Choirs that we have knowledge of the laws of physics and that the regularity in
nature maintains. Right, if the regularity didn't maintain, we wouldn't be able
to explain anything because it wouldn't maintain its identity over time. So if your
premise one is a miracle based on your naturalistic view, is something that can't
be explained definitionally by the laws of physics and the regularity of nature, which
is the other way you explain things in reality. Right, I'm saying those
things themselves can't get explained by those laws. They just exist, right,
Honestly, to be honest with you, Jimbob, it sounds like a word
game to try and convince people that I somehow accept a miracle when I don't.
I just mile tail this case. We're talking about rising from the dead,
We're talking about things logical consequence that we've read in ancient text, and
here we are playing this game. Can you define the meaning of truth by
the word truth and stuff like that? And I'm going like, I understand,
I don't see a miracle in any of that, though I don't understand
that truth and stuff like that. Yeah, there he goes, that's all
that's all. I really want to run with you, Derek. I know
you have to eat, but this is one guest who wanted to come on
and ask a couple of questions. Jay Me, Oh yeah, am I
the guests you're the guest. Now, Well, it seems like the argument
rests on an assumption of the things that like that you already know what things
are and are not possible. And I mean maybe it's right the the you
know, the criterion that you've chosen. I think you appeal to things like
scientists and stuff like that, But well, how do you know that you've
chosen the right criteria for what is and is it possible? Like what what's
the basis for that choice? You're talking to me? Yeah, I would
just go with based on my observations and experiences and those of countless other critical
scholars who evaluate this literature and recognizing that we're dealing with legendary materials. Just
like Suetonius discusses the birth of Augustus through Apollo, several divine births and antiquity,
but you have the miracle of Jesus birth and they look literarily very similar,
I mean, very very close linguistically in flat in fact, Plutarch talks
about the birth of Plato by a virgin, Plato's mother being a virgin,
by the Numa and the Denimos, the power and the spirit. Plutarch's writing
somewhat contemporaneous to the gospel literature. We're dealing with legend and so this is
what I would say when I observe that material and I see legendary genre like
a category today we would fit Batman or Superman or something in today's fiction.
They would do something in antiquity similar to that. So when I look at
that in a heuristic way, comparing the literature to other literature, I would
across the board say they're all acting and looking, walking like a duck,
talking like a duck, and they're a duck. That's why I would say,
by that definition, though, the evolutionary account of the origin of human
beings would also be mythological. Right, I don't I think we evolved,
but you would disagree with me. No, But I'm saying, by your
standard, that would also be mythology. Now, what would the evolutionary account
of human beings and they're arising from the sea. I mean an aximander says
that, and he gives a kind of a quasi mythological account. So is
that is that counts mythology that we throw out or is that a solidarity as
far as anaximander the evolutionary account that I just outlined, your criteria would cancel
out his origins of human beings as mythology. Yeah, I would say that
creation myths all across the board in antiquity are trying toologically Now, in other
words, evolutionary origins fit your standard of mythology that should be tossed out.
What about that where's the where's the ancient textbook describing fossil records and going into
the science of these things the criteria? Well, then then you would say,
there's also data, there's also archaeology, there's also right, there's several
facts that map I asked for the criteria though about what cancels out myth versus
fact, Well, that's why I said observable. I would look at the
observations of what you did you observe any of that? No, And I
didn't see Suetonius get talk about Augustus's birth. He might be the chosen one
and Jesus is a false prophet. We don't know that they're trying to get
there to say that he's appealing to authority, and the answer is obviously yes,
yes, yeah, I mean, of course I'm gonna appeal to ask
about an appealed to authority I'm talking about now, the criteria is observation.
Observation. Well, I'm saying you can look at these texts and compare this
material and see what there's several scholars out there that work in this to show
we're dealing with literature. We're dealing with literature, literature. I'm an argument.
I'm asking a pistemological question, though, is this which is not answered
by just saying that we look at the literature and the scholars. Okay,
well what do you want to know? So the criteria that you set up
your epistemic criteria was on what basis? I'm asking you on what basis?
And you said, it's the things that don't appear to be mythological based on
various scholars. And then I said, well, by that standard, certain
things that you do believe would also be mythology, like the Big Bang would
count as that. I'm assuming you believe that. I don't know if you
I think it's an outdated model. Now. But okay, well, I
mean whatever origin myth you want doesn't match up to the standard of empirical verification.
Okay, so you have an arbitrary standard if you need me to spell
it out for you. Okay, and you don't, what's the justification for
you? You don't, I'm asking you, do you No? I think
if I believe in theism and I believe in divine revelation, I have a
basis for epistemology and those kinds of standards. So I'm just trying to figure
out what yours is right? Your argument for physical it would be based on
phys observable, testable, and even observational things like literature. You already said
that all of these origin theories that you believe go outside of your empirical evidence.
What what do I believe that? Did you observe the origins of the
human of Oh? No, no, no, that's where authority comes in.
Like Neil brought up that I would rely on scholars and expert Scientif do
you know you've chosen the right scholars? How do you know? You got
to do research yourself and investigating yourself. That's the thing, Like you could
not criteria therefore we didn't evolve, and therefore the criteria. You understand,
Jay, when you chose the church to be your guiding more, you're guiding
uh truth. You had to at some point decide that for yourself, and
you had you had to make that judgment category mistake. You're confusing an existential
choice with the criteria. Two different questions. Well, that's what you that's
what you just said to him. You said he had to How does he
know that these scientists are right? He really doesn't. He has to kind
of appeal to authority. I can't make an argument. I'm not just appealing
to an authority. Well, you can all make an arguments depending on what
we're exactly we're talking about. At some point, why do you want to
believe your epistemic criteria? But you're saying you don't appeal to authority. Yet,
what I just asked, what the what reasons we should believe your epistemic
criteria? I haven't even heard what the criteria is other than what I chose
and what I chose from certain scholars. Well, how do you know where
to cut off the true and the false scholars? That's a good question.
That's why I investigate. Yeah, I might want to know that if I'm
gonna that's but instead of swallowing the pill up front, believing in a book
that several scholars have shown to be very very I say, there's a lot
of contention, problems, issues, very man made looking and evolved over time,
A circular argument that you'd use for the church. Yeah, I would,
I would, I would investigate them, I would across the board.
But instead of swallowing that pill up front, that's what I would do.
Yeah, But I'm pointing out that you are you already have swallowed your own
version of an arbitrary, miraculous, miraculous pill. So I believe in a
miracle? Is that what you're saying? Many of them, you guys,
convinced me that miracles are real tonight, I'm I hope the audience is as
convinced as as I am. Is that the argument is pointing out to you
that you have an arbitrary standard which allows you to choose what evidences you will
and won't accept from the outset. You know when I got an arbitrary standard
and you guys don't, how about that? Correct? Right? It is
borrowing from other mythology to build its narratives that is floaded with legend contradictions and
errors that aren't that aren't the case argument. Yeah, but that argument that
you're making is based on the very thing that I asked you to justify,
So you keep reaching aiding your position with that. I'm not going to do
the research for you, brother, I'm not going to do all the I've
done all the day. Actually, I have just watch myth vision for like
ten years and you'll see at all. It's all there. But I'm not
going to sit here and go in circles with this like I have truth and
I have logic and you don't, and I have the actual epistemic with the
Copper position. In other words, you don't want address the actual philosophical challenges
to your systems. I'm not a philosopher. I'm really not going to play
around with philosophy. But I'm not a philosopher, and I understand that you
do that kind of stuff. So, but if you're going to make arguments,
you're in the domain of philosophy. That's why I have Tallers on my
channel, right, That's why I'm not there. You're not going to make
the argument now for the audience you just want people to go to your channel,
and you never really asked. Derek never really asked to get into the
deep philosophical matter behind why he thinks we thinks. He never really asked that.
It just kind of got through. So there's not good reasons to I
mean, I like having these type of discussions, but I mean, Derek's
is not the type of It seems like you guys are just throwing it on
him. Yeah, it's got bullshit? Is it fit? Is it fair?
Is it fair to say if you think you have good arguments against Christianity
or any other religion, that that would necessarily be tied to some epistemic foundation
that could be questioned. Is it valid to questions foundation? Okay, that's
all that's happening. But what I'm saying is is it feels like a gotcha
thing. And I've watched plenty of online back and forth between Christians and those
like myself, and I honestly have a serious distaste for the presupt kind of
approach of you don't have knowledge, you don't have, but we do,
we have it, even though we're looking at an ancient book loaded with legend.
I don't get it. Where wrong because you have a problem. That's
my point. You're starting with the conclusion that you have the answer, that
you're the right one, that you have the epistemic truth, that your positions
correct to me. Prove that your positions correct to me, well, it
would help to understand the form of that argument, right. Just prove to
me that you have this the Rex standard, the correct epistemic foundation. Show
me how you know that yours is true because of the impossibility of the country,
because the other worldviews they mess up at a fundamental level when it comes
to the basics of a worldview, epistemology, metaphysical How do you know that?
How do you know that they've messed up? Because you can demonstrate it,
Like as I'm arguing with you, when you don't give an account for
your arbitrary starting point, we already know that. Give me your starting point.
I've asked you for that evidence. Not right. I'm a hooless,
an epistemic hooless, which means that I believe in an entire paradigm. There's
no starting point that's neutral or arbitrary. It's the entire Christian worldview compared to
the gnostic worldview. The atheist worldview, the humanist worldview. Those worldviews can't
give an account for the basic principles and metaphysics and epistemology and ethics. Our
worldview can give an account for how those things exist, and so therefore ours
is the true one. So we would disagree right there. I mean,
obviously all of that, all of these worldviews give you those exact epistemic solutions
to the problems of the world. Creation then't for example, they do Mesopotamian's
creation mythology is literally being lifted. You don't even understand what this argument is
arguing. I'm not saying do they have a story? I'm talking about epistemic
justification in a philosophical sense. It's a very specific claim of genesis. One
has a philosophical statement in it about that doesn't matter to them because they know
what we're talking about. It's not just does it have a claim. It's
a very specific type of argument in terms of logic. This is about logical
just God. This sounds like Darth Dawkins ship man. I'm not even kidding.
This sounds literally doesn't matter. It sounds like, I mean, do
you have jay this is this is It's the same old thing man, you
don't have an answer to it. No, I am sure don't. I'm
not getting lost in Derek saying. What Derek saying is this is no argument,
which is a valid form. You're what Derek saying, this is philosophical
boxing. Derek doesn't do the training you guys do. He doesn't really care.
He's not he's not interested in and and then if he's not interested in
the domain of logic, then he shouldn't try to debate these topics. Anyone
coming in here, we're talking about hang on, hang on, hang on.
To be fair, it turned into a debate. Let's not care kind
of did, but you know, Joe, let's not care. Very permitted.
We permitted the debate aspect of this conversation for sure. It's just not
formal and it's not guided or anything. But Jay is uh, it's totally
valid. And I would take the same approach to as soon as someone's making
a claim about their view or what's possible what's not possible regarding any religion,
any faith, any legend, any myth. You it's not like you saying,
oh, you're pre supping me, You're pre supping all. So everybody's
pre supping so if everybody's that they're all man made, yes, I agree,
I'm prep that they aren't. If they're all man made, then what
you just said is also man made, and then well amen to that,
hallelujah. Then there's no truth and it's a contradiction. Right, so there's
no truth. Well, you would be a relatives? Are we are?
We? Are we ponscious pilot asking Jesus what truth is? Are we saying?
I'm thinking what the most factual thing is based on observations? And if
all world views are man made, is that also man made? I agree?
That would be a contradiction. I think are the law humans have constructed
these world views since the beginning of time before your universal claim that's relative have
constructed. He doesn't even care. Do you see that that's a contradiction.
You don't you think it's okay to contradict because you're you're doing a construct to
right. So based on your period, Neil, I knew this was probably
where this ship was going to go before we just you don't want to be
questioned on the middle level. This is you can question. You even know
your question. God, this is how you So now it's at home and
then now it's like, I'm just you jumped in. You're all fiery,
we were all we're just having to chill conversation. A person. This is
a person just Christianity, and I was I was convinced of it for a
long time, and I was a pre and it's going to become an evidentialist.
I went down the argument it isn't. I have no interest in engaging
you back and forth on epistemic value. To begin with established the wars is
true, to begin with a basis for your mine, can somehow can tell
you the origins of the world, and can can tell you the world You're
basic starting point. That's it. Well, you said answer all of these
and none of the others can. All right, right right, hang on,
hang on, hang on, hang on, guys, guys, all
of you, hang on just a second. Listen, Derek, we made
sure I made sure that uh, there was always supposed to be a fifth
on this panel, by the way, and I'm glad that Dyer did hop
on. The thing is is that you haven't been dogpiled, and made sure
that nobody did dogpile you. But you've been kind of at the forefront,
really hitting as hard as you could and you've gotten actually the most hang on,
you've actually gotten the most amount of speaking time, which is fair right
the questions and I think that's again what I say, it's fair right,
So backing up, let's just kind of back up here between you and Jay,
right, just kind of lay out what your position is and we could
back up a little bit and well it doesn't have to be so heated.
Just kind of back up a little bit. Yeah, give kind of your
your overall position, my position. Well, I want to make sure we've
got a good reshape. What's going to happen? Give this position, and
Jay's going to philosophically do come out and say, how do you know what
you know? You don't know what you know? How can I believe you?
They don't ask him back, prove that your position, prove your I
gave a m Mine can answer this and somehow it does. The other ones
can't. That doesn't prove argument. Do you want to address that or just
keep talking past its? Arguments are wrong? What do you what do you
want me to say? Let me, let me ask I gave an actual
argument, Tell me why those are the argument that your eye the transcendental argument?
Do what the transital argument. Let's let me ask you. Let's do
it. Let's do it this way, Derek, Are there any from your
view? Right? Is there anything? Are there any necessary preconditions for anything
you're talking about to be true? Anything? What do you mean any?
Is there anything that's necessary before you come to true? With an evaluation of
claims, historical claims, logical claims, philosophical claims, question holistic like it's
they're trying to reconstruct things through literature, that's the best. And then we
have archaeology that we're trying to think probabilities relies on things like math. Yeah,
they do. So if you're argument relies on math, then you need
to give an account for math. Right, Oh my god? Can you
therefore? Yahweh? I mean you got don't give seriously, don't get how
math. I've heard this argument before from from those who think that somehow the
fact that math exists, so you don't have an account therefore the fact.
So I've heard that, and I'm like, no, how about just math?
How about just math? How about just math exists? Right? We're
not we don't skip to the god part. You don't need to do that.
We're asking you from your view, How does your naturalistic view account for
something like math or logic, which you appeal to, Right, that's a
that's a fair question, Like it's not fair observation of humans that we have
come up with systems we call mathematics, and they're observable from the universe that
we have seen in nature, and that we've come up with systems in which
we're able to calculate and test, observe. And that's where math. I
don't think I personally don't think math. The idea of math as a construct
is something that happens before humans come on the scene and start systematizing what they're
logic? What about logic? So you think we could make them otherwise if
they're human constructs, I could make Tipless to be five if we all agreed.
No, I'm saying they observe it. The constructs they have two pine
cones, right, they're not constructs. We've came up with the idea that
we came up to because there's two Are you interrupting me the whole time?
Bro? Like I can't even talk dude understanding you're asking me and I'm trying
to explain to you my position. Word I hear your mouth, and I'm
like, all right, well he let them, let them account construct and
then you said it's objective those he did say it's a construct So okay,
I want to I want to verify. No, No, I don't know
philosophy very well, we'll make it. We'll make it simple, We'll make
math is a derivative of logic. Right, So we're asking you if you
said math and its language is a construct, right, if it's derived from
logic? Are you saying that logic is a constructive of the human mind?
Is logic logic? The laws of the three classical laws? Are they constructs?
Dude? I don't even know the three classical laws? Okay, so
the law of identity? Did the law of identity? Right? Is that
verified in nature with empiricism? I don't know. Do you agree that it
exists? I've never dealt in the philosophy. That's it's you don't have to
be defensive. This is like no. I mean, I'm like, you
guys are asking tons of questions I don't know the answer to, but you're
making it sound like like gotcha, And I'm like, just does a law
of identity exist? I don't know? Okay, if you're gonna make are
coming at it from philosophy, right, and I'm saying, there's there's a
handful of other philosophers that I could pull in from a skeptical point of view
who would say everything you're saying, Facy, I'm not saying it is.
I'm telling you what I could do. Just saying he's not a philosophy I'm
saying if you engaged me textually, you would be stomped on, just like
you're doing to me right now with precepts stuff. Okay, there is no
comparison when it comes to biblical material on what I've seen from you, Jay,
But you can get me on the philosophy stuff. That's all cool.
But when we're talking textual, we're talking biblical stuff. We're talking about mythology,
legends and such and understanding these ancient sources, the evolution of this material
and things. You got me on philosophy, I have no Derek, is
your analysis of all the texts in the scripture? Does that require a philosophy?
I imagine we all have something great. So what Jay's asking and maybe
is not doing in the language that you prefer that you're aware of, right,
so you're getting like kind of like heated about it. All. He's
asking is okay competitive guys, it's I'm yeah, we're competing for worldviews right
now. So if you have a worldview that says I can go back and
through history using a philosophy, you admit you have a philosophy that informs how
you do empiricism, historicity, looking back, which authorities to listen to,
which one not to listen to. I'm telling you that your that activity is
informed by a philosophy that precedes the activity right right, And I think for
me would have a common ground, Okay, when it comes to observable,
normal everyday things, right, you and me would share that. You might
go beyond me and say, hey, there's metaphysical, they're spiritual, there's
miraculous, and things like that. We would step hand in hand. If
we were doing some detective case and going to observe a murder or anything else,
you and me would be probably on the same page. I imagine you
wouldn't go to the palm reader or to the ghost whisperer to find out who
killed Sally Sue. Over here in this room, we would both use the
same tools, the same observations in the natural world to come to those conclusions.
I'm saying I restricted my observations at that and what happens when I see
miraculous stuff appear in antiquity, Yes, I cannot prove it did not happen,
just like I say I cannot prove a Sclepist did not heal the blind
or raise the dead, or Heracles or any other god as well. The
point I'm getting at is is what's most likely on my observations, based on
the tools that I'm using, which you would walk hand in hand with me
on most cases, is that I'm looking at this other material and saying,
Asclepias legend, myth, isis legend, myth, Mesopotamian legend and myth,
and I see the same characteristics happen with the Caesars historical people that are being
legendized fictionalized. Understand thing with kid, that's a lot, That's enough.
That's enough. Now, what Jay is saying is that you're everything you just
said, by your own standard is a myth. Are you do you agree
with that myth is a story or a narrative or about about something, right,
And that's what you told so based on your view. The thing,
the claim X y Z is a myth based on your own standards of the
absence of empiricism, absence of observation, is that your account of the myths
it meets the criteria of myth correct? I guess. I mean you guys
are defining myth in the strange criteria. Okay, I guess if that's what
you guys wanted to mean. I mean, I define as a story something
in antiquity that is fictional, that is telling a fictional story, has no
basis in actually what happened. That's what I would say is myth. It's
a legend, it's a story to embellish and your own position, that's your
observation in my position, Actually, what he thought about evolution, you just
brought up evolution, I don't we don't even have to talk about that.
The very thing that he just said that all worldviews are constructs applies to his
worldview. Yeah, and that means in a thousand years. That means in
a thousand years, Derek myth vision, right, the channel will be appropriately
named. In a thousand years, people look back and they'll go, oh,
this guy's account of history, right, And I'm a prophet. I'm
gonna tell you what's really gonna happen. You're gonna be shocked. By the
end of this year, I'll have half a million subscribers. There's gonna be
a serious online movement of people moving toward and gearing toward what I'm actually showing
on this channel. Less and less people, I imagine, are going to
go toward that more fundamentalist approach and saying that this is the one true religion.
They're gonna find ways to somehow rationalize, maybe even blend their beliefs to
some seculars we talked about earlier, Andrew, but myth vision is going to
make a serious dent. It's already been doing so, and I'm predicting half
a million subs by the end of this year of people who you can't ask
their their foundational epistemics. Well, I don't know if you want those people,
but I'm happy you're making a living. Derek. I actually don't you
know. I hope, I hope. I wish you the best, and
you're actually welcome anytime. I know we kept you a little longer this time,
but I do plan on doing these panels. I'm okay with them being
contentious. I'm okay with them going three hours. We're hitting four now.
I apologize ok with Neil not participating at all, though Neil conversation when I
could, And to be fair, Jay didn't actually know the context he was
going into. He just got thrown in, so, you know, to
pull the brakes out. I'm like, Okay, chill, it's not that
big of a deal. Yeah, I watched a little before and saw us
getting hype. Was like, you're not having all the fun without me.
It's still permissible though, and uh, I think it. I think it
does. I mean, so you can't even blame him, right, I
mean it was more fun than a human beings should be allowed to have.
Let's face it. And when you have your hair all bound back like that,
you know what I mean, like, couple, you're close Jay?
Well, no, I think all those questions are actually valid. Yes,
they're different ways of asking questions there. I think there are actually more important
questions what Jay is asking, But we're not used to those questions. We
go into historicity. We just grant ourselves some access to the past and we
try to shuffle around what we think is true and not. I think it's
totally fair and under another circumstance, Derek, I actually invite you to actually
try to engage with it, because every time this happens our experience, right,
the presup plan of of you guys is you just say, oh,
you're pre supping me. I mean, that's not you gotta gotta understand from
both views that that mar It's not an answer, and that is a cop
out for me as someone who doesn't engage with precept stuff. That's because I
don't think there's any way to ever convince someone who's in that, who's actually
waited by there. Can I ask you for a favor when we have one
of these panels again, would you mind? Because I understand if you don't
have like a good philosophical background of this or that, you know what I
mean. I do use a lot of intuitive argumentation myself. But these guys,
these scholars that you do know, would you be willing to bring them
on with you? And then we can continue with this and we can have
a guy like Dire on here. We can all have this discussion. So
what I was like to do when it comes to philosophy, I don't know,
Dire Have you ever engaged with is it you'd rather Dire engage. Specifically,
all of us can engage. I'm trying to have like a literally not
get distracted by any possible other stuff, and Dire can engage and discuss his
worldview. And then I'll have another guest come on, maybe like Woodford,
or I can get Graham Oppie. Maybe if you can get Steve Woodford,
that's good. Yeah. And the reason I brought up that I have friends
that I could call in here. Don't have friends? You have associated very
good? Do you have corporate associates? I looked it up Derek Myth Vision
LLC. Yeah, LLC. He's got the whole corporate board. You just
gonna grab people from your corporate board to go against a Dire or people from
my notes. I love it. I would love it if you had some
people, whether or my my channel, Jimbobs or Jay Dyers, if you
guys would like to come back, you know, have one of these guys,
come on, let's tangle it up. Always I'm always done, Yeah,
I will. I will see what I can do with Steven because he
is in the philosophy vein. I'm not. I'm more into the textual history
stuff like that. And so maybe we could do a round table and see
if he'd be down for that. If not, then maybe having a one
on one discussion or something. I don't know. We'll figure it out.
We'll figure do it all. We do it all. But listen, thanks
for coming on. Man. It was a lot of fun, and I
hope you had a lot of fun. Don't be mad at us because Jay
Dyer is so fucking mean. It's not our fault. It has always been
a mean bastard. There's nothing we could do about it. Okay, he's
always been that way. The way that Neil describes this introw is this when
I met him, hot headed as fuck. Okay, let's just keep it
real, Neil. Yeah, you you you can go off the deep and
quick when you get mad. Okay, you know that. But then I'm
like why, and he's like, dude, where we're from in New York,
we argue over the football teams where you know, No, that's what
I say. Say that. It's you've you've said that to me. You've
told me like you're very you know, hype about it. Well, and
I got a little fun little hype, you know. Yeah, yeah,
no, hard we weren't we weren't planning on going philosophy. We thought we
we'd uh, you know, skim the surface at least. But when Jay
saw that you were wearing a salmon colored shirt, which is the weakest color
a man can wear, he decided to put on his salmon colored Hawaiian shirt
and wanted to show you what's up. It looks salmon in the red light,
but it's actually yellow. So but he like Jay stuff coping, that's
Sam and okay, hey that's Sam, it's actually yellow. Any last,
Neil, why don't you shout out your channel and your last words for the
for the show here, and then we'll go around Derek, Jay, Andrew
and then finally myself, Neil. My name is Neil from Gnostic Informant.
Just look me up on YouTube. Comes right up, start a second channel.
I do shorter content toos Informant TV. I think it's called whatever.
They're both up there, and I'm looking forward to more of these because I
I'm trying to gain get more of an understanding of where you guys are coming
from. And I think you helped me out. So can you wear a
less stupid hat next time? I got? All? Right? Sare enough
Derek. Yeah, thanks for having me on. Guys, this was different.
I haven't done one of these, and long time since I've had conversations
like this. Yeah. And my channel is if you're interested in like history,
mythology. Just so you know, many Christians watch it and appreciate it.
Even if they disagree with my conclusions, they appreciate it. So there's
that appreciate it awesome Jay. Oh yeah, Jay Dyer, Jay's Analysis.
I host the fourth Hour Bolex Jones every Friday and we do movie reviews,
debates, philosophy, geopolitics, literature, all that on my channel. Awesome.
And do you guys have Derek I know Jay? Uh? Do you
have Twitter spaces That seems to be a more of a new fun forum thing
where people can actually Yeah, you can attack Jay on his Twitter space all
the time to debate. Yeah, nice, I do do you do that?
I like, use it just to share YouTube videos on. I don't
surely get on engage because damn it's toxic. Heay, not to put you
on the spot. I jumped on there. I jumped on there one time
and there was a delay or something where we couldn't hear each other talk.
And you kicked me off and block me, but I'd appreciate it. I
didn't mean any will towards you when I was on there last time, So
if you want to unblock, that'd be cool. I'll jump on there next
time. Okay, that was a documented event, Andrew. Well, okay,
Neil. To be fair, I blocked you on Twitter too. But
but let me tell you why, hang on, hang on. I got
a good reason for this, got a good reason for this. It's because
I'm way smarter than you. That's the only reason I did it. I
say, no, I'm kidding. You're not blocked on Twitter, bro,
I'm just working with you. My name is Andrew Wilson, host of the
one and only Crucible, fastest growing debate channel on the Internet. You'll be
able to catch more content. I'm going live with Gavin McGinnis in early February
for a two show combo. Right after I'm heading back to whatever for three
shows, so it's going to be a kind of long haul in February.
I hope to see all of you there, and Jim Bob, I really
appreciate you putting this panel together. Derek, it was great to meet you.
I basically I blame you for the derailment of the entire panel, so
percent your fault. I was just I just wanted to have a couple of
beers. Man, Do you see you see I had him? Yes,
screwed the whole thing. I really wanted getting dog piled and somehow. Anyway,
thank you so much. I appreciate it. Hey is the scapegoat.
It's all his fault, every bit that happened before and when he showed up.
Sorry, Jay, I feel like he could take it. I feel
like he could take it. Yes. Guyer is known internet wide as being
the meanest man in the Internet. I've been competing with him for the last
year and I'm still losing, not even close. And he goes. He
goes right for the juggular. Every time you're Andrew, You're like, Hey,
how's it going. Where do you live? Oh? You like ship
beer too. Jay's like, look, not trying to be mean, but
here's my cleaver. You know. It's like, but we do appreciate you
guys, coming on. I do want to do this more. A lot
of it. A lot of our interactions are actually debate driven, which I'm
fine with. I love debating. I love to learn about it and do
more of it. But the panel thing is is kind of more fun in
a sense, and you can hang out and cover other things because because we
did cover a lot of interesting things at the at the front of this,
right that wasn't super contentious, right, interesting topics and technology and whatnot.
So I'm going to do this again. Also, guys, you're only going
to be able to find this. You're not going to be able to find
this on the Crucible. You'll only be able to find it on Jim Bob's
stream. I strongly suggest you become a member because great content like this,
well he only puts it out for a couple of days before it becomes member
only, so true. Thank you strongly suggested. And of course, any
of you who want to clip anything for any of your channels, you're more
than welcome to. And I'll read this, yeah, guys, I'll stay
once they're off, I'll read go through and make sure I got all the
super chats. Okay, all right, you guys, Thanks so much to
every single one of you. I hope to do this again soon. Also,
Derek and Neil, if there's anyone else, like you said that might
be interested in this format, No, It's not going to always be like
this contentious, but it could be, and I think we could all handle
it so so it'll be fun anyway. So as right, all right,
and sorry for keeping you in. I'm glad you got some food there,
so all right, all right, yeah, have a little something, all
right, you guys. I want to take you to take you guys all
down. Audios. Thanks J for jumping on. Uh see you