying that the Christian position metaphysic grounds and
gives an account for knowledge in a philosophical sense. Does that make sense?
It does, yes, But you believe that's the case, right, What
if there could be another Well, we're saying it's demonstrable, not just a
belief that we have, but it's actually the strongest type of argument. But
didn't you ground that belief in another being? Prep? No, No,
there's another type of being. Wouldn't do the work? Yes, to do
the grounding, and it must be the trinitarian being that you guys believe.
It cannot be because I know, j You've argued Muslims and you know I've
seen you argue. What. Yeah, the metaphysics of a unitarian deity I
think ends up lacking. It makes it. For example, when you really
drill into Islam, it's an unknowable deity. So it doesn't actually do the
work right. So's in other words, the god of the universe or all
creation must have manifested itself at some point. Well, you must be personal
and knowable. And the problem is that in Islam, on the one hand,
they want to say Allah is knowable, but the rest of their theology
metaphysics in the way that they constantly attack the incarnation and God's imminence, for
example, makes knowing God impossible. So that's one angle I often hit the
Muslim critique from. But that addresses too kind of what you were saying earlier
about that existence itself might be God for us, we would say that's pantheism,
and we would say, yeah, we would say pantheism is another position
that makes knowledge unjustifiable and unknowable. Well, have you heard of Panandiism,
where it's like, Okay, there's a mind of God in the universe,
exists within it, and he's like dreaming us up. Essentially we're all like
alters. Well, I would say that divine conceptualism, which is kind of
what I was arguing at the beginning, is a little bit similar to that.
But I wouldn't say that it's God's dream or that the world isn't real
or anything like that. We would say that in the mind of God,
will you find the grounding ultimately for things like universal categories, mathematical principles,
universals, laws of logic, those could only be grounding and a being like
God with omniscience and so forth, and that he's personal and intentional. So
that's the argument what the difference is to. I mean, there's two things
that dreams somewhat unintentional