Speaker 1: No, that's a and they do that inadvertently because they
believe in absolute divine simplicity. And No, as you just
saw from Saint Basil contrasted to Platinus at the beginning
of this talk, the early Christian Church was not synthesizing
Greek philosophy with Revelation. No, they were not. This is
where we have to depart now. The medieval scholastic Roman
Catholics sought a synthesis between Greek philosophy and revelation. That's
not that's why we're not Roman Catholics. No, that's why
we don't believe in classical foundationalism like the Thomas and
the Catholics do. There is no neutrality, there's no middle ground.
There's no realm where Jesus and autonomous Man and Satan
have agreed to have a peace treaty. I mean, this
is the same argument. You know, the goes on between
why there's not a a why dogma doesn't or or
the church should have no relationships to the state. These
are Protestant assumptions. There's no orthodox social theory. Why well,
because that's a neutral realm. No, it's not. When you
read the Ten Commandments, God says, you're not supposed to
worship foreign God's that's applies everybody. God applies the law
to all the nations. The nations are wicked because they
worship false gods. That's not an Old Testament thing. Jesus says,
go out and convert the nations because they're in paganism.
They're evil. So there's no neutrality. This is the fallacy
of the Enlightenment, the neutrality fallacy, the idea that there
are there is a common ground, a neutral ground like
logic or math, or some arena of science like studying
the earthworm, where where the atheist and the unbeliever can
just agree, we can agree that this is common ground. No,
you don't. You can't agree because logic in the mind
of the believer, the world view of the believer, is
completely different from what it is in the world view
the unbeliever. Every time you debate with him, it shows
that logic is not a common ground. Now, the reason
people have been confused over this is because, well, the
atheist is using logic. I'm using logic, so why can't
it be a common ground. Because logic in their system
functions without God. It's magic for them, it's a magical,
mystical load up for the mystery to right. But it
makes no sense in their system, so it's not actually
common ground. The only reason it's common ground is because
God exists, and because they're creatures of God. But there
are creatures of God in rebellion against God, as Paul
says in Romans Won. So in other words, they're using
logic in spite of their atheism, in spite of their
stupid system that does not make any sense at all.
But that does not equate to the erroneous Christian mistake
of the classical apologist of thinking, well, we've got common
ground with a look, come on, we both believe in logic,
we both believe in general principles of truth of morality.
No you don't, No, you don't. They will use those things,
but those things don't make sense in their system, and
they do not have a neutral approach to those things.
In fact, as you observe in every debate with an atheist,
they're not neutral. They are completely agenda driven. They are
completely biased. They have their biases and presubpositions like every
single human being, as we all do. And that's why
there's no such thing as new traity. There is absolutely
no way to approach any object anything in the world
with complete scientific Enlightenment neutrality. It doesn't exist. It's a
fiction of the Enlightenment. There's no such thing. We can
strive to be objective, we can strive to be neutral,
and we should in debate and discourse as much as
is possible. But that is a different question from whether
it actually exists. In fact, it does not. If God exists,
and it's the God that we believe, right, not some
made up thing. If it's the God that's revealed in scripture, tradition,
right orthodoxy, Logic does not function on its own, independent
and autonomously from God. Humans do not reason independently, autonomously
apart from God. They are using the gifts that God
gave them against God himself. As one philosopher said, it's
like a child sitting on the lap of the father,
and the child is continuously slapping the father in the face.
That's what's going on when the atheist uses logic. Okay,
it's like, uh, you know, wiley coyote is standing on
the branch, right, the atheist is the wiley cote standing
on the branch. God is the branch. The tree holding
him up, and he's sawing the branch off that he's
standing on. That's what the atheist does. That's the best
proper analogy for understanding how it's really going down. Okay,
it's not. It's not two people in a courtroom, the
theist and the atheist, and logic is this impartial judge
between the two of them and whoever presents the best evidence. No,
because evidence doesn't operate in neutrality. Evidence doesn't operate outside
of a context, outside of a system. So you have
to understand that dumb, bad apologetic arguments like the Lee
Stroble type. And by the way, I'm not saying that
Lee's trouble or you know intelligent design people. I read
those stuff all the time. That stuff's great. But the
problem is that you can you can show an atheist
a million examples of that stuff, and he's always going
to interpret it through his rose colored glasses. You need
an apologetic argument that punches his nose and knocks the
glasses off metaphorically speaking, don't do that in real life.
That will not win you the argument, right. You need
to challenge him such that he understands that not only
does he not have an objective neutral standpoint. He has
an agenda. He's in rebellion. He rejects God. Read Romans one. Right,
Paul says, all men are born in a state of
rebelling against God because they're sons of Adam, because of
ancestral sin. They're not neutral. You're not neutral. You're either
in Satan's kingdom or God's kingdom. There's no neutral kingdom.
You're not like halfway. I'm in the middle. I'm gonna
be agnostic about this. There's only two kingdoms sheep and goats, right,
Jesus Kingdom and the Kingdom of the world. The kingdom
of the world is under the dominion of Satan. Now
that doesn't mean gnosticism. Okay. This is what gnostics do
is they come along and say, well, that means then
that everything in the world is evil and Jesus has
nothing to do with this world and my kingdom is
none of this world. Yeah, but he said that his
kingdom would be taking over this world read Daniel two.
It becomes a giant mountain and takes over all the
kingdoms of this world. The Church go forth and convert
the nations. So it's not about setting up a political state.
It's about converting the nations, and then the nations then
have to conform their social order to the teaching of Christ.
Christ is not banished or excommunicated from the social order.
That's what the Enlightenment freemasons wanted to do, and that's
what all the modern so called orthodox do, is they
presuppose Jesus has banished from the social sphere and Christianity
has nothing to say in the social sphere, like even
popular twentieth century you know, otherwise good theologians, right like Lasky.
We covered the problems in Lasky. Loski says Orthodoxy has
no social teaching. What of course it does. What are
you talking about? Right? So even Losky, unfortunately, as good
as he is in so many places, is infected with modernism.
Who could read Saint Justinian and praise him as a
saint and think that there's no social teaching. This is
retarded only when you have the assumptions and presubsisitions of Americanism,
which is based on Enlightenment neutrality. Could you even think
this anyway? So we got kind of way off here.
But the point is that science presupp poses categories, truths
and all kinds of things that cannot be empirically scientifically justified.
And that, as we're going to see, is what points
us in the direction of not just generic theism, right
transcendent arguments, not a generic theism argument. It's an argument
specifically for our God. Now how did we get to that, Well,
remember we started by talking about the point that the
God that we're talking about is personal. That's crucial because
that's one of the things that sets our theology off
against the world religions. When the world religions seek for
their absolute principle, their great you know, concrete absolute, or
their great number or whatever they're looking for, what do
they come up with? All is fire, all is water,
all is booty, all his sex, all is any it
doesn't matter, put anything in there. They're looking for logos, Okay,
But even if you say all his logos, like the
Stoics did, they still don't conceive of it as a
personal principle. They conceive of logos as a giant impersonal principle.
So no, Stoicism is not going to work here either. Oh,
by the way, So I was I'm sorry, I was.
I was trying to answer the questions for it. So,
in other words, we're gonna see multiple questions kind of
being answered at once, hopefully that on the one hand,
for Eastern religions, again they pause it an absolute that
is impersonal and essentially some kind of force or you know,
principle in nature or numbers like Pythagoras or something, and
that doesn't work. And that's going to relate directly to
how we're going to tie all of these transcendentals in together.
How we're going to see that different transcendental arguments and
categories will assume a certain kind of God and world,
namely ours. So I'm going to show you how numbers
prove God, and not just any God, but that they
point directly to an omniscient, divine mind, the kind of
God we're talking about. But I did want to finish
these super chats here before we get to that. What
is the relationship between dog and the reason we just
did that? What is your thoughts on pre subvisional apologists.
I don't know who Jeff Durbin is. Doug Wilson, I
can't stand he's a fraud Sigitan bugin Kata. Everything I've
heard from him is retarded. These people are not very
good debaters, So no, I don't have anything to do
with any The only Protestant transcendental argument proponent I would
say is Monson. You can learn a lot from Monson. Also,
that book by Ja doctor Lyle is good. So people
were asking this the other day. If you're new to this,
just this question. We did this on another talk too.
By the way, doctor Jason Lyles's book is really good
as an introduction, and I think he writes a lot
for whatever that Creation Science Center is, which by the way,
Father Rose recommended if you read Genesis Creation Early Man.
He talks about how the Creation Science I always forget
the name of that place, but it's they have a
lot of jon doctor Jason Lyles books. This is a
good introduction to presubsitionalism. So it's cheap. If you want that,
go get that, because I get asked every day what's
the introduction to this? That one's good. And then you
can't beat the classic from m HM Doctor Bohnson Always
Ready as a classic, cheap, cheap book. And uh, again
we're not Calvinists, we don't affirm the Calvinism. Always Ready
as a classic. I'm looking for a book, uh where
it go? Here it is, And so that we don't
get lost in a Nestorian calvin Land. We want to
make sure that we align our apologetics with Orthodox theology.
So if you read those, be sure and correct it
by reading Aaron as an orthodox apologetic methodology, a neopatristic
presuppositionalism by father shooting. So every time we do the talk,
we get those questions. Those are the ones that you
want to read. Those are good. And let's see, we
got a couple more questions here. So I don't know
who Jeff Durbin is, but I can already tell you
I'm probably not gonna like any of those guys. If
they're like Doug Wilson, then no, I can't stand Doug Wilson.
Doug Wilson has used the same confused nonsense attempt to understand.
Doug Wilson thinks Orthodoxy has no Platonism. I mean he
said that for like the last ten years. He has
no idea what he's talking about. Robert Taylor five dollars,
love you, Jay, keep up the good work. A blessed
peace day, Mary entering the Temple to become the Temple
of God. Correct, Yes, see my essay typology as apologetic,
and we'll see that Mary as the temple of God,
which she's sung to be in the liturgy, doesn't make
any sense if the Old Testament is against the New Testament.
I mean, come on, this is like a no brainer
nosis for the masses. Ten dollars. Hey, J we'll save
this video to watch later. Will you ever discuss the
issues of Buddhist philosophy. I'm curious of your take on this.
Thank you for the great content, Thank you. Nosis. Yes,
the original point I was making earlier about the impersonal
absolute again, let's go back to this and we're going
to see. That's what I've been trying to point out
for a long time here. Every time I put this
in here, it's so huge. This picture is massive. This
point here about in God history and dialectic, this is
this is applicable to all the world religions. You see,
it's only in our system, in our belief system. I
can't see it's only in our belief system where you're
going to get on the one hand, monotheism, where we
see that God is won, but he's not an impersonal absolute,
he's not thusness, he's not like you know what what
the far Eastern philosophies all do is try to dissolve
man into an ultimate unity, an ultimate impersonal unity, a
giant negation, a giant, vast ocean of nothingness where you
become a drop that melds into the vast, infinite ocean
of nothingness. That is obvious. That is completely satanic. There's
nothing more satanic than a system that wants man to
destroy his identity. Now they'll say, well, but yeah, but
the problem with man is his particularity, his ego, his distinction.
That's not the problem with man. Man's problem is not
a metaphysical state, it's moral right. So all the far
Eastern philosophies positive that man's problem is his metaphysical state
of being, that he is particular, that he's not he's
no longer part of the giant thusness. Now we say
that's satanic. That's not man's problem. Man's problem is that
he fell, and he's morally accountable to God and he's
in rebellion against God. So man's problem is not metaphysical,
it's ethical. The ethical problems of man, namely in the Fall,
led to the problems of the metaphysical right being being corrupted,
a corrupted state in the world, the whole universe experiencing corruption,
as Paul says in Romans eight, because of man's moral sin.
So orthodoxy posits that man's problem is not metaphysical, but
instead ethical, and that the ethical leads to the metaphysical.
By the way, it also affects his knowledge. Man's noose
is blinded by the fault, and that's why he can't
reason properly about the external world. That's why there's no
neutrality with the unbeliever is because they don't reason properly.
You can't reason properly until you repent. Does that mean
that everything that they say is wrong. No, it means
that they can't reason properly about God and they will
misinterpret the world. Doesn't mean they misinterpret everything. Right, we're
not Calvinists. We don't believe that man is completely depraved.
He's not totally depraved. Right, He tends towards sin, He
is corrupted in terms of committing acts of sin. His
own very being is not sinful. That's called Manicheanism. So
when it comes to Far Eastern religions, we have a
again a faulty starting point with assuming that the problem
of man is metaphysical, The problem man is suffering as Buddhism. Right,
The problem of man is his his state of being
as a suffering being or whatever, his state of being
as a particular being, his ego, and that kind of
that's not the problems in man. The fact that you
are a self, that you're a person, is not your problem.
God made you a person in his image. The problem
is that you're falling. The problem is that you're a
descendant of Adam, and you're a selfish brat until you repent,
and even after you repent, you're still self is brat
until you spend your life essentially seeking Christ and seeking Deification,
overcoming all of these evils that are a result of
the moral fall. So essentially, then, the far Eastern religions
are metaphysical in trying to diagnose man's problems, and they
tend to see his problem as the fact that he's particular.
This is why they always try to blend men into
a giant communal blob. This is why the globalists love
for Eastern religions. Right. And you might say, well, that
means that atomism and individualism is good. No, they're dialectics.
There's no premiscy of one over against many. There's no
premiacy of many over against one. This is why we
believe in the triune God. God is both many and one,
and there's no ultimacy of one over the other. There's
an equal ultimacy in God between the One and the many.
The starting point is the Father is personal, and he
communicates his divinity to the Son and to the Spirit
without there being any subordination. The Father is first among
equals in the trinity. You see that. And Basil was
at pains to explain this against the heretics who tried
to reason that the Son and the Spirit were subordinate
to the Father. If we say the Father is first,
then that they thought necessarily implies onto logical subordination to
the Son and the Spirit, and it doesn't, Basil. So
there's no reason to think that. And that's because Basil
is not a dialectician. He's opposing the Greek dialectics and tension. Now,
all the Far Eastern philosophies have the same assumption of dialectics.
And when the Greeks used this stuff, they got it
from the Far Easterns. That's why Plato says in the
tomaeis that he got all his doctrines from the ancient Egyptians,
and the ancient Egyptians got it from the previous ancient
civilizations before them, you know, indo Arians or Mesopotamias, or
whoever you want it to be. It doesn't matter because
it's all the same stuff. They're all teaching the same thing.
They're all teaching giant, abstract metaphysical principles chain of being,
and the emperor, the pagan emperor's at the top of
this chain of being. He's Pharaoh, he's closer to the gods.
You're all the base of the pyramid. It's all the
same stuff. That's why all the ancient religions have zigroots.
It's all the same they all teach the same thing.
Now you said, wait a minute, how is that compatible
with Jesus. You said there's an Orthodox imperium. You just
quoted Saint Justinian. Yeah, because when Jesus came, he smashed
those pagan imperiums and he took him over. And that's
exactly what Daniel said he wouldn't do. Go listen to
the Daniel talk. We cover that anyway. So that's why
far Eastern religions are not really viable, because we're talking
about starting points and every system has a starting point,
every system has a grounding axiom, a presupposition, a transcendental
framework by which the position begins, and it doesn't matter
in terms of like temporal succession where you start the argument.
This is another mistake people make, is that they'll make
a mistake between logical or temporal succession, and they'll assume
that that means metaphysical or ontological superiority or subordination. And
in fact, this was Basil's point against the heretics, was
that just because the Father is spoken of in the
order of theology, the order of theology as prior and first,
it doesn't mean that in metaphysical reality that he has
a supremacy that the Son is in a lesser being. Right,
So what the hair would do is commit the same
error that the Begans were doing when they were trying
to say that because I make a distinction in something logically,
that in reality it must also therefore be. So that's
not true. Right, Just because we make a logical distinction
between the Father and the Son in terms of priority
in the Godhead does not mean that in reality there
is a metaphysical subordination between the Son and the Father.
So you can go read Saint Basil on that. But
this is a common error people make if you talk
about something in terms of if I talk about this
is the classical foundationalist error, right, they talk about the
fact that there are axioms that we begin with. Right,
Like they'll say, like if you talk if you debate
a Dominican, or if you debate a Thomas, they'll say,
you know, we believe in in foundational axioms like the
law of laws of logic or laws of non contradiction,
and those are known with certainty. However, the beliefs, the
propositions of faith are not known with certitude. How stupid
is this? They think that the laws of logic are
more certain than the teachings of God. And this is
the retardation of Roman Catholicism in its historic acceptance of
classical foundationalism. No, in fact, the laws of logic don't
even make sense if God doesn't exist. They presuppose God.
So you shoot yourself in the foot when you use
that stupid argument. And you only use that argument because
you're locked in a stupid system. That's a giant prison.
It's an idol. Tomism is a giant idol. Anyway, we're
going to show that to I want to demonstrate that
with that point about classical foundationalism, John gor has five dollars.
I have a confession to make on the down vote here. Well,
I think you're joking, but if you are, I'm sorry
that you felt the need to downvote, but also thank
you for the superchat. So I'll exchange one down vote
for four five dollars. Now, I guarantee you that was
some Catholic, probably Evan Schultz, getting through a blessed harvest
by the grace of God. I want you to share
some blessings and show you how much we appreciate you
and need you. Well, thank you very much from the
bottom of my heart. Thank you, Joe, Thank you Having Schultz.
You're always a big supporter, and God bless you, and
we thank you for your support. Yes, we're trying to
trying to reason properly about the faith, and let's get
into a little more of this deep stuff because I
know that this is not for everybody, and that's okay,
but we need to do it because the questions keep
coming up, and they keep coming up in debates, and
everybody keeps saying, hey, in the debates. You won't. You
won't explain how a transcendental argument proves your God. You
won't explain how logical leads you to God. You just
say this and say that. Well, I can't do everything
in one debate, first of all, and you can't control
where people want to go in a debate. So it's
not possible to answer every question and prove every proposition
in a debate. Right, So, in one sense, yes, there
is one transcendental argument, because all of the arguments improofs
can be encapsulated under one all encompassing transcendental argument. However,
in order to explain that and flesh that out, it
requires a bunch of different points and arguments. So and
that can never be done in one debate. So let's
start with numbers. Okay, so everybody knows, hopefully you've read it.
I wrote the essay several years ago, back in twenty thirteen,
Numbers prove God, And I was just pointing out that, remember,
as I said earlier, that there are different transcendental arguments,
different transcendentals, and we can kind of group them all
under one big one because none of these things operate
on their own, right, I mean, it's not like numbers
just exist apart from other things like concepts or symbols
or words or minds. Okay, there's no realm of numbers
floating out there like Plato thought that don't relate to
God or that don't relate to the human mind. There's
no sense in which we can speak of language or
communication for example, that doesn't also assume humans and communicators,
and well, you could even argue human beings themselves. Right, So,
for example, if we were just talking about linguistic philosophy
and communicating truths through language, right, language is full of
transcendental arguments. This is why some of the presently living
philosophers who do work in transcendental arguments they often talk
about language, because language is full of this kind of stuff.
For example, we assume that predicates and subjects make meaningful
connections about things in the world. Right, subject and predicate
and sentence. We assume that the words and the symbols
used in the sentences doesn't matter what language refer to
the same objects or concepts. Now, let's take a materialist
test case to show how stupid this is from the
materialist perspective. When we talk about this was what was
going on in the debate with Infidel on boiler Room,
the Infidel Pharaoh debate that we had the other day
where we were talking about scientism and he was saying
that the scientific process. Finally, after a while we got
into admit that, yes, it uses logic. Well, of course
it does. There's a logical process and flow to the
scientific method. Now is logic itself the subject of the
scientific method when the scientist is studying the earthworm, No,
of course not. But he's using it. Yes, obviously. So
we have on the one hand, the scientists studying the earthworm,
doing his hypothesis, forming his theories or whatever. And then
he's going through this process of testing, experimentation, reasoning to
come to conclusions, to sort out the true evidence from
the false evidence, the control factors from the anomalies, blah
blah blah. All of this is utilizing logic. Okay, So
logic is obviously assumed in the process of scientific investigation.
Edmun Husserl wrote a whole two volume book called Logical
Investigations to show and argue and spend hundreds of pages
pointing out how the scientific method presupposes logic. Of course
it does. But now it's not immediately under the empirical purview,
is it? No, of course not. So what's going on here?
How do we explain this well without getting too difficult
or deep into you know what can be at times
very obtuse discussions or debates, just simply put, in order
for this process to at all make sense, there's a
whole host of things that are being assumed in the
process of just something like a scientist going through and
studying earthworms to come up with some conclusion. And it
doesn't matter whether the scientist knows about this process or
he's thought about these questions or not. It's still there,
right the scientists he may have never had a class
on logic, right. Most of the time when you debate
these guys, it's like they haven't. They've never had a
class on basic logic, right, because not only do they
fail at basic logic and informal fallacies, they're also not
able to ask more abstracted questions about logic itself. What
is the umber seven? What is logic? And what do
they always say? It's a social construct. Human has made
it up. Now, this is so stupid that it's hard
to believe that intelligent high IQ people believe this, but
they do, and they defend it because they need to
defend it, because as soon as they give way on
this question, they're immediately conceding the possibility that not everything
that exists is material. So they're committed to guess what
a dogma. Everybody has their presuppositions and presupposed dogmas that
ground their systems. Now, the problem is that their system
is incoherent. It doesn't make sense why it's grounded. Our
system is at least coherent, and it makes sense. It
doesn't mean that everything in the system is perfectly explained.
We don't know everything about our belief system. We don't
know everything about God's actions here and there in the past.
But we can offer a justification for why there's regularity
in nature, which is something the scientific method presupposes, which
is something that no atheists can justify. Hold on. Second,
the kids are being louded here in the parking lot.
Not my kids, by the way, I ain't no baby
daddy now. So if we were to think through again,
like Infidel's approach to the scientists in the lab, the
scientist is interested in the pragmatic questions of the things
that are before him, of course, nobody denies this. However,
the philosopher of science, and we're engaging in philosophy of
science right here, is asking a more abstracted, higher level
question about what is going on in this process here.
And this is the same process that all scientists engage
in in all scientific methodology. Obviously, what does it assume? Well,
it assumes all kinds of things that are not presently
under epistemic purview or empirical preview, I should say so.
For example, when he gathers his specimens, he groups them
together according to a category which he believes properly describes earthworms. Right,
earthworms he thinks are a existing group of things that
he has properly identified earthworms from non earthworms. Right. He
didn't let snakes sneak in there. There's no baby snake
sneaking around. He's properly identified the specific species of earthworm
that should be investigated. Here. He's assumed that he has
the ability to operate in the external world to do this, right,
that he's distinct from the from the external world, right,
that he's not just another earthworm. Right, So he's assumed
that scientific method as a process is going to in
some way teach him, no matter how limited he wants
to have it. The scope be it's going to teach
him something about the external world. Right, it's not, And
he's it's not just a phantasm. Right, He's not working
with dreams that he's dreaming up about earthworms. He's actually
working with you know, substantial, physical, real, living earthworms. He
assumes that there is a meaning that's going on in
this process. Right. Not only is he assuming logic, he's
assuming meaning. This process has some kind of meaningful There's
some meaningful aspect or venture at work here that's going to,
in some way, he thinks, contribute to the approximation of truth,
right as it relates to the natural world or earthworms
or whatever. He assumes that this filtering method of scientific
process is going to even if he doesn't think his
theory is true, it's at least going to contribute to
the true being discovered. Right. So, even so truth is
presupposed some epistemic metaphysical concept here, universals are assumed by
the fact that he thinks he can delineate earthworms as
this group of things that they all possess certain categories
distinct from other groups of things that don't. Right, So
even if he doesn't believe in universals, and none of
them do, ninety nine point nine percent of them don't,
they're still acting as if universals exist, right that there
are categories of things that possess essences, even though he
thinks they don't. They're just atoms in a certain configuration,
just random atoms and molecules that just sort of came
together in random configurations. They don't have any actual meaning,
but we're going to pretend that they do. So you're
starting to see the pattern here. Logic meaning meaningful connection
between terms, symbols and objects in the world, universal categories, essences,
all of these things he don't. He does not think
they're real. They're just useful tools that we will operate
as if they are real, even though they're not. And
we're going to explain the external world even though we
can't really, We're going to approximate it. We're going to
act like it's a movement towards quote truth even though
it's not really truth. Are you starting to see the
point here? He acts like a theist. He assumes all
these things he can't empirically justify. In the midst of
this methodology and he doesn't even know it. This is
utterly devastating to his worldview. And that's why he has
to cling to assumptions and dogmas that he can't prove,
because it would be completely devastating if he were to
admit them. It would destroy the entire materialistic assumption, right,
because from the very outset it is completely self contradictory
across the board. And that's not even all. We're not
even done, right. What else is assumed here? Well, it's
assumed that this scientist himself has a consciousness that is
in some way able to connect events from the past
that go into his present interpretation of the worms in
front of him. Doesn't it Well, of course it does,
all right. He's probably spent twenty years studying earthworms, and
his collected wisdom of twenty years of studying earthworms, he thinks,
informs his present interpretation of the earthworms, And it does.
Of course it does. But it does so because the
world is not like he says it is. So let's
get this key point here, because this is what you're
going to see in every debate with an atheist or
a non believing zealot. We'll call them the non believing zealots.
They have a fundamental contradiction between ultimate irrationality and ultimate rationality.
This is crucial. Every debate will show this, every discussion,
every atheist will demonstrate this same tension within themselves because
on the one hand, they need order and meaning and
reason and rationality and logic and large scale meaning to
operate out there in the external world on a cosmic scale.
They need it. They act like it exists, but they
also have to turn around and deny it. That is
the fundamental contradictory, self destroying, presubsitional critique of all atheistic, materialistic,
unbelieving world views. They all have the same pattern problem obviously,
because there are a limited number of options for them
to take, and once they take one of the two roads. Right,
So if we start with talking about how do we
know about the world metaphysics, right, any of these categories
of philosophy, they're already boxing themselves in by assuming things
number one that are universal. Right, they'll assume universally that
matter is the only thing that exists. Okay, this is
a metaphysical assumption. They don't even know that, but they
assume it, right, And they'll say, well, yeah, there's how
else could they, Well, there's nothing else we know, what
else could we know? Where's this entity sitting here talking
to me as if he is a person being right,
that has rights and is extremely arrogant and prideful about
his life, and he thinks that, you know, if somebody
wrongs him, if somebody steals his hot pocket, you know,
he's furious and he's gonna, you know, attack them on
on their YouTube profile or whatever. So they act like
they're a being with dignity, a being with will, a
being with meaning, with existence, and yet at the same
time they have to confess according to their worldview, as
we saw an example of the atheist at the debate
earlier that I was telling the story from when I
was like twenty, everything's meaningless. Now. This came up to
Nili Grass Tyson, and I mentioned it in my Neili
Grass Tyson essay. If you haven't read that, go read that.
It's a great critique of scientism that Nilo Grass Tyson
knows this, and he's asked this all the time, well
not all the time, but he's been asked us many times,
and he says, ools what we don't believe philosophy doesn't
matter anymore. Who curs I philosophy doesn't matter anymore. Now,
wait a minute, Logic is in the domain of philosophy,
and everybody knows this. Okay, nobody denies this, and every atheist,
every material thinks that they are the masters of logic. Right,
logic and reason are on their side. They're the masters
of logic and reason. And yet Neil de Grasse Tyson
tells us that philosophy no longer matters, it's been discarded
due to the power and magic of the scientific method.
Now this is just foolishness. It's a completely absurd. And
by the way, I'm glad that everything has been coming
out the way it has with not just alternative media
or Russiagate or any of that stuff. But are you
starting to see the pattern here of everything from the
establishment is completely nonsensical? It is completely contradictory. I mean,
why is it, for example, that every establishment person, let's say,
take Neil Degrass Tyson, just as a perfect example, this
pop scientist and propagandist. Now, if he was really interested
in the scientific method, wouldn't there at least be one
area of you know, big hot button issues where maybe
he takes a divergent opinion. But he doesn't, does he.
Whether it's vaccines, whether it's nine to eleven, whether it's anything.
He's completely establishment across the board. Now, what does that suggest?
That suggests that science and the realm of science does
not actually operate on neutrality like it claims. And if
we read Kune, we realize this. Now Kun is wrong
because in Structures of Scientific Revolution he realizes that science
does not have the neutrality that it thinks it does,
and he adequately proves that it does not. But then
he thinks, well, there's just no answer, right, because he
doesn't understand transcendental arguments. He doesn't realize the way to
solve this problem of paradigms is to compare paradigms for coherence. Now,
none of the atheists are prepared to do this. The
materials that because they don't know this stuff. They don't
study philosophy, they don't even take basic logic, and they
sure as heck don't take advanced logic or metallogic. Right,
They're completely lost. Right, That's why when I start asking
those questions, they have no idea what I'm talking about,
not because of big words, but because they've never thought
about it. They never thought about the question of, well,
how does a law of logic actually function? What is
a law of logic? What is the number seven? Where
is the number seven? How can the number seven be?
Now when we start to consider numbers. And this is
something that even these clowns, if they could read Plato,
they would get some insight here, because at least Plato
realized this advocating Platonism. By the way, I'm just saying,
playtn't realize. Hey, wait a minute, the number seven is
not over there. The number seven is not in my mind. Now.
It could be in my mind in terms of like
I have a mental picture of it, or I think
about it. Right, But if I stop thinking about it,
or if I raise the number seven, all these clowns
they think that it literally isn't It's not there anymore.
But let's stop and think about this, because there are
all kinds of things that even if we get more
complex than the number seven, if we think about something
like pie, or if we think about something like a
mandolbrought fractal or a set, those things aren't in your mind.
Now you can have a loose idea of what a
Mandelbrot set is, but you cannot picture in your mind
a Mandol brought set because they're infinite and they keep
going on and or not. And so the reason I
always bring up Mannl Broth says, is an easy way
to show the stupid of these people who claim that
numbers are social constructs. There's no society that's socially constructed.
A Mandel brought set guphis by the way they're reflected
in nature. The Fibonacci sequence is not something that is
concocted in the human mind. Fractals in Mandel brought sets
are not concocted in the human mind because they can't
even be contained in the human mind. And this is
so stupid. This debate has already had centuries ago when
it was pointed out to empiricists who believe that man
is a tabula rossa. They said, wait a minute, Achillia gone.
You can't fit a chillia. You can't picture that in
your head. And if you can't picture it in your head,
then you can't believe that it exists. But it does.
It's a real geometric object. And this refuted the naive
empiricis a long time ago. Of course, it does there's
no answer to this. If you believe that man is
a blank slate. Tabula rossa in mathematics is a pure
social construct. This is retarded. A killing gone is a
thousand sided polygon. Can you image that in your head? No,
obviously you can't. So mathematical entities are not human constructs,
and they're not solely contained in chemical reactions in the head.
This is utterlyly stupid. And these things do relate to reality.
By the way, how do we know that, Well, the
easiest way to sow you can make this argument actually
about any number or number set, but the easiest way
to show it is that uh mandal brought fractals were
not discovered until there were computers strong enough to zoom
into them to you know, the thousandth power or whatever.
And they just keep repeating, and they just keep They're
like landscapes that you can surf and discover, bro and
they just keep going, and you zoom in forever never
and never and never, and it never ends and they
create new patterns and guess what, It's all based on
basic set theory. You can plot out this diagram here
and see this black sun. You can plot that out
on a basic x Y axis and that's what creates this.
And you can guess what zoom and zoom and zoom
and zoom and zoom, and it repeats, did you know this? Okay?
Now why do I sell this? Because this isn't created
by a social constructor in somebody's head, dummy. Obviously it's obvious,
and we could not see this until really advanced computers
were able to zoom into this power. So Amandol brought
set is just one example of a mathematical entity or
object that is real, that is not a social construct.
It is reflected in nature. Just look up the talk.
There's countless talks on YouTube about people showing mandelbrought fractals
in nature. Mandelbrought himself noticed them in nature. By the way,
they show different levels of infinity, by the way, there
are different types of infinity. There are many infinities. There's
not just one infinity, as we know from mathematics. So
the point is that is that this is one bonafide, undeniable,
obvious example of a straight up, knock down, irrefutable proof
that mathematics and the principles behind mathematics and set theory
and varied advanced mathematics are not human social constructs. They're
discovered and social constructs aren't made up. Okay, when Mandelbrot
discovered this, it was a discovery. He did not make
this up. Okay, two different things. But the dumb dams
an atheists, they literally think that mankind made up numbers,
they just created them their social construct. That's how stupid
this view is. No, this is not a social construct, dummy.
Does this look like a social construct to you? Do
you think we all just got together and decided it
was just said social construct? Zeists from my brain because
my brain is good. It was social construct ziz Mendelbrot
set out of my head. No, anyone intellectually honest with
themselves can recognize that this is not a human social construct.
Mandelbrot did not make this up out of his head.
He discovered this. And, as Roger Penrose says, most mathematicians
who do hardcore, serious mathematic research, they all pretty much
seem to realize that they're not inventing things, they're discovering things. Yes,
Penroe says that in the Mind of God book by
Paul Davies, there's some really great quotes, by the way,
about Penrose in there, and if you look at Penrose
Tiling and some of the talks of Roger Penrose, he
makes these same points. He says, Look, anybody who knows
anything about numbers and set theory and Mandelbrot sets, they
know that we didn't make these up. Okay, they're not
social constructs. It's retarded. How could you think that's a
social construct. If it was a social construct, then other
societies who use basic mathematics would have different mathematics. Okay.
Now we're not talking about the abstract questions of like
different medical theories that sometimes you know are non euclidion
or what. That's a different question. We're talking about the
basic tetractus of you know, the ordinal numbers and how
they relate to the external world. Right. Everybody in every
action presupposes things like one, two, three, four or five. Right.
So primitive societies when they were trading, you know, rocks
for boobies. You know, they were trading five rocks for
one for two boobies on that slave girl. Right, so
they're utilizing basic numbers. That was not a social construct.
That changes from that society to our society. But what
did Infidel say he said, numbers are social constructs, And
yet Infidel was laughing at the social justice warriors a
few days earlier who think that logic is a social construct. No,
I'm sorry, Logic, basic logic, basic logical principles, and numbers
do not evolve and they do not evolve from their societies.
The ancient idols had two boobies, just like today's idols
have two boobies on them unless you're watching Total Recall
and it has three boobies. I'm just being silly, But yeah,
so or are we starting to see the point here?
So now, when we understand math from that vantage point, right,
speaking of basic math here, and then when we look
and we understand that mathematics doesn't just exist in the
human mind, there's some sense in which it also transcends
the human mind to apply to the external world. Now,
if that's not true, then the equations that we use
to build bridges and computers and rockets wouldn't work. But
they do, and they do work because they do translate
to applying to the external world. But now, if we
took the view of the atheists, then the numbers so
called that are just chemical reactions in our head, right,
not only are they not real, they're literally equated to
chemical reactions in the head. When I'm thinking of the
number seven, and when Infidel Fhiro is thinking of the
number seven, he's acting like we're actually tapping into some
abstract concept. But he then has to turn around and
deny it by saying there's no such thing as those
that exist outside the head. And because he's a materialist,
he literally has to say that numbers are absolutely equivalent
to the chemical reactions in our brains. That is so
stupid because his chemical reactions are not mine. But he's
assuming that we're talking about the same thing, the number seven,
But the reactions in his head are not mine, so
they're not the same. This is how absurd a atheism is.
Why is it that absurd? Because it can't allow anything
to challenge its dogma of materialism. If it allows there
to be immaterial, invariant, abstract, non physical concepts or entities,
it starts to have problems. It starts to break down,
because then it starts to lose its foundational dogma, which
it thinks undercuts everything. Right, that all there is is
the physical, All there is is matter, matter in motion, right,
evolution or whatever that's all there is. So are we
seeing the pattern here that consistently? It's there's an assumption
of all kinds of things. Now, if you read my
essay about knowledge presupposing, metaphysics and ethics, then you'll start
to see that, gus, what else is? Or if you
watch the debate with Vegan Gains and that goofs kid,
you'll start to realize that other things are assumed too,
aren't they. When the scientist is doing his earthworm experiment
and he's uh, oh, presupposing logic, Guess what else? He's
presupposing truth? Remember, because we're trying to approximate Even if
he doesn't believe in truth, he's at least trying. He's
acting like and trying to approximate truth in the scientific process.
Right now, what else is presupposed along with truth? Well,
the assumption that you should search for truth. Guess what
that's ethics, right? I mean, he's we're assuming we're supposed
to believe that in this process he is going to
look for what's true in the experiments and ferret out
the false, and that he should do that and we
should follow him, and that that should be done in
this scientific process. That's an ethic question. So there is
no divorcing of these worlds like the atheists and the
goofhuses want there to be. Why do they want that
because they need it to be that way to prop
up their goofy system. Now, if I should now now
what they'll actually introduce a little bit of sophister here
at this point because they'll say, well, okay, okay, but
but now we we ought to follow truth, but you
don't have to. They'll say something like that, like, like
the scientific method assumes truth and that you should follow
through to what's true and not accept the false. Right,
I mean, why why should I? Why should I accept
the the information that confirms the thesis right, that assumes
truth over falsehood, and that you should that it is
correct to do so, it is right to do. So
why should we follow logic? Well, because it assumes it's
assumed in the process that you should all debate all
discourse assumes that you should and that you will. So
the point being is that not only has this atheist scientist,
in his earthworm obsession and lab assumed a whole bunch
of epistemic things and categories, qualities, everything that I've outlined
for the last hour. Uh oh, he's also assumed some
ethical things, and that was the whole point of that
goofy debate with that kid and began gains which they
did not want to admit, even though eventually the kids
said you should assume and I was like, a he
messed up, bro, gotcha? Because shoulds and aunts are questions
of ethics, right, So really you can't even construct a
purely abstract logic that you don't have to follow because
it's bound up with the idea of logic that you
are supposed to In other words, it assumes true. Right.
There's a presubsosition of truth with a capital T here.
Whether the person believes in it or not. It doesn't
matter whether you believe it or not, or whether you
want it to be there or not. It still assumes it.
It necessarily entails it. Okay. So what we're starting to
see here is that a very fundamental philosophical analysis. And
this is, by the way, if you do philosophy of science,
these are the kinds of questions that you'll ask, right.
I took philosophy of science classes. It was great in
undergrad and grad. But the scientist doesn't ask these questions
he doesn't think he needs to. He doesn't think they matter,
he doesn't care, Okay, and that's fine to a certain degree.
Science is not concerned with philosophic questions. It's pragmatic. However,
these are all the same people who turn around and
try to dictate philosophy and dogma theology and use reason
and logic to the philosophers and the theists right like
they're in charge and they really know what's going on,
and they're arrogant. They are made foolish, as Paul says,
because they don't even know what they're talking about. So
they lack humility because of their prideful atheism. What does
the psalmists say, right, atheism is foolish? David says that
the person who says there's no God is a fool.
He's not just saying that to be mean. It's not
just rhetoric. He's actually saying that the belief system is foolish.
Now you say, where's that, well, go read Wisdom one
and two. In Wisdom one and two, due to a
canonical book which Paul references in Romans one, you have
a couple chapters basically outlining the unbelieving atheist worldview, and
Wisdom one and two says that it's nihilistic and it
ends in foolishness. It undercuts everything that it claims. Again
presubsisitional argument in Wisdom one and two. So what we've
seen here is this guy has presupp a whole bunch
of stuff, not just metaphysically, not just epistemically, this test
case atheist scientist guy here, but also ethically. Now he's
in a bit of a quandary here, isn't he right?
Because at every one of these points there's serious problems
that are not empirically verified. So if you recall, in
multiple debates and even in the debate with some of
these characters, I've made the point of the crackers and
the pantry fallacy. This is what Bonson called it, and
it's a great term because it's an error that is
usually had in the scientistic materialist atheist camp where they
start the debate from the outset assuming that they will
only accept empirical proof for anything that a theist claims,
because that's all there is or that's all we can know.
So they start with not eve empiricism right, and they say,
I'm not going to believe in anything like a number
or abstract concepts or qualities or logic or anything in
the way you're arguing it, or God without empirical proof. Now,
the problem with this is that it assumes from the
outset the very thing that the atheist thinks is true. Right,
He's doing the assuming just like the believer is just
like the theist is doing. Namely, he's assuming that the
only things that exist are physical. Right, So this is
an attempt to poison the well and basically limit move
the parameters of the debate from the outset to where
nothing can be accepted as evidence except physical proofs of things.
And that's what the debate is actually about. So basically,
he's saying, I'm not going to believe in God unless
God can be proven physically, and God is not physical,
therefore there's no God. This is what every atheist tries
to do. Now we come along and we said, now
wait a minute. Even you atheists agree with us already
that not everything is proven in the same way. For example,
you don't believe that a complex math problem is proven
or solved in the exact same way as how we
know what temperature water bowls at, right, or how we
know a court case is solved, or how we know
something about history? Right, Different things are proven in different ways.
So you can't do this shady thing from the outset
by assuming that if God exists, he must be proven physically,
when we are saying that God is not physical. So
that's the very thing that's in question. And you can't
just set the debate from the outset by saying that
I'll only accept empirical physical evidence, and we can prove
that you don't actually believe that by pointing out that
you believe in a host of things that are not
empirically verified, namely all the stuff I just listed about
Infidel and the test case scientists in the lab. We
just went through an hour of things that he believes
in and assumes and acts as if they exist that
he has no empirical proof for. So even you atheists
don't actually believe that it's only rational to believe in
something physically empirically provable. You don't even believe that. You
don't operate that way. But you set up from the
outset a trick, right, a poisoning of the well to
where we can't introduce evidence or proofs for anything non physical.
But that's the very thing that's in debate. Are there
non physical things? That's the debate. So this is a trick.
You have to call it out, and that's why Bonson
called it the crackers and the pantry fallacy. It's not
an actual quote fallacy, but it is a flaw and
argumentation similar to poisoning the well. So you can't allow
the atheists to from the outset determine the parameters and
limits of the debate because it assumes the thing that's
in question, namely not eve empiricism and radical materialism. Now,
to expand on that, if we were to prove the
existence of non material things, doesn't it seem to follow
that non material things are going to be proven in
a different way than material things. Right, We're not going
to look under a stone to find pie. We're not
going to climb up a tree to see the law
of logic. We're not going to boil water to see
if in the midst of the bouncing molecules a mandol
brought set appears in our heads. Magically, no, different things
are proven in different ways, meaning we're not going to
look in a microscope to find meaning. Obviously it's nonsense.
It's absurd. We're not going to take a measuring rod
to measure the number seven. It's retarded. But yet we
believe and we act as if numbers, concepts, non empirical truths, right,
all of these things the self. We act as if
they're real. Now, how would we go about proving something
or demonstrating the existence of something like that that is
non physical, if in fact it does exist, if in
fact they are true, Well, obviously they're not. They're not
under microscopes. So now some people didn't would go that
would lead them to conclude they don't exist. We just
can't know. We just can't wait a minute. A similar
debate just like this occurred in the history philosophy. This
is why I always reference it because it's a great
illustration of this. And when I make this argument, I'm
not saying it's true because Aristotle said it. I'm saying
that it's true because the argument proves it. And Aristotle
was the first to make this argument against the sofas. Right,
So you're dealing with somebody who's a Sophist and they
say the law of non contradiction, All right, all your
logic is fine, Aristotle, you want to make your little
logical arguments. But what do you do when somebody comes
along with a very subtle, sophistical argument that how do
we even know the laws of logic are true? Maybe
the law of non contradiction doesn't exist, And Aerosol says, ah, okay, right,
you want to try to get me to empirically prove
the law of non contradiction. He says, I can't. And
then the sofas says, haha, we finally got you, or
so I we tripped you up because you can't empirically
prove to us that there's these immaterial, magical, flying spaghetti
monster laws of logic around us, and Aerosol says, I
can prove it to you. And it's called a reductio argument.
It's called an argument from the possibility of the contrary,
And not only is that stronger than an empirical argument,
it's one of the strongest possible arguments. So, for example,
to deny the law of non contradiction assumes the law
of non contradiction because it assumes the very thing that
it's seeking to deny. It is using logic, It is
using statements about what can and cannot exist, what does
and does not exist, i e. Law of identity, law
of non contradiction, using logic to deny a fundamental of logic.
This is a transcendental argument. It's simple. Do you see
the argument. If I'm a sophist and I am going
about trying to prove that logic does not exist, I
am logically arguing, trying to use meaningful discourse premise to
conclusion that logic does not exist. There are no laws
of logic. It is illogical to believe in laws of logic.
That is a contradiction at such a fundamental level that
everything I'm saying collapses into absurdity. It is devastating. It
is destructive to the possibility of knowledge at all. If
the sofist is correct, knowledge is not even possible because
anything you say is nonsense and incoherent because the law
of non contradiction doesn't even hold. And that's so fundamental
for any kind of predication that you can't talk You
can't talk about the world because any kind of language, linguistics,
predication meaning it assumes kind of basic things like that, right,
the ability to distinguish one thing from another. You couldn't
distinguish one thing from another if there were no laws
of language in logic. So this is so devastating, so
stupid that it is at a nuclear level self refuting.
So not only is that an argument, it is one
of the strongest arguments when you understand that point. And
Aristotl forcefully made that point against the sophists, and every
atheistic materialist ends up being a Sophist and they end
up getting refuted in exactly the same way. That doesn't
mean the rest of Aerosol's theology was correct either, by
the way. It just means that on that point he
was absolutely correct. Now, that is one example of a
basic transcendental argument that is utterly devastating to anybody who
tries to argue the stupid kinds of things that they argue.
Y'll use another example, though, which often comes up that
most of you will encounter outside the realm of academia,
and let's use the basic knowledge claim about certainty. Most
people have been indoctrinated into the garbage cult of relativism.
Relativism says that there's nothing that's true. Ultimately, we can't
really know anything true for certain All knowledge is relative, right,
because all human experience is relative, right, So who can
say who can say what's true? Who knows? How can
anybody say? I mean, what's true for you? It's true
for you? Bro, what's true for me? It's true for me,
different strokes, different folks. You've heard the same idea a
million times over in a million different instantiations. Now, if
we are trained in basic presubsitional thought and critique, this
is a no brainer. It is so fundamentally stupid that
it almost functions like the mark of every It's almost
like everybody who believes this is an NPC. I mean
you can almost put it that way, like I mean,
quite literally, like this is the mark of an NPC.
Because really, as I've argued many times over, exiting the matrix,
if we want to use these you know, goofy pop
culture analogies, it's really a question of at least beginning
to consider the possibility of there being truth and the
possibility of truth. Admitting that it means that we are accountable.
We aren't the masters of our own destiny in a
in an atheistic god sense, right, Like I'm not the
God of my own mind like I thought I was.
And it means a reorienting, reorienting of our thought process
in our life. If we come to the point where
we can admit that there's such a thing as truth
with the capital T, objective truth that exists and that
is real and that you can't lie about. So let's
go back to this, to the norm the normy NPC
guy who says all truth is relative. Now, all you
guys know this. It's an easy one. It's a no brainer.
Now wait a minute. On the one hand, you're saying
that we can't know anything for certain, nothing's true, but
you're saying it's absolutely true, and you're dogmatic, and they're
all dogmatic. They're committed to it. This is the root
of their unbelief. This is the root of their rebellion.
They have to believe, they need it to be true,
that nothing is true. But now, wait a minute. That's
a contradiction at a basic, fundamental logical level. The belief,
the idea that nothing is true must also be true
and is therefore self contradictory. This is a fundamental, basic contradiction.
And ninety nine percent of the atheist, unbelieving, relativist type
of persons that you say that to, how will they respond,
I'll tell you how. They say, you're playing word games. No, no,
I am playing serious games. This is real, This is
the meaning of life, This is eternity. This is not
a word game. This is a serious thing. You can
play this game throughout your life and pretend that nothing
is true. But you, deep down, and that's what Paul
says in Rome's One. You deep down know that that's
not true. Every person knows that that's not true, no
matter what comes out of their mouth. They know that
relativism is not true because nobody lives like a relativist.
Truly speaking, every nihilistic relativist goes to funerals. They all
get mad when people steal from them. They get mad
when their pride is slighted, they get mad when they're insulted.
Why is any of that? Why would you be that
way unless you were a person with dignity. But you
don't have dignity in your worldview, but in your mind
you want there to be dignity for humans, well mainly
for you. Right, it's not wrong to steal. So what
if somebody steals from you? I mean, nothing inherently wrong
with that. Right, You're probably gonna go to your mom's
funeral though, right, Why it's an irrational action? Why would
you go to a funeral. Life is meaningless. Funerals are
just as meaningless. But we see then that none of
these people actually live these world views. But of course
they're more than happy to tell you about theists being hypocrites. Now,
if atheism is true, what's wrong with being a hypocrite.
That's what point I always make, Like they're always talking
about theists, Christians or hypocrites. Okay, I have many many
theists and Christians are hypocrites, But it's only wrong to
be a hypocrite in a Christian worldview. If atheism is true,
there's nothing wrong with being a hypocrite. So you can't
critique these systems when you don't accept those systems. In
order to critique those systems, you're assuming those systems are true.
And that's the that is true for every atheist. Now,
if atheists were consistent, nothing would matter and nothing would
be no action. I think there's a statement even in
Crowley where he's pretty consistent or trying to be consistent
with us, where he says something like, well, I've come
to the point where, ultimately, in my worldview, no actions
are better or worse than any other actions. They're just actions.
And if atheistic materialism are true, and you know, the
universe is basically just random chaos. It's all just events.
Events are just events, They're just happenings. Things are just happening.
One event is not better than one event. It's just
the atoms and the molecules over here are doing one
thing and the atoms and molecules over there are doing
another thing. There's no better there, better or worse, good, bad.
Those are value judgments. Those are in the domain of ethics.
And when you just have matter in motion, there's absolutely
nothing about that that tells you or gives you any
indication of one collection of atoms being better or worse
than another collection of atoms smashing into one another. Right,
so one collection of atoms smashing into one another and
creating a human life is no better or worse than
another series of atoms smashing into one another. And you know,
serial killer eating dead bodies like, there's no difference, just
atoms smashing. So point being this again brings us back
to this question of transcendental categories, things that are not
immediately under the purview of empirical proof, but are assumed
in the process of everyday living as soon in the
process of scientific discourse, assumed in the process of mathematics,
assumed in the process of engineering, assumed in the process
of art and aesthetics, assumed in any kind of human process,
social organization, society. Right, it all utilizes a whole host
of things that are not empirically verifiable, but are absolutely
necessary for the possibility of those systems working and cohering. Now,
when we consider all of those different kinds of things,
those categories, right, these transcendental categories that are not empirically
verified but yet assumed for any cognition whatsoever. To have
knowledge at all, in order to have any cognition at all,
in order to have meaning at all, in order to
speak about things at all, we have all these things
that I've been talking about assumed. Now, when we consider
this is key. Listen to this. When we consider the
fact that none of those things operates on their own, well,
guess what, They all kind of connect to one another,
don't they. Of course they do. Is because, as I
pointed out, you can't have propositions and you can't have
a view of epistemology that ignores ethics. So, in other words,
every one of these transcendental categories and truths that we've
been talking about. They entail one another. There's no abstract
realm of truths that we can reasonably speak about and
know about that don't involve humans, right, because humans are
the focal point between you know, the ideal realm, of
spiritual realm, whatever, between God and this world, the human mind,
human psyche. Right, So it would be pointless, in other words,
to talk about numbers as if humans never existed. That's
a pointless question because that's not how the world is constructed.
If God had set it up that way, we don't
know likely, it's not even it's not even a meaningful
question because that's not the world in which we inhabit.
So if we're gonna speak meaningly, meaningfully about this world,
then all these things that we've been talking about, the self, identity,
over time, abstract concepts, logic, logical laws, they apply and
they relate to the world that we inhabit, this world
here and now, this life, Okay, not an imaginal world,
not some planet where JF is talking about making supercomputers.
That's we're talking about this world. And all these categories
that I just listed, they relate to this world. The
scientific method, it relates to this world. It doesn't relate
to hypothetical worlds on planet Pluton. With what a Alex
Jones always you say, the Keebler elves, the Keebler elves
on Zeta reticuli. That doesn't have anything to do with
what we're talking about. The self, identity over time, logical laws,
mathematical principles, abstract concepts meaning all of those things scientific
method relates to this world, and our understanding of those
things cannot be divorced from our own lives in this world.
And so, in fact, there is an interesting additional argument
to be made here that philosophers like Heidegger have kind
of touched on, Leibniz has kind of touched on, which
is that in a way, any of these subjects that
we're speaking of, they don't just stand alone. It's not
like the transcendental argument. It's just this abstract argument that
stands alone. No, no, no, It absolutely relates to this world,
time and space, and it actually presupposes the rest of
this world. Does that make sense. It's a little out there,
it's a little obscure, but I think it's actually true.
Now if that is the case, and I think that
it is and we're getting a little kind of out
there deep here. But all relations in this world, in
other words, assume these same categories that we've been talking about,
and they all kind of stand or fall together, and
in o there was it wouldn't make any sense to
talk about a self, right, or the presubposition, or the
transcendental category of the cell, or the transcendental unity of
apperception as called. It wouldn't even make sense to talk
about that if we didn't inhabit this world of time
and space where things move from right, past to present
to future. Right, there's a beginning, middle, and end to
human experience that's presupposed in all human experience. It's another
transcenal category. Now again, when we think about how all
of these relate, how they all cohere and they presuppose
one another, guess what, we start to realize we're actually
talking about an entire worldview here, and they, they, and
all of these transcendentals entail one another. Right. Again, it
makes no sense to talk about laws of logic if
we're not also talking about human consciousness of them. It
makes no sense to talk about beginning of middle and
end or human perception if we're not talking about perception
within this world and the assumption of the self. The
assumption of the self assumes history. It assumes you come
from some people group. Right, You're not an abstract self
that just sort of appeared out of nowhere in the
time and space. No, you come from a people group,
you have a history, you have a lineage. So in
other words, actually the whole world is presupposed as it
is in presubsitionalism. Nobody else will talk about that. By
the way, although Hus although Heideger did kind of almost
come close to this, and maybe a little bit of
Hegel comes close to this, but Hegel is so infected
with processed philosophy that you know, some of this would
be almost too confused and garbled to even gather out
of Hegel. So now that we've considered that, we think,
what kind of God would we believe in or need
in this belief system or worldview that could actually hold
all of these things together. Well, we need one that's omniscient.
We need one that has an omniscient divine mind that
although the mind of God is beyond us, in some way,
it's kind of like our mind because we're made in
the image of God. Many of the church fathers, the
great thinkers of our church have talked about the mind
of God like Saint Maximus Confessor and Ambiguo seven speaks
about the logo and the mind of God. And if
we read if you read my Numbers Prove God essay,
you'll see that I cite Stephen Clark's paper on Saint Maximus,
and in that paper he talks about the mind of
God and the incarnation, some really really great stuff in
this in this paper, and I think it's still still
free to read publicly. In other words, only the mind
of God can link together coherently in a golden chain
in a meaningful way. All of these transcendental categories that
we've listed that are all presupposed in any human action
and intercourse and discourse in a meaningful way. And guess what,
that's what we say about God. So here we are
right back at Saint Maximus Confessor and the worldview that
we believe. Numbers, geometry, concepts, meaning all of these things
directly come from a kind of world wherein we have
the kind of God we confess. In other words, it's coherent.
That doesn't mean that I have an empirical verification for
every one of these transcendental claims, because they're not empirical,
how are they proven. They're proven by the impossibility of
the country. If I deny any of these, like the
existence of the self, then all knowledge becomes impossible. When
I consider all these different transcenital categories, and I consider
how they beautifully symphonize and cohere to make the world meaningful,
in man's experience in the world meaningful, and to give
man the possibility of knowledge and cognition, then I start
to see how it is all a fabric that only
makes sense if it can all be held together in
a single divine mind. Now, a divine mind is not impersonal.
If I were to say that, I would be back
at the Far Eastern or the Greek impersonalism conceptions, right
of impersonal forces just sort of smushing everything together. And
guess what, Every one of those goes back to absolute
divine simplicity. Right, They're all just manifestations of the One,
everything smushed together into one. And we're back to this now.
Our God is also not just one. He's not just
a divine mind out there. He's the personal God who
became incarnate. That's what Maximus the Confessor in the Stephen
Clark paper will make clear the incarnation is a big
part of this. Right. It's not a God who is
far off, it's not a divine mind that's out there
in the ether. It is a divine mind who became incarnate.
And thus all the logo being gathered up and encapsulated
into the one logos, namely the incarnate son of God,
gives us the ability to make sense of the created
order because our God is personal and not impersonal, and
he's not just one, he's also many. So the one
in the many problem, which is another transcendental issue that
we didn't really go into, but basically for Eastern religions
again fall into that idea of smushing everything into one.
We did talk about the one of the many earlier,
the one in the many problem, as Father stan Eloy
and Losky in dogmatic theology and even Saint Maximus. The
one in the many problem is solved by the trying God.
God is both one and many, so we have equal
ultimacy between the one and the many in God, and
only our view holds that all the other world religions
do not believe that they believe in absolute do on simplicity,
or they believe in polytheism and absolute multiplicity. Only ours
believes this. Thus, we can make sense of numbers because
numbers are a reflection of the mind of God. As
Ecclesiasticus says, the Bible says that God formed everything according
to weight, number, and measure. That means numbers and the
created order can reflect their true meanings in the mind
of God, the logoi, the archetypal principles, patterns and meanings
of things. Therefore, transcendental argumentation does not just assume the
mind of God. It assumes an omniscient mind of God, transcendent,
transcendent over time and space, but also within time and space.
It assumes a personal deity, and not just an impersonal deity.
It assumes namely the deity revealed in our scriptures. All
of those attributes make sense of this, right, because once
we've gotten to this point, if you follow me in
this through this reasoning, then you would be at Christian theism.
At that point we would say, all right, as a
Christian theist, what's the true theology. That's where we're going
to get into orthodoxy. Right, But already all of this
is pointing us directly to Orthodoxy, because only Orthodoxy has
the essy synergy distinction right which we pointed out here,
and the other world religions do not. Same points earlier
about creation. If we accept, if we accept the idea
of emanationism, or that matter and reality are eternal, those
are self refuting ideas. If the world is eternal, then,
as many of the philosophers argued, change is illusory, you're
not really changing. And if change is ay, then your
experience is a losery. If your experience is allusory, then
everything that you believe is self refuting and incoherent nonsense.
So when we hopefully understand that that's where the argument leads.
When we point out all these different transcendental categories, when
we point out how it's not just a question of
like the law of logic or something, it's a whole
bunch of things that in fact, the entire world is
presupposed in any single transcendental category, then we start to
understand how all encompassing this is, and how it takes
us back to the starting point of the one being
personal not impersonal, that leading us down a certain track
of well, okay, maybe then some other monotheism will know
because the other monotheisms also teach absolute divine simplicity. They
don't TEACHCS and SS inergystinction. The essence inergy distinction is
what also gives us an insight into proper anthropology, because
we have an revealed anthropology and not a philosophically devised,
scientifically devised anthropology in orthodoxy. Go listen to my talks
on that we have a unique position here right in.
This position did not come to us through human speculation.
It came to us through revelation. That's what's key here,
what Basil's talking about here. This is revelation. This is Moses, okay,
and not only is it superior to philosophy, it is
the true philosophy. Now, I know this is this has
gotten a little abtuse, but I'm having, you know, trying
to lead people slowly as we get this right. So
hopefully we have made some good points here and you
start to see how the doctrine of God is the
solution to all of these dialectical problems in Man's philosophy,
Man's failed worldly philosophy. We see that nature is a
reflection of the divine mind. As many church fathers said,
the order harmony symphony of nature, the one in the
many problem of the history of Western philosophy and dialectics
has solved. In the Orthodox conception of the triad. We
see that the unbeliever's worldview is at once ultimately rational
and irrational. At the same time. There is an unresolvable
conflict in this worldview which requires them to let go
of their dogmas. And except that they are in rebellion.
We've seen all the transcendental categories, as well as the numbers,
point to something that holds all of them together. If
we didn't believe that the transcendental categories all held together,
or that numbers and so for all of these things
had some relation to one another, then again the whole
system would be back in Greek impersonalism and paganism. It
would all fall apart. So we need a higher level abstraction,
above the level one abstraction, you could say, of transcendent categories. Right,
So we've got all these categories that are abstract. We
all presuppose them, We live like they're true, they're real.
That's the strongest proof for them is that the denial
of them leads to absurdity. And then we say, how
do all these make sense. How do we make sense
of all those things? Well, we have a higher level
abstraction of the God who makes sense of all those things,
the God who is meaning. He is the meaning of meaning.
He is the logos. He's the logos that holds all
those meanings together. It's precisely because He created man in
his image that man can learn about the world. That
the world is external to man. The world is not
a phantasm. It's not a projection out of man's mind.
It's not a dream state. It's not an incoherent series
of meaningless nihilistic chemical reactions. The world is coherent. It
has the beginning, middle, and an end, has meaning. There
are right and wrong. We got this from Revelation. Revelation
explains the world. Man's autonomous attempt that's explaining the world
leads to nonsense and self contradiction. So we've gone for
almost four hours. So I hope that was helpful. I
may have to call it a day for now. I'm
starting to lose my voice, but it's good. Racket five
dollars a great stream any videos refuting her meticism. Also
off topic, do you believe in magistraal privilege? Do you
mean in terms of divine right of kings. I think
that the church has the ultimate authority to coordinate a ruler.
So in that sense the right is divine, but it
is not absolute in the sense that he can't tell
the church what to do. Right. There's fears of authorities.
You know, the king can't just start killing people in
the church, and many kings and impress have tried that
and they fail. We live in that time now where
the American government is attempting to control the churches. As
for hermeticism, again, these systems are all going to have
the same options as starting points. Who's that bouncer who's
like an atheist or not atheist, the platonist bouncer who's
really smart that everybody says like he's got the highest IQ.
He actually makes some of the some similar points. I
don't think he gets he doesn't have the theology correct
to make the orthodox interpretation of these things. One of
you guys will know him. What's his name, Chris Langen, Yeah,
Chris Langen actually has some interesting insights on some of
these points, where he says, you're only like if you
start out with a view, and everybody starts out with
some view, you're only you only have certain options, like
you either have to go one way or the other right,
Like so if you started with the belief in the
number one or something like that, like you only have
certain ways to go with that, And all worldviews, all
systems are limited in their options. So for example, hermeticism,
it doesn't give you any other new options to start
with or to take your system. So basically all of
the religions or the religious systems you could you could
look at them like look at them like mathematical systems
like Platonism or ancient Egyptian philosophy. It's basically the same
as Platonism. The gods just represent primal forces, principles or
numbers or categories of being right like mayo is you know,
time and space or whatever. They just represent that kind
of stuff extension and time and space, blah blah blah.
And if you go back to looking at the starting points,
if you believe in the one, you either have to
start your principle by saying there's one or many, or
there's a harmony between the two. Okay, if you start
with the one, then you basically have all the same
platonic systems and you have essentially branches off of that
in directions you could go you can say, oh, the
one is impersonal or the one is personal, Okay, there's
no other ways to go, like that's the only options.
Or you could say something stupid like well there's nothing,
and ultimately, you know, the Far Eastern systems will take
you that route. They'll say the one isn't even a thing,
it's no thing. Ultimately everything is nothing. You need to
get back to nothing, And all her meticism is derivative
of this exact same structure. That's what I'm trying to say.
It doesn't matter what system you pick you're gonna have,
you're gonna be limited by the number of options by
which you can take your reasoning process throughout these systems.
So all the Far Eastern systems are essentially going to
have the exact same problem as her meticism. All her
meticism is just basically rehashed platonism. Kabbala is rehashed platonism.
Gnocissism is rehashed platonism. Platonism is rehashed ancient Egyptian thought.
So that's it. Ancient Egyptian thought may or may not
be ancient Indo Aryan thought. Whatever, it's all You're only
going to have a certain number of options to go.
That's it all right, so but good question. So in
other words, this refutes her meticism because it's all the same.
Good job, Jay never realized how absurd atheism is. Thank you,
Daniel SOULEA. Yeah, once you start really sort of fleshing
it out, it really is absurd. Princess Horsefeathers, thank you
ten dollars. Thank you for your work, thank you for
your support, love your super chats, love your encouraging words.
Very thankful for that, and thank you for sharing links
to the shows and the book on Twitter. Appreciate that.
Tanner Terry five dollars. I think your argument is great.
I'm curious how would you respond to a parody argument
of your own personal tag? I'm not sure what you
mean by a parody argument. There are people who make
a transcendental argument for the non existence of God. This
is actually pretty comical. They actually really believe that this
is like a knockdown proof, And it was just some
atheists trying to be clever who came up with this.
It wasn't Michael Schrmer, maybe Schneider, but there was a
guy like thirty years ago, who was supposed to debate Monson,
and he's the guy who made up the transcedal argument
for the non existence of God, and the day of
the debate, he just chickened out and left. He didn't
he didn't show up. There are a few atheists on YouTube,
I think, who will try to resurrect the transcendent argument
for the non existence of God. But it's so absurd
and it so misunderstands the actual argument that I've been presenting,
that we've been talking about, that it's almost not really
worth covering. But if you want to look up Wikipedia,
you can find, you know, the transcendental argument for the
non existence of God. It's pretty basic, bitch and laughable though.
But if you mean me make up a parody, or
you may make up a parody, go for it sounds
pretty funny. Or do you mean somebody already made a
video parody of the transceonal argument. I guarantee you they're
not going to understand everything that I've laid out here.
What they're going to say is the parody is always logic.
They're for God, dude, Like you say logic and then
you say that like God exists, like how do you
get from logic to God? Dude? Like, just because I
assume logic, like therefore God, that's a fallacy. Of course
that's not the argument though, Like you just heard me
give the argument for the last two hours where we
specifically dealt with tag but Aristo zenas ten bucks. Thank
you for doing this, Shay. I listen to this stream
several times. Yeah, thank you. I hope that it may
take a few listens. I think if you check out
the books also. Yeah, by the way, there's a I
meant to there's a couple other books I meant to
recommend to you, guys, me really pull that up before
I forget about it. Now, this book's goofy. I don't
recommend this whole book. Uh, but there's one essay in
this book that makes the book worth it. May pull
it up. One of the best critiques. Whoa one used
for four thousand dollars. No, I don't think we want that.
Let's not do that. I got this for like fifty cents.
That can't be worth that much. Let's see fifty here
we go fifteen dollars. That makes a little more sense.
Could you imagine that one guy sells this copy for
four thousand dollars. What a what a dupe, what a racket.
I might just start putting some of these books up
for sale for on a thousand. I'm joking, but if
somebody got four thousand dollars for this paperback, that would
be crazy. Uh So anyway, sort of metaphysics, cosmology, tradition, symbolism.
Now this is from the perennialist. This is from the traditionalists.
We're not here to defend all the perennialists. The reason
I'm telling you this book is good is because, just
for the essay by Titus Bruckhart on evil, one of
the best critiques of evolution I've ever read as a
philosophy is the chapter in Jacob Needelman's sort of nosis book.
So I am not advocating the other Sufi essays or
any of that stuff. I'm only recommending the sort of
critique of evolution by Titus Bruckheart essay. Okay, everybody's clear
on that that is definitely worth reading. He makes Darwinism
look completely absurd in about fifty pages. And of course
the other classic is Wolfgang Smith's Cosmos and Transcendence break
Through the Barrier of Scientific Belief These are two very
well written, well thought out philosophical critiques from metaphysical perspectives,
which is not you you don't get like you don't
get this stuff. You know, in normative academia, ever, you'll
never get this stuff. But these two critiques, man, they're
they're pretty pretty devastating. And I would almost say that
the Bruckheart essay in sort of nosis, like that's almost
enough to just completely annihilate Darwinism, Like it's that good
because because Darwinism is not a purely scientific theory, it's
a it's a it's a system, it's a grand narrative,
it's a philosophy. So those are good too. So you
can read those, Uh, they'll help you get a sense
of some of the stuff I've talked about. Let's see
skid racket five dollars. Can we trust the Bible has
not been manipulated after all these years, like how it
mentions Enich but doesn't include it. Sure if you I
did an introductory lecture on this about a year ago,
two years ago, let me pull that up for you.
And I know that this is a you know, kind
of it's kind of a what's the word, I'm looking
this is not an easy point, like, this is not
an easy, you know, like catchphrase type thing where like
you can just solve this question because you're asking a
very difficult question about manuscripts, thousands of manuscripts over a
period of thousands of years. Okay, So I wish that
I could give you an easy answer, but I can't,
And my answer is going to be yes, you can
reliably reliably believe in those things. But I'm going to
tell you that you're going to have to watch my
lengthy talk on the New Testament. So because I was
getting so many questions like that, that's why I did
this talk which I'm trying to pull up where I
look pretty ridiculous here, look like a boomer dad in this.
So don't pay attention to my face where I look
like a boom er dad, but do listen to the
information in the talk here, So if you go watch
the talk, is the New Testament reliable? God's just be proven.
I spend the first hour and a half talking about
the reliability of the New Testament documents, the history of
the different textual traditions, kind of a basic refutation of
higher criticism, one reason that we can trust in the Bible.
Is that the Bible is actually the most faithfully attested
ancient document in the world. Now nobody people don't talk
about this because they don't know it, and the atheist
will never talk about this. But the oldest documents of
Plato are from the Middle Ages right Oxford Manuscript B.
The oldest documents of the New Testament are five thousand
plus manuscripts in the first few centuries. So there is
a tremendous like magnitudes attestation to the New Testament compared
to Plato. It's not even in the same ballpark. And
there is a tremendous amount of consistency amongst the different
manuscripts of the New Testament that we have. So again
there's over five thousand, many of them are from the
first and second centuries. There's a tremendous amount of harmony.
There are what's called scribal errors. However, scribal errors are
different from the question of doctrinal or theological errors. Now
this is a little bit more abtuse, but you go
listen to my talk where I cover that. So I
can't cover all that right here, but this is the
talk that you want to work watch, and you'll probably
want to take notes on and you probably want to
look up these things because I go into a lot
of detail of this. I also talk about a lot
of the early liturgies. So in other words, we don't
just vindicate the New Testament documents by these different gospels
that are out there, or the lexigraphs or the different
traditions in the church. There are also daily readings and
liturgical documents, and basically the liturgy is another big way
that we back this up. So there's all these liturgical
documents that have linked these citations of the gospels, which
if you're in the Orthodox Church, you'll be familiar with
all the different liturgical readings for every day, right. So
we also have the aside from the Gospels, we also
have the writings of the Church Fathers because they're so
voluminous and because we have so many of them from
the first several centuries. We have a tremendous amount of
New Testament citations and Old Testament citations and sebtuagent citations
reproduced in the Church Fathers. You see. So when you
start to understand all this, you start to see that
there there's a lot of different capacities and there's a
lot of different angles to how we can have at
how the New Testament documents can be shown to have
a high degree of attestation and veracity. That's what I'm
trying to say. So, in other words, one way that
we can know the Bible hasn't been manipulated is by
the fact that we have access to documents and writings
from all of those centuries, and no, they're not manipulated, right, Like,
you can go read Justin Martyr's writings from this from
one point fifty and they're justin Martyr's writing. Now, unless
you invent like a giant conspiracy about like the whole
of history being made up or something which is you know,
kind of absurd and really implausible. You can read Ignacious,
you can read Jerome, you can read Ambrose, you can
read Tertullian, you can read Irenaeus, you can read Justin Martyr.
You can read all of these people within the first
several centuries. Then you can go read the liturgies from
churches throughout the Roman Empire, and you'll start to see
that they are all consistent. They teach the same things, well,
they teach the same things on the fundamentals. In other words,
I mean some church fathers differ on different things, right,
they might have a different opinion on this verse and
revelation or that verse there or whatever, but on the
the reason for the creed was that these are the
fundamentals that we don't disagree on. Now, the question of
Enoch is interesting, and this is a little bit more.
This is a bit of a deeper question because Enoch
doesn't really have anything to do with whether the New
Testament is viable or not, because the in many places
cites tradition, it cites extra canonical books. And that's because
we don't believe in soul scripture or the Protestants believe
that the Bible alone is the authority. So specifically on
that question, I'm going to tell you to read my
essay that I wrote. I'll put it up as well here.
I think I titled it. What did I title it? Defense?
I think it? Oh, I think I titled it Biblical
defensive tradition. Let me see if that's it, biblical nature
of sacred tradition. That's it. So this is the essay
that you will want to read on that which I
guess I need to fix because it's still the images
are broken, but the information is there, so let's see
biblical nature of sacred tradition is the essay that you
want to read for that, and that'll give you an
introduction into not just the the New Testament stuff that
I was talking about in the video, but also the
conception of oral tradition and how you know, we don't
just believe in sol scriptura like Protestants, because it's important
to understand those things before you try to understand the
role of the text and the Bible in the Church. Now,
the Bible has a pre eminent position because the canon
is closed, and it is of course the pre eminent revelation, right,
I mean, it is the word of God. But it's
not the only sense in which the Word of God
comes to us in the Church. It also comes to
us through the liturgy, through the tradition, through the saints,
through the lived experience of the Church and the saints.
All of these means are essentially incarnations. You could say
of the Word. That does not mean by the way
that we have new revelations. No, no, no, the canon is closed.
We are not charismatics. The fact that is the Father
ser from Rose refuting all the charismatics. There are no
new public revelations period. That's different from saints having clairvoyance
or spiritual gifts, which we do believe. So that is
what you want to look at to help answer the
question of Enoch. But by the way, just because something
is cited as a genuine tradition doesn't mean that it's false. Right.
So again, Enuch being cited or not wouldn't have anything
to do with the scriptures being manipulated, because there are
true traditions that are not contained solely in the written texts.
And yes, I would say that the citation of Jude
of Enoch suggests absolutely that Enoch contains true tradition. However,
it doesn't necessarily follow that Enoch should be included as
canonical to the same degree that all the other text
or canal. This is another important point too that is
a little difficult for Protestants to understand, which is the
idea of degrees I guess you could say of importance. So,
for example, in the liturgy, the Gospels have a pre
eminent place, right the Gospels are paraded around in the procession.
The epistles of Paul are not. The Dudoo canon is not.
Does that mean that the duo canon it doesn't matter no, right,
because we don't think in either or categories. Even in
Paul's epistles, right, we would say Paul is inspired. But
even in certain places in the epistles he says, here
I give my opinion and not of the Lord. So
even in Paul's epistles, he can make a distinction between
something that's merely his opinion and not a command of
the Lord. So in the same way, the Church historically
has always given pre eminent place to the Gospels. The
canon itself, outside of the Gospels, for a long time
was debated, and even some of the Gospels were debated, right,
And it was over many centuries that the canon came together.
And yet the Church preceded and compiled the canon. And no,
it wasn't Constantine making that decision. And I seel like
Baptists in Sevenday evidence, I think the canon was a
centuries long process. You had different canons, different debates, and
yet the church existed because they weren't Protestants. But in
the same way, we also don't take this sort of
fundamentalist naive view like Protestants do that inspiration equals Kjav
sixteen eleven. That's the every dot word of God and
everything outside that is the word of man. No, we
believe in sacred oral tradition. We believe in That's why
Paul says in Second Thessalonians, keep the traditions that I
delivered to you, whether oral or written. Keep the traditions
I delivered to you, whether oral or written. But I
cover that in the essay. But at the same time, right,
we don't get like, the Gospels obviously have a higher
place in honor than the Dudero canon. Right, But we
wouldn't say, oh, forget the dual canon doesn't matter because
we give the Gospels a higher place of honor. No,
I mean that's like either or Protestant thinking. We don't
view it that way. So you can, on the one
say the cannon is closed. There's a special place for revelation,
and even within the canon and revelation, you can have
a higher place for the Gospels. And that does not
necessarily exclude their being revealed truth in the Book of Enoch.
Obviously there was. So in other words, there is a
defined canon. It is the word of God. But we
don't have the hard and fast view of the sixteen
eleven KGV. Goofball Protestants. So anyway, I hope that answers
the question. All right, we come up on four hours.
Great talk. Thank you guys very much. Hopefully people can
derive some benefit from this. It wasn't intended to be
over everybody's head. It was just intended to specifically answer
questions that people have been raising. So God bless you guys.
Thank you for joining me. And be sure and tap
that like button, as Chill says, be sure tap that
like butt head and share it with your friends and
click subscribe if you're new, and subscribe to Jason Ossis
and I'll talk to you guys soon