1 00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:03,520 Choirs that we have knowledge of the laws of physics and that the regularity in 2 00:00:03,600 --> 00:00:07,240 nature maintains. Right, if the regularity didn't maintain, we wouldn't be able 3 00:00:07,280 --> 00:00:12,679 to explain anything because it wouldn't maintain its identity over time. So if your 4 00:00:12,880 --> 00:00:17,719 premise one is a miracle based on your naturalistic view, is something that can't 5 00:00:17,719 --> 00:00:22,640 be explained definitionally by the laws of physics and the regularity of nature, which 6 00:00:22,679 --> 00:00:27,079 is the other way you explain things in reality. Right, I'm saying those 7 00:00:27,120 --> 00:00:34,200 things themselves can't get explained by those laws. They just exist, right, 8 00:00:34,280 --> 00:00:36,600 Honestly, to be honest with you, Jimbob, it sounds like a word 9 00:00:36,640 --> 00:00:40,039 game to try and convince people that I somehow accept a miracle when I don't. 10 00:00:40,439 --> 00:00:44,240 I just mile tail this case. We're talking about rising from the dead, 11 00:00:44,280 --> 00:00:47,960 We're talking about things logical consequence that we've read in ancient text, and 12 00:00:48,000 --> 00:00:51,280 here we are playing this game. Can you define the meaning of truth by 13 00:00:51,320 --> 00:00:55,159 the word truth and stuff like that? And I'm going like, I understand, 14 00:00:55,560 --> 00:00:58,520 I don't see a miracle in any of that, though I don't understand 15 00:00:58,600 --> 00:01:07,239 that truth and stuff like that. Yeah, there he goes, that's all 16 00:01:07,280 --> 00:01:10,319 that's all. I really want to run with you, Derek. I know 17 00:01:10,359 --> 00:01:12,799 you have to eat, but this is one guest who wanted to come on 18 00:01:12,879 --> 00:01:19,280 and ask a couple of questions. Jay Me, Oh yeah, am I 19 00:01:19,319 --> 00:01:23,359 the guests you're the guest. Now, Well, it seems like the argument 20 00:01:23,439 --> 00:01:26,959 rests on an assumption of the things that like that you already know what things 21 00:01:27,000 --> 00:01:33,439 are and are not possible. And I mean maybe it's right the the you 22 00:01:33,439 --> 00:01:34,959 know, the criterion that you've chosen. I think you appeal to things like 23 00:01:36,040 --> 00:01:38,120 scientists and stuff like that, But well, how do you know that you've 24 00:01:38,159 --> 00:01:42,920 chosen the right criteria for what is and is it possible? Like what what's 25 00:01:42,959 --> 00:01:47,519 the basis for that choice? You're talking to me? Yeah, I would 26 00:01:47,560 --> 00:01:52,920 just go with based on my observations and experiences and those of countless other critical 27 00:01:52,959 --> 00:01:59,359 scholars who evaluate this literature and recognizing that we're dealing with legendary materials. Just 28 00:01:59,480 --> 00:02:07,079 like Suetonius discusses the birth of Augustus through Apollo, several divine births and antiquity, 29 00:02:07,319 --> 00:02:12,159 but you have the miracle of Jesus birth and they look literarily very similar, 30 00:02:12,280 --> 00:02:15,479 I mean, very very close linguistically in flat in fact, Plutarch talks 31 00:02:15,520 --> 00:02:21,240 about the birth of Plato by a virgin, Plato's mother being a virgin, 32 00:02:21,560 --> 00:02:25,919 by the Numa and the Denimos, the power and the spirit. Plutarch's writing 33 00:02:27,159 --> 00:02:30,800 somewhat contemporaneous to the gospel literature. We're dealing with legend and so this is 34 00:02:30,840 --> 00:02:37,000 what I would say when I observe that material and I see legendary genre like 35 00:02:37,039 --> 00:02:39,840 a category today we would fit Batman or Superman or something in today's fiction. 36 00:02:40,479 --> 00:02:44,800 They would do something in antiquity similar to that. So when I look at 37 00:02:44,800 --> 00:02:49,120 that in a heuristic way, comparing the literature to other literature, I would 38 00:02:49,360 --> 00:02:53,319 across the board say they're all acting and looking, walking like a duck, 39 00:02:53,400 --> 00:02:55,159 talking like a duck, and they're a duck. That's why I would say, 40 00:02:55,199 --> 00:03:00,159 by that definition, though, the evolutionary account of the origin of human 41 00:03:00,199 --> 00:03:05,560 beings would also be mythological. Right, I don't I think we evolved, 42 00:03:05,560 --> 00:03:07,199 but you would disagree with me. No, But I'm saying, by your 43 00:03:07,240 --> 00:03:13,000 standard, that would also be mythology. Now, what would the evolutionary account 44 00:03:13,120 --> 00:03:16,759 of human beings and they're arising from the sea. I mean an aximander says 45 00:03:16,759 --> 00:03:21,800 that, and he gives a kind of a quasi mythological account. So is 46 00:03:21,840 --> 00:03:28,080 that is that counts mythology that we throw out or is that a solidarity as 47 00:03:28,080 --> 00:03:37,000 far as anaximander the evolutionary account that I just outlined, your criteria would cancel 48 00:03:37,080 --> 00:03:44,000 out his origins of human beings as mythology. Yeah, I would say that 49 00:03:44,240 --> 00:03:51,039 creation myths all across the board in antiquity are trying toologically Now, in other 50 00:03:51,080 --> 00:03:55,080 words, evolutionary origins fit your standard of mythology that should be tossed out. 51 00:03:55,319 --> 00:04:01,759 What about that where's the where's the ancient textbook describing fossil records and going into 52 00:04:01,759 --> 00:04:05,759 the science of these things the criteria? Well, then then you would say, 53 00:04:05,759 --> 00:04:10,319 there's also data, there's also archaeology, there's also right, there's several 54 00:04:10,400 --> 00:04:15,439 facts that map I asked for the criteria though about what cancels out myth versus 55 00:04:15,519 --> 00:04:18,439 fact, Well, that's why I said observable. I would look at the 56 00:04:18,519 --> 00:04:23,720 observations of what you did you observe any of that? No, And I 57 00:04:23,759 --> 00:04:28,839 didn't see Suetonius get talk about Augustus's birth. He might be the chosen one 58 00:04:28,839 --> 00:04:32,199 and Jesus is a false prophet. We don't know that they're trying to get 59 00:04:32,199 --> 00:04:35,759 there to say that he's appealing to authority, and the answer is obviously yes, 60 00:04:35,560 --> 00:04:39,560 yes, yeah, I mean, of course I'm gonna appeal to ask 61 00:04:39,600 --> 00:04:43,279 about an appealed to authority I'm talking about now, the criteria is observation. 62 00:04:43,839 --> 00:04:46,360 Observation. Well, I'm saying you can look at these texts and compare this 63 00:04:46,560 --> 00:04:51,480 material and see what there's several scholars out there that work in this to show 64 00:04:51,519 --> 00:04:58,199 we're dealing with literature. We're dealing with literature, literature. I'm an argument. 65 00:04:58,240 --> 00:05:00,879 I'm asking a pistemological question, though, is this which is not answered 66 00:05:00,879 --> 00:05:04,199 by just saying that we look at the literature and the scholars. Okay, 67 00:05:04,360 --> 00:05:08,519 well what do you want to know? So the criteria that you set up 68 00:05:08,600 --> 00:05:13,160 your epistemic criteria was on what basis? I'm asking you on what basis? 69 00:05:13,199 --> 00:05:15,519 And you said, it's the things that don't appear to be mythological based on 70 00:05:15,639 --> 00:05:19,480 various scholars. And then I said, well, by that standard, certain 71 00:05:19,519 --> 00:05:24,720 things that you do believe would also be mythology, like the Big Bang would 72 00:05:24,800 --> 00:05:27,439 count as that. I'm assuming you believe that. I don't know if you 73 00:05:27,519 --> 00:05:30,360 I think it's an outdated model. Now. But okay, well, I 74 00:05:30,360 --> 00:05:35,560 mean whatever origin myth you want doesn't match up to the standard of empirical verification. 75 00:05:36,839 --> 00:05:41,879 Okay, so you have an arbitrary standard if you need me to spell 76 00:05:41,879 --> 00:05:45,160 it out for you. Okay, and you don't, what's the justification for 77 00:05:45,199 --> 00:05:47,680 you? You don't, I'm asking you, do you No? I think 78 00:05:47,759 --> 00:05:50,720 if I believe in theism and I believe in divine revelation, I have a 79 00:05:50,759 --> 00:05:55,920 basis for epistemology and those kinds of standards. So I'm just trying to figure 80 00:05:55,920 --> 00:05:59,680 out what yours is right? Your argument for physical it would be based on 81 00:05:59,720 --> 00:06:04,319 phys observable, testable, and even observational things like literature. You already said 82 00:06:04,480 --> 00:06:11,120 that all of these origin theories that you believe go outside of your empirical evidence. 83 00:06:12,759 --> 00:06:15,759 What what do I believe that? Did you observe the origins of the 84 00:06:15,800 --> 00:06:17,720 human of Oh? No, no, no, that's where authority comes in. 85 00:06:17,759 --> 00:06:23,199 Like Neil brought up that I would rely on scholars and expert Scientif do 86 00:06:23,279 --> 00:06:27,560 you know you've chosen the right scholars? How do you know? You got 87 00:06:27,600 --> 00:06:31,000 to do research yourself and investigating yourself. That's the thing, Like you could 88 00:06:31,199 --> 00:06:36,600 not criteria therefore we didn't evolve, and therefore the criteria. You understand, 89 00:06:39,120 --> 00:06:42,759 Jay, when you chose the church to be your guiding more, you're guiding 90 00:06:42,959 --> 00:06:46,839 uh truth. You had to at some point decide that for yourself, and 91 00:06:46,120 --> 00:06:51,720 you had you had to make that judgment category mistake. You're confusing an existential 92 00:06:51,839 --> 00:06:57,079 choice with the criteria. Two different questions. Well, that's what you that's 93 00:06:57,079 --> 00:06:59,720 what you just said to him. You said he had to How does he 94 00:06:59,759 --> 00:07:01,600 know that these scientists are right? He really doesn't. He has to kind 95 00:07:01,639 --> 00:07:05,879 of appeal to authority. I can't make an argument. I'm not just appealing 96 00:07:05,959 --> 00:07:10,639 to an authority. Well, you can all make an arguments depending on what 97 00:07:10,639 --> 00:07:13,519 we're exactly we're talking about. At some point, why do you want to 98 00:07:14,600 --> 00:07:18,680 believe your epistemic criteria? But you're saying you don't appeal to authority. Yet, 99 00:07:18,839 --> 00:07:26,240 what I just asked, what the what reasons we should believe your epistemic 100 00:07:26,279 --> 00:07:30,879 criteria? I haven't even heard what the criteria is other than what I chose 101 00:07:30,920 --> 00:07:33,639 and what I chose from certain scholars. Well, how do you know where 102 00:07:33,680 --> 00:07:38,079 to cut off the true and the false scholars? That's a good question. 103 00:07:38,439 --> 00:07:41,480 That's why I investigate. Yeah, I might want to know that if I'm 104 00:07:41,480 --> 00:07:45,560 gonna that's but instead of swallowing the pill up front, believing in a book 105 00:07:46,120 --> 00:07:49,800 that several scholars have shown to be very very I say, there's a lot 106 00:07:49,800 --> 00:07:56,720 of contention, problems, issues, very man made looking and evolved over time, 107 00:07:56,879 --> 00:07:59,519 A circular argument that you'd use for the church. Yeah, I would, 108 00:07:59,519 --> 00:08:01,680 I would, I would investigate them, I would across the board. 109 00:08:01,720 --> 00:08:05,240 But instead of swallowing that pill up front, that's what I would do. 110 00:08:05,399 --> 00:08:09,319 Yeah, But I'm pointing out that you are you already have swallowed your own 111 00:08:09,399 --> 00:08:13,439 version of an arbitrary, miraculous, miraculous pill. So I believe in a 112 00:08:13,480 --> 00:08:16,920 miracle? Is that what you're saying? Many of them, you guys, 113 00:08:16,959 --> 00:08:20,680 convinced me that miracles are real tonight, I'm I hope the audience is as 114 00:08:20,680 --> 00:08:26,000 convinced as as I am. Is that the argument is pointing out to you 115 00:08:26,079 --> 00:08:31,759 that you have an arbitrary standard which allows you to choose what evidences you will 116 00:08:31,800 --> 00:08:35,320 and won't accept from the outset. You know when I got an arbitrary standard 117 00:08:35,399 --> 00:08:43,879 and you guys don't, how about that? Correct? Right? It is 118 00:08:43,919 --> 00:08:50,240 borrowing from other mythology to build its narratives that is floaded with legend contradictions and 119 00:08:50,360 --> 00:08:54,120 errors that aren't that aren't the case argument. Yeah, but that argument that 120 00:08:54,159 --> 00:08:58,159 you're making is based on the very thing that I asked you to justify, 121 00:08:58,200 --> 00:09:01,279 So you keep reaching aiding your position with that. I'm not going to do 122 00:09:01,320 --> 00:09:05,080 the research for you, brother, I'm not going to do all the I've 123 00:09:05,120 --> 00:09:07,159 done all the day. Actually, I have just watch myth vision for like 124 00:09:07,360 --> 00:09:11,600 ten years and you'll see at all. It's all there. But I'm not 125 00:09:11,600 --> 00:09:15,200 going to sit here and go in circles with this like I have truth and 126 00:09:15,240 --> 00:09:18,480 I have logic and you don't, and I have the actual epistemic with the 127 00:09:18,480 --> 00:09:20,960 Copper position. In other words, you don't want address the actual philosophical challenges 128 00:09:20,960 --> 00:09:24,039 to your systems. I'm not a philosopher. I'm really not going to play 129 00:09:24,039 --> 00:09:28,320 around with philosophy. But I'm not a philosopher, and I understand that you 130 00:09:28,399 --> 00:09:31,000 do that kind of stuff. So, but if you're going to make arguments, 131 00:09:31,039 --> 00:09:33,039 you're in the domain of philosophy. That's why I have Tallers on my 132 00:09:33,120 --> 00:09:37,080 channel, right, That's why I'm not there. You're not going to make 133 00:09:37,080 --> 00:09:39,720 the argument now for the audience you just want people to go to your channel, 134 00:09:39,759 --> 00:09:41,960 and you never really asked. Derek never really asked to get into the 135 00:09:43,000 --> 00:09:46,799 deep philosophical matter behind why he thinks we thinks. He never really asked that. 136 00:09:46,840 --> 00:09:48,759 It just kind of got through. So there's not good reasons to I 137 00:09:48,759 --> 00:09:52,240 mean, I like having these type of discussions, but I mean, Derek's 138 00:09:52,279 --> 00:09:54,759 is not the type of It seems like you guys are just throwing it on 139 00:09:54,879 --> 00:10:00,919 him. Yeah, it's got bullshit? Is it fit? Is it fair? 140 00:10:01,200 --> 00:10:05,240 Is it fair to say if you think you have good arguments against Christianity 141 00:10:05,360 --> 00:10:11,320 or any other religion, that that would necessarily be tied to some epistemic foundation 142 00:10:11,440 --> 00:10:13,840 that could be questioned. Is it valid to questions foundation? Okay, that's 143 00:10:13,840 --> 00:10:18,799 all that's happening. But what I'm saying is is it feels like a gotcha 144 00:10:18,919 --> 00:10:24,080 thing. And I've watched plenty of online back and forth between Christians and those 145 00:10:24,200 --> 00:10:28,600 like myself, and I honestly have a serious distaste for the presupt kind of 146 00:10:28,679 --> 00:10:33,559 approach of you don't have knowledge, you don't have, but we do, 147 00:10:33,759 --> 00:10:37,120 we have it, even though we're looking at an ancient book loaded with legend. 148 00:10:37,679 --> 00:10:41,159 I don't get it. Where wrong because you have a problem. That's 149 00:10:41,240 --> 00:10:46,320 my point. You're starting with the conclusion that you have the answer, that 150 00:10:46,360 --> 00:10:50,840 you're the right one, that you have the epistemic truth, that your positions 151 00:10:50,879 --> 00:10:54,679 correct to me. Prove that your positions correct to me, well, it 152 00:10:54,679 --> 00:10:58,480 would help to understand the form of that argument, right. Just prove to 153 00:10:58,519 --> 00:11:03,879 me that you have this the Rex standard, the correct epistemic foundation. Show 154 00:11:03,919 --> 00:11:07,840 me how you know that yours is true because of the impossibility of the country, 155 00:11:07,919 --> 00:11:11,519 because the other worldviews they mess up at a fundamental level when it comes 156 00:11:11,600 --> 00:11:16,000 to the basics of a worldview, epistemology, metaphysical How do you know that? 157 00:11:16,279 --> 00:11:20,679 How do you know that they've messed up? Because you can demonstrate it, 158 00:11:20,000 --> 00:11:22,840 Like as I'm arguing with you, when you don't give an account for 159 00:11:22,960 --> 00:11:26,960 your arbitrary starting point, we already know that. Give me your starting point. 160 00:11:26,960 --> 00:11:30,960 I've asked you for that evidence. Not right. I'm a hooless, 161 00:11:31,000 --> 00:11:33,720 an epistemic hooless, which means that I believe in an entire paradigm. There's 162 00:11:33,759 --> 00:11:39,679 no starting point that's neutral or arbitrary. It's the entire Christian worldview compared to 163 00:11:39,120 --> 00:11:43,759 the gnostic worldview. The atheist worldview, the humanist worldview. Those worldviews can't 164 00:11:43,799 --> 00:11:50,080 give an account for the basic principles and metaphysics and epistemology and ethics. Our 165 00:11:50,120 --> 00:11:52,600 worldview can give an account for how those things exist, and so therefore ours 166 00:11:52,639 --> 00:11:56,679 is the true one. So we would disagree right there. I mean, 167 00:11:56,759 --> 00:12:03,120 obviously all of that, all of these worldviews give you those exact epistemic solutions 168 00:12:03,159 --> 00:12:09,080 to the problems of the world. Creation then't for example, they do Mesopotamian's 169 00:12:09,120 --> 00:12:15,080 creation mythology is literally being lifted. You don't even understand what this argument is 170 00:12:15,200 --> 00:12:18,080 arguing. I'm not saying do they have a story? I'm talking about epistemic 171 00:12:18,200 --> 00:12:22,720 justification in a philosophical sense. It's a very specific claim of genesis. One 172 00:12:24,600 --> 00:12:30,480 has a philosophical statement in it about that doesn't matter to them because they know 173 00:12:30,519 --> 00:12:33,519 what we're talking about. It's not just does it have a claim. It's 174 00:12:33,559 --> 00:12:37,120 a very specific type of argument in terms of logic. This is about logical 175 00:12:37,240 --> 00:12:41,360 just God. This sounds like Darth Dawkins ship man. I'm not even kidding. 176 00:12:41,519 --> 00:12:45,240 This sounds literally doesn't matter. It sounds like, I mean, do 177 00:12:45,279 --> 00:12:50,879 you have jay this is this is It's the same old thing man, you 178 00:12:50,919 --> 00:12:52,440 don't have an answer to it. No, I am sure don't. I'm 179 00:12:52,480 --> 00:13:01,399 not getting lost in Derek saying. What Derek saying is this is no argument, 180 00:13:01,440 --> 00:13:05,639 which is a valid form. You're what Derek saying, this is philosophical 181 00:13:05,639 --> 00:13:09,679 boxing. Derek doesn't do the training you guys do. He doesn't really care. 182 00:13:09,720 --> 00:13:13,080 He's not he's not interested in and and then if he's not interested in 183 00:13:13,120 --> 00:13:18,519 the domain of logic, then he shouldn't try to debate these topics. Anyone 184 00:13:18,559 --> 00:13:26,159 coming in here, we're talking about hang on, hang on, hang on. 185 00:13:26,480 --> 00:13:28,879 To be fair, it turned into a debate. Let's not care kind 186 00:13:28,919 --> 00:13:35,159 of did, but you know, Joe, let's not care. Very permitted. 187 00:13:35,279 --> 00:13:39,080 We permitted the debate aspect of this conversation for sure. It's just not 188 00:13:39,240 --> 00:13:43,120 formal and it's not guided or anything. But Jay is uh, it's totally 189 00:13:43,279 --> 00:13:46,960 valid. And I would take the same approach to as soon as someone's making 190 00:13:46,960 --> 00:13:52,440 a claim about their view or what's possible what's not possible regarding any religion, 191 00:13:52,519 --> 00:13:56,919 any faith, any legend, any myth. You it's not like you saying, 192 00:13:56,159 --> 00:14:01,240 oh, you're pre supping me, You're pre supping all. So everybody's 193 00:14:01,279 --> 00:14:05,919 pre supping so if everybody's that they're all man made, yes, I agree, 194 00:14:05,919 --> 00:14:11,480 I'm prep that they aren't. If they're all man made, then what 195 00:14:11,519 --> 00:14:16,000 you just said is also man made, and then well amen to that, 196 00:14:16,039 --> 00:14:18,919 hallelujah. Then there's no truth and it's a contradiction. Right, so there's 197 00:14:18,919 --> 00:14:22,320 no truth. Well, you would be a relatives? Are we are? 198 00:14:22,320 --> 00:14:26,559 We? Are we ponscious pilot asking Jesus what truth is? Are we saying? 199 00:14:26,919 --> 00:14:30,639 I'm thinking what the most factual thing is based on observations? And if 200 00:14:30,679 --> 00:14:35,000 all world views are man made, is that also man made? I agree? 201 00:14:35,840 --> 00:14:41,039 That would be a contradiction. I think are the law humans have constructed 202 00:14:41,080 --> 00:14:46,440 these world views since the beginning of time before your universal claim that's relative have 203 00:14:46,559 --> 00:14:50,440 constructed. He doesn't even care. Do you see that that's a contradiction. 204 00:14:50,519 --> 00:14:54,080 You don't you think it's okay to contradict because you're you're doing a construct to 205 00:14:54,320 --> 00:15:01,720 right. So based on your period, Neil, I knew this was probably 206 00:15:01,759 --> 00:15:05,279 where this ship was going to go before we just you don't want to be 207 00:15:05,360 --> 00:15:09,399 questioned on the middle level. This is you can question. You even know 208 00:15:09,559 --> 00:15:15,480 your question. God, this is how you So now it's at home and 209 00:15:15,519 --> 00:15:20,559 then now it's like, I'm just you jumped in. You're all fiery, 210 00:15:20,759 --> 00:15:24,399 we were all we're just having to chill conversation. A person. This is 211 00:15:24,720 --> 00:15:31,440 a person just Christianity, and I was I was convinced of it for a 212 00:15:31,440 --> 00:15:35,399 long time, and I was a pre and it's going to become an evidentialist. 213 00:15:37,720 --> 00:15:41,720 I went down the argument it isn't. I have no interest in engaging 214 00:15:41,759 --> 00:15:48,840 you back and forth on epistemic value. To begin with established the wars is 215 00:15:48,840 --> 00:15:54,679 true, to begin with a basis for your mine, can somehow can tell 216 00:15:54,720 --> 00:15:58,600 you the origins of the world, and can can tell you the world You're 217 00:15:58,639 --> 00:16:03,399 basic starting point. That's it. Well, you said answer all of these 218 00:16:04,679 --> 00:16:07,039 and none of the others can. All right, right right, hang on, 219 00:16:07,120 --> 00:16:08,799 hang on, hang on, hang on, guys, guys, all 220 00:16:08,799 --> 00:16:12,759 of you, hang on just a second. Listen, Derek, we made 221 00:16:12,759 --> 00:16:17,879 sure I made sure that uh, there was always supposed to be a fifth 222 00:16:17,879 --> 00:16:19,000 on this panel, by the way, and I'm glad that Dyer did hop 223 00:16:19,039 --> 00:16:22,679 on. The thing is is that you haven't been dogpiled, and made sure 224 00:16:22,679 --> 00:16:27,200 that nobody did dogpile you. But you've been kind of at the forefront, 225 00:16:27,399 --> 00:16:32,279 really hitting as hard as you could and you've gotten actually the most hang on, 226 00:16:32,440 --> 00:16:34,639 you've actually gotten the most amount of speaking time, which is fair right 227 00:16:37,080 --> 00:16:41,159 the questions and I think that's again what I say, it's fair right, 228 00:16:41,240 --> 00:16:45,039 So backing up, let's just kind of back up here between you and Jay, 229 00:16:45,360 --> 00:16:48,399 right, just kind of lay out what your position is and we could 230 00:16:48,399 --> 00:16:52,120 back up a little bit and well it doesn't have to be so heated. 231 00:16:52,279 --> 00:16:53,960 Just kind of back up a little bit. Yeah, give kind of your 232 00:16:55,080 --> 00:17:00,720 your overall position, my position. Well, I want to make sure we've 233 00:17:00,720 --> 00:17:03,639 got a good reshape. What's going to happen? Give this position, and 234 00:17:03,799 --> 00:17:06,400 Jay's going to philosophically do come out and say, how do you know what 235 00:17:06,440 --> 00:17:07,599 you know? You don't know what you know? How can I believe you? 236 00:17:08,000 --> 00:17:11,640 They don't ask him back, prove that your position, prove your I 237 00:17:11,720 --> 00:17:15,920 gave a m Mine can answer this and somehow it does. The other ones 238 00:17:17,000 --> 00:17:19,319 can't. That doesn't prove argument. Do you want to address that or just 239 00:17:19,400 --> 00:17:23,559 keep talking past its? Arguments are wrong? What do you what do you 240 00:17:23,599 --> 00:17:29,039 want me to say? Let me, let me ask I gave an actual 241 00:17:29,119 --> 00:17:36,119 argument, Tell me why those are the argument that your eye the transcendental argument? 242 00:17:37,559 --> 00:17:41,599 Do what the transital argument. Let's let me ask you. Let's do 243 00:17:41,640 --> 00:17:45,359 it. Let's do it this way, Derek, Are there any from your 244 00:17:45,480 --> 00:17:51,759 view? Right? Is there anything? Are there any necessary preconditions for anything 245 00:17:51,759 --> 00:17:55,960 you're talking about to be true? Anything? What do you mean any? 246 00:17:56,440 --> 00:18:00,039 Is there anything that's necessary before you come to true? With an evaluation of 247 00:18:00,119 --> 00:18:07,039 claims, historical claims, logical claims, philosophical claims, question holistic like it's 248 00:18:07,720 --> 00:18:10,759 they're trying to reconstruct things through literature, that's the best. And then we 249 00:18:10,799 --> 00:18:15,119 have archaeology that we're trying to think probabilities relies on things like math. Yeah, 250 00:18:15,200 --> 00:18:18,279 they do. So if you're argument relies on math, then you need 251 00:18:18,279 --> 00:18:22,319 to give an account for math. Right, Oh my god? Can you 252 00:18:22,359 --> 00:18:29,079 therefore? Yahweh? I mean you got don't give seriously, don't get how 253 00:18:29,200 --> 00:18:32,640 math. I've heard this argument before from from those who think that somehow the 254 00:18:32,720 --> 00:18:37,279 fact that math exists, so you don't have an account therefore the fact. 255 00:18:37,519 --> 00:18:41,359 So I've heard that, and I'm like, no, how about just math? 256 00:18:41,440 --> 00:18:42,880 How about just math? How about just math exists? Right? We're 257 00:18:42,880 --> 00:18:45,160 not we don't skip to the god part. You don't need to do that. 258 00:18:45,400 --> 00:18:49,720 We're asking you from your view, How does your naturalistic view account for 259 00:18:49,759 --> 00:18:53,319 something like math or logic, which you appeal to, Right, that's a 260 00:18:53,559 --> 00:19:00,200 that's a fair question, Like it's not fair observation of humans that we have 261 00:19:00,319 --> 00:19:04,519 come up with systems we call mathematics, and they're observable from the universe that 262 00:19:04,599 --> 00:19:08,160 we have seen in nature, and that we've come up with systems in which 263 00:19:08,200 --> 00:19:14,200 we're able to calculate and test, observe. And that's where math. I 264 00:19:14,240 --> 00:19:18,839 don't think I personally don't think math. The idea of math as a construct 265 00:19:18,880 --> 00:19:23,279 is something that happens before humans come on the scene and start systematizing what they're 266 00:19:23,559 --> 00:19:29,319 logic? What about logic? So you think we could make them otherwise if 267 00:19:29,319 --> 00:19:32,519 they're human constructs, I could make Tipless to be five if we all agreed. 268 00:19:33,519 --> 00:19:37,359 No, I'm saying they observe it. The constructs they have two pine 269 00:19:37,359 --> 00:19:41,759 cones, right, they're not constructs. We've came up with the idea that 270 00:19:41,960 --> 00:19:45,720 we came up to because there's two Are you interrupting me the whole time? 271 00:19:45,720 --> 00:19:51,480 Bro? Like I can't even talk dude understanding you're asking me and I'm trying 272 00:19:51,519 --> 00:19:55,240 to explain to you my position. Word I hear your mouth, and I'm 273 00:19:55,279 --> 00:20:00,880 like, all right, well he let them, let them account construct and 274 00:20:00,880 --> 00:20:03,680 then you said it's objective those he did say it's a construct So okay, 275 00:20:03,680 --> 00:20:06,960 I want to I want to verify. No, No, I don't know 276 00:20:07,039 --> 00:20:11,759 philosophy very well, we'll make it. We'll make it simple, We'll make 277 00:20:11,000 --> 00:20:15,839 math is a derivative of logic. Right, So we're asking you if you 278 00:20:15,880 --> 00:20:18,119 said math and its language is a construct, right, if it's derived from 279 00:20:18,160 --> 00:20:22,680 logic? Are you saying that logic is a constructive of the human mind? 280 00:20:23,279 --> 00:20:29,599 Is logic logic? The laws of the three classical laws? Are they constructs? 281 00:20:29,720 --> 00:20:32,680 Dude? I don't even know the three classical laws? Okay, so 282 00:20:32,720 --> 00:20:34,880 the law of identity? Did the law of identity? Right? Is that 283 00:20:36,079 --> 00:20:41,079 verified in nature with empiricism? I don't know. Do you agree that it 284 00:20:41,119 --> 00:20:44,880 exists? I've never dealt in the philosophy. That's it's you don't have to 285 00:20:44,880 --> 00:20:47,000 be defensive. This is like no. I mean, I'm like, you 286 00:20:47,000 --> 00:20:48,640 guys are asking tons of questions I don't know the answer to, but you're 287 00:20:48,680 --> 00:20:52,640 making it sound like like gotcha, And I'm like, just does a law 288 00:20:52,680 --> 00:21:02,000 of identity exist? I don't know? Okay, if you're gonna make are 289 00:21:02,000 --> 00:21:04,599 coming at it from philosophy, right, and I'm saying, there's there's a 290 00:21:04,599 --> 00:21:08,799 handful of other philosophers that I could pull in from a skeptical point of view 291 00:21:10,079 --> 00:21:14,640 who would say everything you're saying, Facy, I'm not saying it is. 292 00:21:14,759 --> 00:21:18,960 I'm telling you what I could do. Just saying he's not a philosophy I'm 293 00:21:19,000 --> 00:21:23,920 saying if you engaged me textually, you would be stomped on, just like 294 00:21:23,920 --> 00:21:26,960 you're doing to me right now with precepts stuff. Okay, there is no 295 00:21:27,079 --> 00:21:32,920 comparison when it comes to biblical material on what I've seen from you, Jay, 296 00:21:33,119 --> 00:21:34,960 But you can get me on the philosophy stuff. That's all cool. 297 00:21:36,200 --> 00:21:38,400 But when we're talking textual, we're talking biblical stuff. We're talking about mythology, 298 00:21:38,480 --> 00:21:42,400 legends and such and understanding these ancient sources, the evolution of this material 299 00:21:42,440 --> 00:21:51,720 and things. You got me on philosophy, I have no Derek, is 300 00:21:51,759 --> 00:21:56,759 your analysis of all the texts in the scripture? Does that require a philosophy? 301 00:21:56,920 --> 00:22:02,599 I imagine we all have something great. So what Jay's asking and maybe 302 00:22:02,680 --> 00:22:04,440 is not doing in the language that you prefer that you're aware of, right, 303 00:22:04,480 --> 00:22:07,119 so you're getting like kind of like heated about it. All. He's 304 00:22:07,160 --> 00:22:14,319 asking is okay competitive guys, it's I'm yeah, we're competing for worldviews right 305 00:22:14,319 --> 00:22:17,200 now. So if you have a worldview that says I can go back and 306 00:22:17,240 --> 00:22:22,319 through history using a philosophy, you admit you have a philosophy that informs how 307 00:22:22,359 --> 00:22:26,720 you do empiricism, historicity, looking back, which authorities to listen to, 308 00:22:26,799 --> 00:22:32,640 which one not to listen to. I'm telling you that your that activity is 309 00:22:32,759 --> 00:22:37,480 informed by a philosophy that precedes the activity right right, And I think for 310 00:22:37,680 --> 00:22:40,799 me would have a common ground, Okay, when it comes to observable, 311 00:22:40,960 --> 00:22:44,319 normal everyday things, right, you and me would share that. You might 312 00:22:44,359 --> 00:22:47,400 go beyond me and say, hey, there's metaphysical, they're spiritual, there's 313 00:22:47,559 --> 00:22:51,359 miraculous, and things like that. We would step hand in hand. If 314 00:22:51,359 --> 00:22:55,079 we were doing some detective case and going to observe a murder or anything else, 315 00:22:55,240 --> 00:22:56,799 you and me would be probably on the same page. I imagine you 316 00:22:56,799 --> 00:23:00,480 wouldn't go to the palm reader or to the ghost whisperer to find out who 317 00:23:00,559 --> 00:23:03,920 killed Sally Sue. Over here in this room, we would both use the 318 00:23:03,960 --> 00:23:08,440 same tools, the same observations in the natural world to come to those conclusions. 319 00:23:08,599 --> 00:23:15,480 I'm saying I restricted my observations at that and what happens when I see 320 00:23:15,559 --> 00:23:19,319 miraculous stuff appear in antiquity, Yes, I cannot prove it did not happen, 321 00:23:21,200 --> 00:23:23,039 just like I say I cannot prove a Sclepist did not heal the blind 322 00:23:23,279 --> 00:23:26,359 or raise the dead, or Heracles or any other god as well. The 323 00:23:26,359 --> 00:23:30,480 point I'm getting at is is what's most likely on my observations, based on 324 00:23:30,519 --> 00:23:33,400 the tools that I'm using, which you would walk hand in hand with me 325 00:23:33,880 --> 00:23:37,319 on most cases, is that I'm looking at this other material and saying, 326 00:23:37,880 --> 00:23:45,160 Asclepias legend, myth, isis legend, myth, Mesopotamian legend and myth, 327 00:23:45,359 --> 00:23:51,119 and I see the same characteristics happen with the Caesars historical people that are being 328 00:23:51,200 --> 00:23:53,960 legendized fictionalized. Understand thing with kid, that's a lot, That's enough. 329 00:23:55,000 --> 00:23:57,720 That's enough. Now, what Jay is saying is that you're everything you just 330 00:23:57,839 --> 00:24:02,640 said, by your own standard is a myth. Are you do you agree 331 00:24:02,680 --> 00:24:07,240 with that myth is a story or a narrative or about about something, right, 332 00:24:07,400 --> 00:24:11,759 And that's what you told so based on your view. The thing, 333 00:24:11,880 --> 00:24:15,079 the claim X y Z is a myth based on your own standards of the 334 00:24:15,119 --> 00:24:22,640 absence of empiricism, absence of observation, is that your account of the myths 335 00:24:22,000 --> 00:24:26,920 it meets the criteria of myth correct? I guess. I mean you guys 336 00:24:26,920 --> 00:24:33,240 are defining myth in the strange criteria. Okay, I guess if that's what 337 00:24:33,279 --> 00:24:37,480 you guys wanted to mean. I mean, I define as a story something 338 00:24:37,480 --> 00:24:41,680 in antiquity that is fictional, that is telling a fictional story, has no 339 00:24:41,759 --> 00:24:45,319 basis in actually what happened. That's what I would say is myth. It's 340 00:24:45,319 --> 00:24:51,799 a legend, it's a story to embellish and your own position, that's your 341 00:24:51,839 --> 00:24:57,400 observation in my position, Actually, what he thought about evolution, you just 342 00:24:57,759 --> 00:25:00,680 brought up evolution, I don't we don't even have to talk about that. 343 00:25:00,720 --> 00:25:04,359 The very thing that he just said that all worldviews are constructs applies to his 344 00:25:04,440 --> 00:25:10,880 worldview. Yeah, and that means in a thousand years. That means in 345 00:25:10,920 --> 00:25:15,359 a thousand years, Derek myth vision, right, the channel will be appropriately 346 00:25:15,440 --> 00:25:18,279 named. In a thousand years, people look back and they'll go, oh, 347 00:25:18,599 --> 00:25:22,119 this guy's account of history, right, And I'm a prophet. I'm 348 00:25:22,119 --> 00:25:25,599 gonna tell you what's really gonna happen. You're gonna be shocked. By the 349 00:25:25,680 --> 00:25:27,480 end of this year, I'll have half a million subscribers. There's gonna be 350 00:25:27,480 --> 00:25:33,160 a serious online movement of people moving toward and gearing toward what I'm actually showing 351 00:25:33,240 --> 00:25:36,519 on this channel. Less and less people, I imagine, are going to 352 00:25:36,559 --> 00:25:41,759 go toward that more fundamentalist approach and saying that this is the one true religion. 353 00:25:41,799 --> 00:25:47,240 They're gonna find ways to somehow rationalize, maybe even blend their beliefs to 354 00:25:47,319 --> 00:25:52,559 some seculars we talked about earlier, Andrew, but myth vision is going to 355 00:25:52,599 --> 00:25:56,680 make a serious dent. It's already been doing so, and I'm predicting half 356 00:25:56,680 --> 00:26:00,279 a million subs by the end of this year of people who you can't ask 357 00:26:00,400 --> 00:26:06,559 their their foundational epistemics. Well, I don't know if you want those people, 358 00:26:06,599 --> 00:26:08,720 but I'm happy you're making a living. Derek. I actually don't you 359 00:26:08,759 --> 00:26:11,559 know. I hope, I hope. I wish you the best, and 360 00:26:11,599 --> 00:26:14,599 you're actually welcome anytime. I know we kept you a little longer this time, 361 00:26:15,200 --> 00:26:18,079 but I do plan on doing these panels. I'm okay with them being 362 00:26:18,119 --> 00:26:22,680 contentious. I'm okay with them going three hours. We're hitting four now. 363 00:26:22,400 --> 00:26:30,599 I apologize ok with Neil not participating at all, though Neil conversation when I 364 00:26:30,599 --> 00:26:34,000 could, And to be fair, Jay didn't actually know the context he was 365 00:26:34,039 --> 00:26:37,920 going into. He just got thrown in, so, you know, to 366 00:26:37,920 --> 00:26:40,599 pull the brakes out. I'm like, Okay, chill, it's not that 367 00:26:40,640 --> 00:26:45,920 big of a deal. Yeah, I watched a little before and saw us 368 00:26:45,960 --> 00:26:48,359 getting hype. Was like, you're not having all the fun without me. 369 00:26:48,599 --> 00:26:51,920 It's still permissible though, and uh, I think it. I think it 370 00:26:51,960 --> 00:26:53,799 does. I mean, so you can't even blame him, right, I 371 00:26:53,799 --> 00:26:56,319 mean it was more fun than a human beings should be allowed to have. 372 00:26:56,440 --> 00:27:02,240 Let's face it. And when you have your hair all bound back like that, 373 00:27:02,359 --> 00:27:08,240 you know what I mean, like, couple, you're close Jay? 374 00:27:11,319 --> 00:27:14,960 Well, no, I think all those questions are actually valid. Yes, 375 00:27:15,000 --> 00:27:18,400 they're different ways of asking questions there. I think there are actually more important 376 00:27:18,440 --> 00:27:22,759 questions what Jay is asking, But we're not used to those questions. We 377 00:27:22,799 --> 00:27:26,720 go into historicity. We just grant ourselves some access to the past and we 378 00:27:26,799 --> 00:27:29,680 try to shuffle around what we think is true and not. I think it's 379 00:27:29,720 --> 00:27:33,720 totally fair and under another circumstance, Derek, I actually invite you to actually 380 00:27:34,119 --> 00:27:38,759 try to engage with it, because every time this happens our experience, right, 381 00:27:38,839 --> 00:27:42,079 the presup plan of of you guys is you just say, oh, 382 00:27:42,119 --> 00:27:45,359 you're pre supping me. I mean, that's not you gotta gotta understand from 383 00:27:45,400 --> 00:27:49,160 both views that that mar It's not an answer, and that is a cop 384 00:27:49,240 --> 00:27:53,920 out for me as someone who doesn't engage with precept stuff. That's because I 385 00:27:53,960 --> 00:27:59,680 don't think there's any way to ever convince someone who's in that, who's actually 386 00:28:00,079 --> 00:28:03,720 waited by there. Can I ask you for a favor when we have one 387 00:28:03,720 --> 00:28:07,400 of these panels again, would you mind? Because I understand if you don't 388 00:28:07,400 --> 00:28:11,519 have like a good philosophical background of this or that, you know what I 389 00:28:11,559 --> 00:28:15,279 mean. I do use a lot of intuitive argumentation myself. But these guys, 390 00:28:15,279 --> 00:28:18,319 these scholars that you do know, would you be willing to bring them 391 00:28:18,319 --> 00:28:21,079 on with you? And then we can continue with this and we can have 392 00:28:21,119 --> 00:28:22,920 a guy like Dire on here. We can all have this discussion. So 393 00:28:22,960 --> 00:28:26,400 what I was like to do when it comes to philosophy, I don't know, 394 00:28:26,599 --> 00:28:32,359 Dire Have you ever engaged with is it you'd rather Dire engage. Specifically, 395 00:28:33,480 --> 00:28:37,279 all of us can engage. I'm trying to have like a literally not 396 00:28:37,319 --> 00:28:41,759 get distracted by any possible other stuff, and Dire can engage and discuss his 397 00:28:41,839 --> 00:28:47,039 worldview. And then I'll have another guest come on, maybe like Woodford, 398 00:28:47,279 --> 00:28:51,240 or I can get Graham Oppie. Maybe if you can get Steve Woodford, 399 00:28:51,279 --> 00:28:56,160 that's good. Yeah. And the reason I brought up that I have friends 400 00:28:56,200 --> 00:29:00,039 that I could call in here. Don't have friends? You have associated very 401 00:29:00,119 --> 00:29:07,119 good? Do you have corporate associates? I looked it up Derek Myth Vision 402 00:29:07,440 --> 00:29:12,119 LLC. Yeah, LLC. He's got the whole corporate board. You just 403 00:29:12,119 --> 00:29:17,480 gonna grab people from your corporate board to go against a Dire or people from 404 00:29:17,480 --> 00:29:18,720 my notes. I love it. I would love it if you had some 405 00:29:18,799 --> 00:29:22,920 people, whether or my my channel, Jimbobs or Jay Dyers, if you 406 00:29:22,920 --> 00:29:26,640 guys would like to come back, you know, have one of these guys, 407 00:29:26,640 --> 00:29:30,279 come on, let's tangle it up. Always I'm always done, Yeah, 408 00:29:30,319 --> 00:29:33,000 I will. I will see what I can do with Steven because he 409 00:29:33,319 --> 00:29:37,960 is in the philosophy vein. I'm not. I'm more into the textual history 410 00:29:37,440 --> 00:29:41,359 stuff like that. And so maybe we could do a round table and see 411 00:29:41,359 --> 00:29:45,599 if he'd be down for that. If not, then maybe having a one 412 00:29:45,640 --> 00:29:48,039 on one discussion or something. I don't know. We'll figure it out. 413 00:29:48,039 --> 00:29:49,680 We'll figure do it all. We do it all. But listen, thanks 414 00:29:49,720 --> 00:29:52,640 for coming on. Man. It was a lot of fun, and I 415 00:29:52,680 --> 00:29:56,160 hope you had a lot of fun. Don't be mad at us because Jay 416 00:29:56,240 --> 00:30:00,079 Dyer is so fucking mean. It's not our fault. It has always been 417 00:30:00,119 --> 00:30:06,119 a mean bastard. There's nothing we could do about it. Okay, he's 418 00:30:06,160 --> 00:30:10,039 always been that way. The way that Neil describes this introw is this when 419 00:30:10,079 --> 00:30:12,240 I met him, hot headed as fuck. Okay, let's just keep it 420 00:30:12,279 --> 00:30:17,079 real, Neil. Yeah, you you you can go off the deep and 421 00:30:17,240 --> 00:30:18,920 quick when you get mad. Okay, you know that. But then I'm 422 00:30:18,960 --> 00:30:22,319 like why, and he's like, dude, where we're from in New York, 423 00:30:22,640 --> 00:30:26,119 we argue over the football teams where you know, No, that's what 424 00:30:26,599 --> 00:30:30,119 I say. Say that. It's you've you've said that to me. You've 425 00:30:30,119 --> 00:30:33,200 told me like you're very you know, hype about it. Well, and 426 00:30:33,240 --> 00:30:36,119 I got a little fun little hype, you know. Yeah, yeah, 427 00:30:36,240 --> 00:30:38,880 no, hard we weren't we weren't planning on going philosophy. We thought we 428 00:30:38,880 --> 00:30:42,720 we'd uh, you know, skim the surface at least. But when Jay 429 00:30:42,759 --> 00:30:47,880 saw that you were wearing a salmon colored shirt, which is the weakest color 430 00:30:47,920 --> 00:30:51,599 a man can wear, he decided to put on his salmon colored Hawaiian shirt 431 00:30:51,680 --> 00:30:55,240 and wanted to show you what's up. It looks salmon in the red light, 432 00:30:55,279 --> 00:31:00,640 but it's actually yellow. So but he like Jay stuff coping, that's 433 00:31:00,640 --> 00:31:06,400 Sam and okay, hey that's Sam, it's actually yellow. Any last, 434 00:31:06,519 --> 00:31:10,880 Neil, why don't you shout out your channel and your last words for the 435 00:31:11,079 --> 00:31:15,839 for the show here, and then we'll go around Derek, Jay, Andrew 436 00:31:15,880 --> 00:31:18,759 and then finally myself, Neil. My name is Neil from Gnostic Informant. 437 00:31:18,880 --> 00:31:22,920 Just look me up on YouTube. Comes right up, start a second channel. 438 00:31:22,039 --> 00:31:27,119 I do shorter content toos Informant TV. I think it's called whatever. 439 00:31:27,319 --> 00:31:32,160 They're both up there, and I'm looking forward to more of these because I 440 00:31:32,160 --> 00:31:36,160 I'm trying to gain get more of an understanding of where you guys are coming 441 00:31:36,200 --> 00:31:38,160 from. And I think you helped me out. So can you wear a 442 00:31:38,200 --> 00:31:41,759 less stupid hat next time? I got? All? Right? Sare enough 443 00:31:42,359 --> 00:31:47,680 Derek. Yeah, thanks for having me on. Guys, this was different. 444 00:31:47,799 --> 00:31:51,759 I haven't done one of these, and long time since I've had conversations 445 00:31:51,799 --> 00:31:56,680 like this. Yeah. And my channel is if you're interested in like history, 446 00:31:56,720 --> 00:32:00,599 mythology. Just so you know, many Christians watch it and appreciate it. 447 00:32:00,680 --> 00:32:05,599 Even if they disagree with my conclusions, they appreciate it. So there's 448 00:32:05,640 --> 00:32:13,079 that appreciate it awesome Jay. Oh yeah, Jay Dyer, Jay's Analysis. 449 00:32:13,920 --> 00:32:17,960 I host the fourth Hour Bolex Jones every Friday and we do movie reviews, 450 00:32:19,039 --> 00:32:23,640 debates, philosophy, geopolitics, literature, all that on my channel. Awesome. 451 00:32:23,680 --> 00:32:28,519 And do you guys have Derek I know Jay? Uh? Do you 452 00:32:28,559 --> 00:32:31,839 have Twitter spaces That seems to be a more of a new fun forum thing 453 00:32:31,880 --> 00:32:37,960 where people can actually Yeah, you can attack Jay on his Twitter space all 454 00:32:37,000 --> 00:32:40,039 the time to debate. Yeah, nice, I do do you do that? 455 00:32:40,440 --> 00:32:43,920 I like, use it just to share YouTube videos on. I don't 456 00:32:43,920 --> 00:32:46,279 surely get on engage because damn it's toxic. Heay, not to put you 457 00:32:46,319 --> 00:32:50,720 on the spot. I jumped on there. I jumped on there one time 458 00:32:50,759 --> 00:32:52,240 and there was a delay or something where we couldn't hear each other talk. 459 00:32:52,319 --> 00:32:55,200 And you kicked me off and block me, but I'd appreciate it. I 460 00:32:55,200 --> 00:32:58,680 didn't mean any will towards you when I was on there last time, So 461 00:32:58,720 --> 00:33:00,599 if you want to unblock, that'd be cool. I'll jump on there next 462 00:33:00,640 --> 00:33:07,440 time. Okay, that was a documented event, Andrew. Well, okay, 463 00:33:08,079 --> 00:33:12,839 Neil. To be fair, I blocked you on Twitter too. But 464 00:33:12,839 --> 00:33:14,720 but let me tell you why, hang on, hang on. I got 465 00:33:14,720 --> 00:33:19,319 a good reason for this, got a good reason for this. It's because 466 00:33:19,359 --> 00:33:22,480 I'm way smarter than you. That's the only reason I did it. I 467 00:33:22,559 --> 00:33:24,359 say, no, I'm kidding. You're not blocked on Twitter, bro, 468 00:33:24,799 --> 00:33:30,039 I'm just working with you. My name is Andrew Wilson, host of the 469 00:33:30,319 --> 00:33:34,720 one and only Crucible, fastest growing debate channel on the Internet. You'll be 470 00:33:34,720 --> 00:33:37,839 able to catch more content. I'm going live with Gavin McGinnis in early February 471 00:33:37,880 --> 00:33:44,680 for a two show combo. Right after I'm heading back to whatever for three 472 00:33:44,759 --> 00:33:47,039 shows, so it's going to be a kind of long haul in February. 473 00:33:47,000 --> 00:33:51,319 I hope to see all of you there, and Jim Bob, I really 474 00:33:51,319 --> 00:33:53,240 appreciate you putting this panel together. Derek, it was great to meet you. 475 00:33:54,960 --> 00:33:59,680 I basically I blame you for the derailment of the entire panel, so 476 00:34:00,160 --> 00:34:01,720 percent your fault. I was just I just wanted to have a couple of 477 00:34:01,759 --> 00:34:06,319 beers. Man, Do you see you see I had him? Yes, 478 00:34:06,319 --> 00:34:10,159 screwed the whole thing. I really wanted getting dog piled and somehow. Anyway, 479 00:34:10,320 --> 00:34:13,960 thank you so much. I appreciate it. Hey is the scapegoat. 480 00:34:14,000 --> 00:34:16,480 It's all his fault, every bit that happened before and when he showed up. 481 00:34:16,599 --> 00:34:21,159 Sorry, Jay, I feel like he could take it. I feel 482 00:34:21,159 --> 00:34:23,280 like he could take it. Yes. Guyer is known internet wide as being 483 00:34:23,280 --> 00:34:25,960 the meanest man in the Internet. I've been competing with him for the last 484 00:34:27,000 --> 00:34:30,559 year and I'm still losing, not even close. And he goes. He 485 00:34:30,639 --> 00:34:35,239 goes right for the juggular. Every time you're Andrew, You're like, Hey, 486 00:34:35,280 --> 00:34:37,719 how's it going. Where do you live? Oh? You like ship 487 00:34:37,760 --> 00:34:40,599 beer too. Jay's like, look, not trying to be mean, but 488 00:34:40,639 --> 00:34:45,760 here's my cleaver. You know. It's like, but we do appreciate you 489 00:34:45,800 --> 00:34:49,199 guys, coming on. I do want to do this more. A lot 490 00:34:49,199 --> 00:34:52,880 of it. A lot of our interactions are actually debate driven, which I'm 491 00:34:52,880 --> 00:34:54,800 fine with. I love debating. I love to learn about it and do 492 00:34:54,880 --> 00:34:59,360 more of it. But the panel thing is is kind of more fun in 493 00:34:59,400 --> 00:35:02,320 a sense, and you can hang out and cover other things because because we 494 00:35:02,400 --> 00:35:06,320 did cover a lot of interesting things at the at the front of this, 495 00:35:06,480 --> 00:35:10,280 right that wasn't super contentious, right, interesting topics and technology and whatnot. 496 00:35:10,400 --> 00:35:14,239 So I'm going to do this again. Also, guys, you're only going 497 00:35:14,280 --> 00:35:15,159 to be able to find this. You're not going to be able to find 498 00:35:15,159 --> 00:35:19,039 this on the Crucible. You'll only be able to find it on Jim Bob's 499 00:35:19,039 --> 00:35:22,239 stream. I strongly suggest you become a member because great content like this, 500 00:35:22,480 --> 00:35:25,760 well he only puts it out for a couple of days before it becomes member 501 00:35:25,800 --> 00:35:30,159 only, so true. Thank you strongly suggested. And of course, any 502 00:35:30,199 --> 00:35:34,039 of you who want to clip anything for any of your channels, you're more 503 00:35:34,119 --> 00:35:38,639 than welcome to. And I'll read this, yeah, guys, I'll stay 504 00:35:39,039 --> 00:35:42,280 once they're off, I'll read go through and make sure I got all the 505 00:35:42,320 --> 00:35:45,039 super chats. Okay, all right, you guys, Thanks so much to 506 00:35:45,039 --> 00:35:46,719 every single one of you. I hope to do this again soon. Also, 507 00:35:47,039 --> 00:35:51,119 Derek and Neil, if there's anyone else, like you said that might 508 00:35:51,119 --> 00:35:53,280 be interested in this format, No, It's not going to always be like 509 00:35:53,320 --> 00:35:57,119 this contentious, but it could be, and I think we could all handle 510 00:35:57,159 --> 00:36:00,519 it so so it'll be fun anyway. So as right, all right, 511 00:36:00,559 --> 00:36:04,320 and sorry for keeping you in. I'm glad you got some food there, 512 00:36:04,480 --> 00:36:07,719 so all right, all right, yeah, have a little something, all 513 00:36:07,760 --> 00:36:09,079 right, you guys. I want to take you to take you guys all 514 00:36:09,119 --> 00:36:14,719 down. Audios. Thanks J for jumping on. Uh see you