1
00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:02,240
Speaker 1: Choirs that we have knowledge of the laws of physics

2
00:00:02,240 --> 00:00:05,000
and that the regularity in nature maintains. Right, if the

3
00:00:05,040 --> 00:00:08,080
regularity didn't maintain, we wouldn't be able to explain anything

4
00:00:08,160 --> 00:00:12,359
because it wouldn't maintain its identity over time. So if

5
00:00:12,439 --> 00:00:15,839
your premise one is a miracle based on your naturalistic view,

6
00:00:16,480 --> 00:00:20,160
is something that can't be explained definitionally by the laws

7
00:00:20,160 --> 00:00:22,879
of physics and the regularity of nature, which is the

8
00:00:22,960 --> 00:00:26,239
other way you explain things in reality. Right, I'm saying

9
00:00:26,679 --> 00:00:32,159
those things themselves can't get explained by those laws.

10
00:00:32,640 --> 00:00:35,759
Speaker 2: They just exist, right, Honestly, to be honest with you, Jimbob,

11
00:00:35,799 --> 00:00:37,600
it sounds like a word game to try and convince

12
00:00:37,640 --> 00:00:40,039
people that I somehow accept a miracle when I don't.

13
00:00:40,439 --> 00:00:43,439
I just miracle tail. In this case, we're talking about

14
00:00:43,520 --> 00:00:46,359
rising from the dead. We're talking about things logical consequences

15
00:00:46,399 --> 00:00:48,359
that we've read in ancient text, and here we are

16
00:00:48,359 --> 00:00:51,039
playing this game. Can you define the meaning of truth

17
00:00:51,119 --> 00:00:52,759
by the word truth and stuff like that?

18
00:00:52,799 --> 00:00:55,159
Speaker 1: And I'm going like, don't I understand.

19
00:00:55,520 --> 00:00:57,719
Speaker 2: I don't see a miracle in any of that though,

20
00:00:57,759 --> 00:01:00,000
I don't understand that truth and stuff like that.

21
00:01:01,759 --> 00:01:08,200
Speaker 3: Yeah, there he goes, that's all.

22
00:01:08,239 --> 00:01:10,000
Speaker 1: That's all. I really want to run with you, Derek.

23
00:01:10,040 --> 00:01:11,920
I know you have to eat, but this is one

24
00:01:11,959 --> 00:01:14,640
guest who wanted to come on and ask a couple

25
00:01:14,599 --> 00:01:19,879
of questions. Jay Me, Oh yeah, am I the guests

26
00:01:20,480 --> 00:01:21,000
you're the guest.

27
00:01:21,079 --> 00:01:24,159
Speaker 4: Now, Well, it seems like the argument rests on an

28
00:01:24,200 --> 00:01:27,239
assumption of the things that like that you already know

29
00:01:27,359 --> 00:01:30,840
what things are and are not possible. And I mean

30
00:01:30,879 --> 00:01:34,200
maybe it's right the the you know, the criterion that

31
00:01:34,239 --> 00:01:36,519
you've chosen. I think you appeal to things like scientists

32
00:01:36,560 --> 00:01:38,599
and stuff like that, But well, how do you know

33
00:01:38,719 --> 00:01:41,040
that you've chosen the right criteria for what is and

34
00:01:41,200 --> 00:01:44,439
isn't possible? Like what what's the basis for that choice?

35
00:01:45,280 --> 00:01:47,959
Speaker 2: You're talking to me? Yeah, I would just go with

36
00:01:48,040 --> 00:01:52,319
based on my observations and experiences and those of countless

37
00:01:52,319 --> 00:01:56,400
other critical scholars who evaluate this literature and recognizing that

38
00:01:56,640 --> 00:02:02,040
we're dealing with legendary materials. Just like Suetonius discusses the

39
00:02:02,040 --> 00:02:07,040
birth of Augustus through Apollo, several divine births and antiquity,

40
00:02:07,280 --> 00:02:09,680
but you have the miracle of Jesus birth and they

41
00:02:09,759 --> 00:02:14,400
look literarily very similar, I mean, very very close. Linguistically

42
00:02:14,400 --> 00:02:17,280
in flat. In fact, Plutarch talks about the birth of

43
00:02:17,840 --> 00:02:21,719
Plato by a virgin, Plato's mother being a virgin, by

44
00:02:21,759 --> 00:02:25,280
the Numa and the denimos, the power and the spirit.

45
00:02:26,000 --> 00:02:29,960
Plutarch's writing somewhat contemporaneous to the gospel literature. We're dealing

46
00:02:29,960 --> 00:02:32,599
with legend and so this is what I would say

47
00:02:32,680 --> 00:02:36,560
when I observe that material and I see legendary genre

48
00:02:36,879 --> 00:02:39,319
like a category today we would fit Batman or Superman

49
00:02:39,439 --> 00:02:42,280
or something in today's fiction. They would do something in

50
00:02:42,319 --> 00:02:44,960
antiquity similar to that. So when I look at that

51
00:02:45,039 --> 00:02:48,240
in a heuristic way, comparing the literature to other literature,

52
00:02:48,639 --> 00:02:52,360
I would across the board say they're all acting and looking,

53
00:02:52,479 --> 00:02:54,840
walking like a duck, talking like a duck, and they're

54
00:02:54,840 --> 00:02:56,319
a duck. That's why I would say.

55
00:02:56,199 --> 00:03:00,680
Speaker 4: By that definition, though, the evolutionary account of the origin

56
00:03:00,719 --> 00:03:03,039
of human beings would also be mythological.

57
00:03:03,120 --> 00:03:06,039
Speaker 2: Right, I don't I think we evolved, but you would

58
00:03:06,080 --> 00:03:06,719
disagree with me.

59
00:03:07,000 --> 00:03:09,159
Speaker 4: No, But I'm saying, by your standard, that would also

60
00:03:09,199 --> 00:03:13,560
be mythology. Now, what would the evolutionary account of human

61
00:03:13,599 --> 00:03:16,719
beings in there? Arising from the sea, I mean an

62
00:03:16,759 --> 00:03:19,879
aximander says that, and he gives a kind of a

63
00:03:19,960 --> 00:03:21,439
quasi mythological account.

64
00:03:21,520 --> 00:03:23,120
Speaker 3: So is that is that.

65
00:03:23,120 --> 00:03:27,479
Speaker 4: Count's mythology that we throw out or is that a solidarity.

66
00:03:27,840 --> 00:03:30,039
Speaker 2: As far as anaximander.

67
00:03:31,159 --> 00:03:36,520
Speaker 4: The evolutionary account that I just outlined, your criteria would

68
00:03:36,560 --> 00:03:42,039
cancel out his origins of human beings as mythology.

69
00:03:43,039 --> 00:03:46,879
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would say that creation myths all across the

70
00:03:46,879 --> 00:03:48,960
board in antiquity are trying.

71
00:03:48,759 --> 00:03:54,120
Speaker 4: To now, in other words, evolutionary origins fit your standard

72
00:03:54,159 --> 00:03:56,039
of mythology that should be tossed out.

73
00:03:56,280 --> 00:03:58,919
Speaker 2: What about the would fit that? Where's the where's the

74
00:03:58,960 --> 00:04:03,240
ancient textbook describing fossil records and going into the science

75
00:04:03,240 --> 00:04:04,599
of these things the criteria?

76
00:04:05,080 --> 00:04:07,840
Speaker 5: Well, then then you would say, there's also data, there's

77
00:04:07,840 --> 00:04:09,520
also archaeology, there's also.

78
00:04:09,479 --> 00:04:11,080
Speaker 2: Right, there's several fast.

79
00:04:10,840 --> 00:04:14,120
Speaker 4: Things that map I asked for the criteria though, about

80
00:04:14,120 --> 00:04:17,199
what cancels out myth versus fact.

81
00:04:17,040 --> 00:04:19,319
Speaker 2: Well, that's why I said observable. I would look at

82
00:04:19,360 --> 00:04:20,480
the observations of.

83
00:04:20,360 --> 00:04:22,839
Speaker 4: What how do you did you observe any of that?

84
00:04:23,120 --> 00:04:26,720
Speaker 2: No, and I didn't see Suetonius get talk about Augustus's birth.

85
00:04:26,759 --> 00:04:29,560
He might be the chosen one and Jesus is a

86
00:04:29,600 --> 00:04:31,360
false prophet. We don't know that.

87
00:04:31,720 --> 00:04:34,480
Speaker 5: They're trying to get there to say that he's appealing

88
00:04:34,519 --> 00:04:36,920
to authority, and the answer is obviously yes, yes.

89
00:04:36,959 --> 00:04:39,279
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, of course I'm gonna appeal.

90
00:04:39,199 --> 00:04:41,600
Speaker 4: To ask about an appeal to authority. I'm talking about now.

91
00:04:41,639 --> 00:04:44,279
The criteria is observation, empirical observation.

92
00:04:44,360 --> 00:04:46,680
Speaker 2: Well, I'm saying you can look at these texts and

93
00:04:46,759 --> 00:04:51,199
compare this material and see what there's several scholars out

94
00:04:51,199 --> 00:04:53,800
there that work in this to show we're dealing with literature.

95
00:04:54,480 --> 00:04:57,519
We're dealing with literature, literature.

96
00:04:57,560 --> 00:05:00,199
Speaker 4: I'm an argument. I'm asking a pistemological question, though, is

97
00:05:00,720 --> 00:05:02,800
this which is not answered by just saying that we

98
00:05:02,800 --> 00:05:04,240
look at the literature and the scholars.

99
00:05:04,759 --> 00:05:06,439
Speaker 2: Okay, well what do you want to know?

100
00:05:06,800 --> 00:05:09,879
Speaker 4: So the criteria that you set up your epistemic criteria

101
00:05:10,120 --> 00:05:13,199
was on what basis? I'm asking you on what basis?

102
00:05:13,199 --> 00:05:15,199
And you said, it's the things that don't appear to

103
00:05:15,199 --> 00:05:18,720
be mythological based on various scholars. And then I said, well,

104
00:05:18,720 --> 00:05:21,879
by that standard, certain things that you do believe would

105
00:05:21,879 --> 00:05:25,360
also be mythology, like the Big Bang would count as that.

106
00:05:25,639 --> 00:05:27,560
I'm assuming you believe that. I don't know if I.

107
00:05:27,560 --> 00:05:29,560
Speaker 2: Think it's an outdated model now, but.

108
00:05:30,519 --> 00:05:34,360
Speaker 4: Okay, well, I mean whatever origin myth you want doesn't

109
00:05:34,360 --> 00:05:39,519
match up to the standard of empirical verification. Okay, so

110
00:05:39,600 --> 00:05:41,600
you have an arbitrary standard if you need me to

111
00:05:41,600 --> 00:05:42,319
spell it out for you.

112
00:05:42,839 --> 00:05:45,439
Speaker 2: Okay, and you don't, what's the justification for your If

113
00:05:45,480 --> 00:05:48,240
you don't, I'm asking you, do you no?

114
00:05:48,360 --> 00:05:50,519
Speaker 4: I think if I believe in theism and I believe

115
00:05:50,519 --> 00:05:54,240
in divine revelation, I have a basis for epistemology and

116
00:05:54,279 --> 00:05:55,879
those kinds of standards. So I'm just trying to figure

117
00:05:55,879 --> 00:05:57,040
out what yours is right?

118
00:05:57,160 --> 00:06:01,800
Speaker 2: Your argument physical? It would be based on physical, observable, testable,

119
00:06:01,839 --> 00:06:04,199
and even observational things like literature.

120
00:06:04,439 --> 00:06:07,720
Speaker 4: You already said that all of these origin theories that

121
00:06:07,759 --> 00:06:11,079
you believe go outside of your empirical evidence.

122
00:06:12,720 --> 00:06:14,120
Speaker 2: What what do I believe that?

123
00:06:14,199 --> 00:06:16,519
Speaker 4: Did you observe the origins of the human of Oh?

124
00:06:16,600 --> 00:06:19,120
Speaker 2: No, no, no, that's where authority comes in. Like Neil

125
00:06:19,160 --> 00:06:23,120
brought up that I would rely on scholars and experts.

126
00:06:22,720 --> 00:06:24,959
Speaker 4: Scientif do you know you've chosen the right scholars?

127
00:06:25,399 --> 00:06:28,639
Speaker 2: How do you know you got to do research yourself

128
00:06:28,639 --> 00:06:31,920
and investigate it yourself. That's the thing, like you could

129
00:06:32,199 --> 00:06:36,439
not criteria. We didn't evolve and therefore that criteria.

130
00:06:37,040 --> 00:06:40,720
Speaker 5: You understand, Jay, when you chose the church to be

131
00:06:41,160 --> 00:06:44,680
your guiding more you're guiding uh truth, you had to

132
00:06:44,759 --> 00:06:47,480
at some point decide that for yourself, and you had

133
00:06:47,560 --> 00:06:49,439
you had to make that judgment.

134
00:06:49,680 --> 00:06:53,439
Speaker 4: The same category mistake. You're confusing an existential choice with

135
00:06:53,759 --> 00:06:55,639
the criteria. Two different questions.

136
00:06:55,680 --> 00:06:58,000
Speaker 5: Well, that's what you that's what you just said to him.

137
00:06:58,040 --> 00:06:59,959
You said he had to How does he know that

138
00:07:00,040 --> 00:07:02,360
these scientists are right? He really doesn't. He has to

139
00:07:02,439 --> 00:07:04,800
kind of appeal to authority.

140
00:07:05,160 --> 00:07:07,000
Speaker 4: I can't make an argument. I'm not just appealing to

141
00:07:07,040 --> 00:07:07,600
an authority.

142
00:07:08,560 --> 00:07:10,639
Speaker 5: Well, we can all make an arguments depending on what

143
00:07:10,639 --> 00:07:11,879
we're exactly we're talking about.

144
00:07:12,160 --> 00:07:13,120
Speaker 3: At some point, why do you.

145
00:07:13,319 --> 00:07:16,439
Speaker 4: Want to believe your epistemic criteria?

146
00:07:16,519 --> 00:07:21,079
Speaker 2: But you're saying you don't appeal to authority? Yet, what say?

147
00:07:21,720 --> 00:07:24,959
Speaker 4: I just asked, what the what reasons we should believe

148
00:07:25,319 --> 00:07:28,759
your epistemic criteria? I haven't even heard what the criteria

149
00:07:28,920 --> 00:07:31,920
is other than what I chose and what I chose

150
00:07:31,959 --> 00:07:34,720
from certain scholars. Well, how do you know where to

151
00:07:34,759 --> 00:07:36,319
cut off the true and the false scholars.

152
00:07:37,160 --> 00:07:39,519
Speaker 2: That's a good question. That's why I investigate.

153
00:07:39,680 --> 00:07:42,600
Speaker 4: Yeah, I might want to know that if I'm But.

154
00:07:42,480 --> 00:07:45,199
Speaker 2: Instead of swallowing the pill up front believing in a

155
00:07:45,240 --> 00:07:49,240
book that several scholars have shown to be very very

156
00:07:49,920 --> 00:07:54,160
I say, there's a lot of contention problems, issues, very

157
00:07:54,199 --> 00:07:56,959
man made looking and evolved over time.

158
00:07:56,839 --> 00:07:58,720
Speaker 3: A circular argument that you'd use for the church.

159
00:07:59,000 --> 00:08:01,120
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would, I would. I would investigate them. I

160
00:08:01,120 --> 00:08:04,120
would across the board. But instead of swallowing that pill

161
00:08:04,199 --> 00:08:05,240
up front, that's what I would do.

162
00:08:06,360 --> 00:08:08,279
Speaker 4: Yeah, but I'm pointing out that you are you already

163
00:08:08,279 --> 00:08:12,560
have swallowed your own version of an arbitrary, miraculous, miraculous pill.

164
00:08:13,720 --> 00:08:15,800
Speaker 2: So I believe in a miracle? Is that what you're saying?

165
00:08:16,439 --> 00:08:19,519
Many of them, you guys convinced me that miracles are

166
00:08:19,519 --> 00:08:22,079
real tonight, I'm I hope the audience is as convinced

167
00:08:22,120 --> 00:08:23,000
as I am.

168
00:08:23,759 --> 00:08:26,959
Speaker 4: Understanding is that the argument is pointing out to you

169
00:08:27,040 --> 00:08:29,800
that you have an arbitrary standard which allows you to

170
00:08:29,879 --> 00:08:33,440
choose what evidences you will and won't accept from the outset.

171
00:08:33,879 --> 00:08:37,440
Speaker 2: You know, I got an arbitrary standard, and you guys don't.

172
00:08:38,159 --> 00:08:38,799
How about that?

173
00:08:39,039 --> 00:08:39,440
Speaker 4: Correct?

174
00:08:40,480 --> 00:08:46,720
Speaker 2: Right, it is borrowing from other mythology to build its

175
00:08:46,799 --> 00:08:51,320
narratives that is floaded with legend contradictions and errors that

176
00:08:51,440 --> 00:08:54,000
aren't then aren't the case argument?

177
00:08:54,200 --> 00:08:56,240
Speaker 4: Yeah, but that argument that you're making is based on

178
00:08:57,000 --> 00:08:59,240
the very thing that I asked you to justify, So

179
00:08:59,320 --> 00:09:02,240
you keep resting your position without I'm not going.

180
00:09:02,080 --> 00:09:04,120
Speaker 2: To do the research for you, brother, I'm not going

181
00:09:04,200 --> 00:09:06,159
to do all the I've done all the day. Actually,

182
00:09:06,159 --> 00:09:09,039
I have just watch myth vision for like ten years

183
00:09:09,240 --> 00:09:11,480
and you'll see at all. It's all there. But I'm

184
00:09:11,480 --> 00:09:13,440
not going to sit here and go in circles with

185
00:09:13,559 --> 00:09:15,919
this like I have truth and I have logic and

186
00:09:15,960 --> 00:09:19,240
you don't, and I have the actual epistemic, the proper position.

187
00:09:19,399 --> 00:09:20,840
Speaker 4: In other words, you don't want to address the actual

188
00:09:20,840 --> 00:09:22,440
philosophical challenges to your system.

189
00:09:22,480 --> 00:09:24,759
Speaker 2: I'm not a philosopher. I'm really not. I'm going to

190
00:09:24,799 --> 00:09:27,480
play around with philosophy, but I'm not a philosopher, and

191
00:09:27,519 --> 00:09:29,360
I understand that you do that kind of stuff.

192
00:09:29,639 --> 00:09:31,240
Speaker 4: So, but if you're going to make arguments, you're in

193
00:09:31,240 --> 00:09:32,240
the domain of philosophy.

194
00:09:32,639 --> 00:09:35,240
Speaker 2: That's why I have stalls on my channel, right, That's

195
00:09:35,279 --> 00:09:36,000
why I'm not there.

196
00:09:36,360 --> 00:09:38,440
Speaker 4: You're not going to make the argument now for the audience.

197
00:09:38,440 --> 00:09:39,799
You just want people to go to your channel, and

198
00:09:40,480 --> 00:09:41,240
you have really.

199
00:09:41,039 --> 00:09:43,159
Speaker 5: Asked Derek never really asked to get into the deep

200
00:09:43,159 --> 00:09:46,039
philosophical matter behind why he thinks we thinks.

201
00:09:46,080 --> 00:09:46,759
Speaker 4: Never really asked that.

202
00:09:46,799 --> 00:09:47,559
Speaker 3: It just kind of got through.

203
00:09:48,440 --> 00:09:50,039
Speaker 4: So there's not good reasons to I mean.

204
00:09:49,919 --> 00:09:51,960
Speaker 5: I like having these type of discussions, but I mean,

205
00:09:52,840 --> 00:09:54,759
Derek's is not the type of It seems like you

206
00:09:54,759 --> 00:09:56,000
guys are just throwing it on him.

207
00:09:56,519 --> 00:09:57,639
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's.

208
00:09:59,360 --> 00:10:01,960
Speaker 1: Is it fit? Is it fair? Is it fair to

209
00:10:02,000 --> 00:10:06,240
say if you think you have good arguments against Christianity

210
00:10:06,320 --> 00:10:09,600
or any other religion, that that would necessarily be tied

211
00:10:09,720 --> 00:10:12,679
to some epistemic foundation that could be questioned. Is it

212
00:10:12,759 --> 00:10:15,440
valid to questions the foundation? Okay, that's all that's happening.

213
00:10:15,799 --> 00:10:18,240
Speaker 2: But what I'm saying is is it feels like a

214
00:10:18,320 --> 00:10:22,000
gotcha thing. And I've watched plenty of online back and

215
00:10:22,080 --> 00:10:25,759
forth between Christians and those like myself, and I honestly

216
00:10:25,759 --> 00:10:29,080
have a serious distaste for the presupt kind of approach

217
00:10:29,360 --> 00:10:34,559
of you don't have knowledge, you don't have, but we do,

218
00:10:34,720 --> 00:10:36,919
we have it. Even though we're looking at an ancient

219
00:10:36,919 --> 00:10:39,240
book loaded with legend I don't.

220
00:10:39,000 --> 00:10:41,879
Speaker 4: Get it where wrong because you have a problem.

221
00:10:41,879 --> 00:10:45,279
Speaker 2: That's my point. You're starting with the conclusion that you

222
00:10:45,399 --> 00:10:47,600
have the answer, that you're the right one, that you

223
00:10:47,679 --> 00:10:52,360
have the epistemic truth, that your positions correct to me.

224
00:10:52,519 --> 00:10:54,039
Prove that your positions correct to me.

225
00:10:54,360 --> 00:10:57,120
Speaker 4: Well, it would help to understand the form of that argument.

226
00:10:56,960 --> 00:11:00,600
Speaker 2: Right, Just prove to me that you have this the standard,

227
00:11:01,000 --> 00:11:04,799
the correct epistemic foundation. Show me how you know that

228
00:11:04,840 --> 00:11:05,360
yours is.

229
00:11:05,320 --> 00:11:08,320
Speaker 4: True because of the impossibility of the contrary, because the

230
00:11:08,360 --> 00:11:12,080
other worldviews they mess up at a fundamental level when

231
00:11:12,120 --> 00:11:16,200
it comes to the basics of a worldview, epistemology, metaphysicals.

232
00:11:16,240 --> 00:11:17,919
Speaker 2: How do you know that? How do you know that

233
00:11:17,919 --> 00:11:18,720
they've messed up?

234
00:11:19,120 --> 00:11:22,399
Speaker 4: Because you can demonstrate it, Like as I'm arguing with you,

235
00:11:22,519 --> 00:11:25,559
when you don't give an account for your arbitrary starting point,

236
00:11:25,919 --> 00:11:26,679
we already know that.

237
00:11:26,759 --> 00:11:28,559
Speaker 2: To give me your starting point, I've asked you for

238
00:11:28,600 --> 00:11:29,200
that evidence.

239
00:11:29,279 --> 00:11:32,320
Speaker 4: Not right, I'm a whole list an epistemic holest which

240
00:11:32,320 --> 00:11:34,799
means that I believe in an entire paradigm. There's no

241
00:11:34,919 --> 00:11:38,360
starting point that's neutral or arbitrary. It's the entire Christian

242
00:11:38,399 --> 00:11:42,159
worldview compared to the gnostic worldview, the atheist worldview, the

243
00:11:42,240 --> 00:11:46,399
humanist worldview. Those worldviews can't give an account for the

244
00:11:46,480 --> 00:11:50,480
basic principles and metaphysics and epistemology and ethics. Our worldview

245
00:11:50,559 --> 00:11:52,679
can give an account for how those things exist, and

246
00:11:52,720 --> 00:11:54,320
so therefore ours is the true one.

247
00:11:54,360 --> 00:11:57,879
Speaker 2: So we would disagree right there. I mean, obviously all

248
00:11:57,919 --> 00:12:01,440
of that, all of these worldviews give you those exact

249
00:12:01,559 --> 00:12:07,840
epistemic solutions to the problems of the world. Creation don't.

250
00:12:07,919 --> 00:12:12,320
For example, they do Mesopotamian's creation mythology is literally being lifted.

251
00:12:12,480 --> 00:12:15,679
Speaker 4: You don't even understand what this argument is arguing. I'm

252
00:12:15,720 --> 00:12:18,440
not saying do they have a story? I'm talking about

253
00:12:18,480 --> 00:12:22,200
epistemic justification in a philosophical sense. It's a very specific

254
00:12:22,200 --> 00:12:23,360
claim of genesis.

255
00:12:23,399 --> 00:12:27,759
Speaker 2: One has a philosophical statement in it about God.

256
00:12:28,960 --> 00:12:29,879
Speaker 5: That doesn't matter to them.

257
00:12:29,799 --> 00:12:31,600
Speaker 4: Because I even know what we're talking about. It's not

258
00:12:31,799 --> 00:12:34,480
just does it have a claim. It's a very specific

259
00:12:34,600 --> 00:12:37,519
type of argument in terms of logic. This is about

260
00:12:37,639 --> 00:12:39,000
logical just God.

261
00:12:39,159 --> 00:12:42,320
Speaker 2: This sounds like Darth Dawkins ship man. I'm not even kidding.

262
00:12:42,480 --> 00:12:44,120
This sounds literally doesn't matter.

263
00:12:44,320 --> 00:12:45,639
Speaker 4: It sounds like, I mean, do you have.

264
00:12:47,639 --> 00:12:50,679
Speaker 2: Jay This is this is it's the same old thing man.

265
00:12:50,799 --> 00:12:51,879
Speaker 4: You don't have an answer to it?

266
00:12:51,960 --> 00:12:54,360
Speaker 2: No, I am sure don't. I'm not getting lost in

267
00:12:55,360 --> 00:12:55,919
Derek saying.

268
00:12:55,919 --> 00:13:01,720
Speaker 5: What Derek saying is this is no argument, which is

269
00:13:01,759 --> 00:13:06,960
a valid form what Derek saying this is philosophical boxing.

270
00:13:06,960 --> 00:13:08,480
Derek doesn't do the training you guys do.

271
00:13:08,799 --> 00:13:09,600
Speaker 3: He doesn't really care.

272
00:13:09,679 --> 00:13:12,519
Speaker 5: He's not he's not interested in and and if he's.

273
00:13:12,399 --> 00:13:14,840
Speaker 4: Not interested in the domain of logic, then he shouldn't

274
00:13:14,919 --> 00:13:16,200
try to debate these topics.

275
00:13:16,240 --> 00:13:16,519
Speaker 3: He was.

276
00:13:18,120 --> 00:13:26,159
Speaker 2: Anyone coming in, I thought we're talking on hang on.

277
00:13:26,440 --> 00:13:29,159
Speaker 3: To be fair, it turned into a debate. Let's not

278
00:13:29,240 --> 00:13:30,200
care kind of did.

279
00:13:30,279 --> 00:13:35,120
Speaker 5: But you know, Joe, let's not get very permitted.

280
00:13:35,279 --> 00:13:38,519
Speaker 1: We permitted the debate aspect of this conversation for sure.

281
00:13:38,559 --> 00:13:41,200
It's just not formal and it's not guided or anything.

282
00:13:41,240 --> 00:13:45,120
But Jay is uh, it's totally valid. And I would

283
00:13:45,120 --> 00:13:47,960
take the same approach to as soon as someone's making

284
00:13:47,960 --> 00:13:50,480
a claim about their view or what's possible what's not

285
00:13:50,600 --> 00:13:54,759
possible regarding any religion, any faith, any legend, any myth.

286
00:13:55,240 --> 00:13:58,159
You it's not like you saying, oh, you're pre supping me,

287
00:13:58,600 --> 00:14:01,879
you're pre supping also, so everybody's pre supping.

288
00:14:02,000 --> 00:14:05,320
Speaker 2: So if everybody's they're all man made, yes.

289
00:14:05,399 --> 00:14:09,399
Speaker 6: I agree, I'm prepping that they aren't.

290
00:14:10,000 --> 00:14:12,000
Speaker 4: If they're all man made, then what you just said

291
00:14:12,080 --> 00:14:13,440
is also man made.

292
00:14:13,200 --> 00:14:16,720
Speaker 2: And then well amen to that, hallelujah.

293
00:14:16,840 --> 00:14:18,720
Speaker 4: Then there's no truth and it's a contradiction.

294
00:14:19,240 --> 00:14:20,360
Speaker 1: Right, so there's no truth?

295
00:14:21,000 --> 00:14:22,320
Speaker 4: Well you would be a relativist?

296
00:14:22,799 --> 00:14:25,440
Speaker 2: Are we are? We? Are we puncious pilot asking Jesus

297
00:14:25,440 --> 00:14:27,639
what truth is? Are we saying? I'm thinking what the

298
00:14:27,679 --> 00:14:29,960
most factual thing is based on observations?

299
00:14:30,000 --> 00:14:32,679
Speaker 4: And if all world views are man made, is that

300
00:14:32,759 --> 00:14:33,679
also man made?

301
00:14:34,519 --> 00:14:34,960
Speaker 2: I agree?

302
00:14:35,799 --> 00:14:37,120
Speaker 4: That would be a contradiction.

303
00:14:38,559 --> 00:14:42,000
Speaker 2: I think are the humans have constructed these world views

304
00:14:42,039 --> 00:14:45,399
since the beginning of time? Before your universal claim that's

305
00:14:45,399 --> 00:14:48,320
relatives have constructed He doesn't even care.

306
00:14:49,000 --> 00:14:51,799
Speaker 4: Do you see that that's a contradiction. You don't You

307
00:14:51,799 --> 00:14:53,440
think it's okay to contradict.

308
00:14:53,279 --> 00:14:56,000
Speaker 1: Because you're you're doing a construct to right, So based

309
00:14:56,000 --> 00:14:56,399
on your.

310
00:14:59,799 --> 00:15:02,320
Speaker 2: Under no, I knew this was probably where this ship

311
00:15:02,360 --> 00:15:03,879
was going to go before we just there.

312
00:15:05,600 --> 00:15:07,720
Speaker 4: You don't want to be questioned on the middle level.

313
00:15:07,840 --> 00:15:08,879
Speaker 1: This is you can question.

314
00:15:09,919 --> 00:15:11,120
Speaker 3: You even know your question?

315
00:15:11,480 --> 00:15:15,360
Speaker 4: God, this is how you so now it's at home,

316
00:15:15,399 --> 00:15:17,320
and then now it's.

317
00:15:18,240 --> 00:15:20,759
Speaker 3: I'm just you jumped in.

318
00:15:20,799 --> 00:15:22,679
Speaker 5: You're all fiery, we were all we're just having a

319
00:15:22,759 --> 00:15:24,919
chill conversation person.

320
00:15:25,159 --> 00:15:32,000
Speaker 2: This person Christianity, and I was I was convinced of

321
00:15:32,039 --> 00:15:33,799
it for a long time, and I was a pre

322
00:15:34,320 --> 00:15:38,200
and it's started to become an evidentialist. I went down

323
00:15:38,240 --> 00:15:42,120
the whole argument. It isn't. I have no interest in

324
00:15:42,159 --> 00:15:46,440
engaging you back and forth on epistemic value. And to

325
00:15:46,480 --> 00:15:49,679
begin with established the cos is true, to begin with,

326
00:15:50,480 --> 00:15:55,000
as for your mine, can somehow can tell you the

327
00:15:55,000 --> 00:15:57,639
origins of the world, and can can tell.

328
00:15:57,519 --> 00:16:01,039
Speaker 4: You you're basic starting point. That's it.

329
00:16:01,799 --> 00:16:06,120
Speaker 2: Well, you said answer all of these and none of

330
00:16:06,120 --> 00:16:06,919
the others can.

331
00:16:07,080 --> 00:16:08,600
Speaker 6: All right, all right, right, hang on, hang on, hang on,

332
00:16:08,639 --> 00:16:10,919
hang on, guys, guys, all of you, hang on just

333
00:16:11,039 --> 00:16:14,720
a second. Listen, Derek, we made sure I made sure

334
00:16:15,519 --> 00:16:17,840
that uh, there was always supposed to be a fifth

335
00:16:17,840 --> 00:16:19,120
on this panel, by the way, and I'm glad that

336
00:16:19,240 --> 00:16:22,000
Dyer did hop on. The thing is is that you

337
00:16:22,279 --> 00:16:25,679
haven't been dogpiled, and made sure that nobody did dogpile you.

338
00:16:26,039 --> 00:16:29,000
But you've been kind of at the forefront, really hitting

339
00:16:29,200 --> 00:16:31,240
as hard as you could, and you've gotten actually the

340
00:16:31,279 --> 00:16:33,879
most hang on, you've actually gotten the most amount of

341
00:16:33,919 --> 00:16:35,840
speaking time, which is fair right.

342
00:16:37,080 --> 00:16:39,519
Speaker 3: The questions, and I think that's again.

343
00:16:39,720 --> 00:16:43,000
Speaker 6: What I say, it's fair right, So backing up, let's

344
00:16:43,000 --> 00:16:45,559
just kind of back up here between you and Jay, right,

345
00:16:46,360 --> 00:16:49,000
just kind of lay out what your position is and

346
00:16:49,080 --> 00:16:50,840
we could back up a little bit and won't. It

347
00:16:50,840 --> 00:16:52,840
doesn't have to be so heated. Just kind of back

348
00:16:52,879 --> 00:16:55,200
up a little bit. Yeah, give kind of your your

349
00:16:55,240 --> 00:16:57,399
overall position, my position.

350
00:16:58,480 --> 00:17:01,440
Speaker 3: Well, I want to make sure we've got a good reshape.

351
00:17:01,679 --> 00:17:02,279
What's going to happen?

352
00:17:02,759 --> 00:17:05,319
Speaker 5: Give this position, and Jay's going to philosophically do come

353
00:17:05,359 --> 00:17:06,640
out and say? How do you know what you know?

354
00:17:06,680 --> 00:17:08,519
You don't know what you know? How can I believe you?

355
00:17:08,960 --> 00:17:12,000
Speaker 2: They don't ask him back, prove that your position, prove

356
00:17:12,039 --> 00:17:15,240
your I gave a trans mine can answer this and

357
00:17:15,279 --> 00:17:18,960
somehow it does. The other ones can't. That doesn't prove argument.

358
00:17:19,000 --> 00:17:20,880
Speaker 4: Do you want to address that or just keep talking

359
00:17:20,920 --> 00:17:23,319
past it? Transit arguments are wrong?

360
00:17:23,799 --> 00:17:25,599
Speaker 2: What do you what do you want me to say?

361
00:17:26,319 --> 00:17:29,480
Speaker 4: Let me, let me ask I gave an actual argument,

362
00:17:29,880 --> 00:17:34,599
Tell me why those argument that yours is wrong? The

363
00:17:34,839 --> 00:17:36,400
transcendental argument.

364
00:17:37,519 --> 00:17:38,079
Speaker 2: Do what.

365
00:17:39,519 --> 00:17:41,759
Speaker 1: The transcendental argument? Lets let me ask you.

366
00:17:42,319 --> 00:17:42,759
Speaker 3: Let's do it.

367
00:17:42,960 --> 00:17:46,119
Speaker 1: Let's do it this way, Derek, Are there any from

368
00:17:46,160 --> 00:17:46,680
your view?

369
00:17:46,839 --> 00:17:47,000
Speaker 3: Right?

370
00:17:47,680 --> 00:17:51,720
Speaker 1: Is there anything? Are there any necessary preconditions for anything

371
00:17:51,759 --> 00:17:54,599
you're talking about to be true? Anything?

372
00:17:55,079 --> 00:17:55,960
Speaker 2: What do you mean any?

373
00:17:56,400 --> 00:17:59,960
Speaker 1: Is there anything that's necessary before you come to true?

374
00:18:00,119 --> 00:18:05,039
An evaluation of claims, historical claims, logical claims, philosophical claims.

375
00:18:05,359 --> 00:18:09,200
Speaker 2: Question is holistic, like it's they're trying to reconstruct things

376
00:18:09,200 --> 00:18:11,680
through literature, that's the best. And then we have archaeology

377
00:18:11,680 --> 00:18:12,480
that we're trying.

378
00:18:12,200 --> 00:18:15,039
Speaker 4: To probabi relies on things like math.

379
00:18:15,839 --> 00:18:16,559
Speaker 2: Yeah, they do.

380
00:18:16,920 --> 00:18:19,200
Speaker 4: So if your argument relies on math, then you need

381
00:18:19,279 --> 00:18:20,240
to give an account for math.

382
00:18:20,640 --> 00:18:22,240
Speaker 1: Right, Oh my god?

383
00:18:22,759 --> 00:18:28,400
Speaker 2: Can you therefore? Yeahweh? I mean you got don't geriously

384
00:18:28,480 --> 00:18:30,960
don't get how math. I've heard this argument before from

385
00:18:31,039 --> 00:18:34,359
from those who think that somehow the fact that math exists, so.

386
00:18:34,319 --> 00:18:36,200
Speaker 4: You don't have an account therefore the fact.

387
00:18:38,519 --> 00:18:40,640
Speaker 2: So I've heard that, and I'm like, no.

388
00:18:40,720 --> 00:18:42,599
Speaker 1: How about just math? How about just math? How about

389
00:18:42,640 --> 00:18:43,440
just math exists?

390
00:18:43,559 --> 00:18:43,680
Speaker 3: Right?

391
00:18:43,680 --> 00:18:45,359
Speaker 1: We're not we don't skip to the god part. You

392
00:18:45,400 --> 00:18:47,880
don't need to do that. We're asking you from your view,

393
00:18:48,480 --> 00:18:51,599
How does your naturalistic view account for something like math

394
00:18:51,920 --> 00:18:54,680
or logic, which you appeal to, Right, that's a that's

395
00:18:54,720 --> 00:18:55,359
a fair question.

396
00:18:56,599 --> 00:19:00,039
Speaker 2: Pretend like it's not fair observation of humans that we

397
00:19:00,119 --> 00:19:03,720
have come up with systems we call mathematics, and they're

398
00:19:03,799 --> 00:19:06,880
observable from the universe that we have seen in nature,

399
00:19:07,160 --> 00:19:09,359
and that we've come up with systems in which we're

400
00:19:09,359 --> 00:19:14,160
able to calculate and test observe. And that's where I

401
00:19:15,720 --> 00:19:19,160
personally don't think math. The idea of math as a

402
00:19:19,200 --> 00:19:22,039
construct is something that happens before humans come on the

403
00:19:22,079 --> 00:19:24,680
scene and start systematizing.

404
00:19:23,960 --> 00:19:28,079
Speaker 4: What they're logicwise, what about logic? So you think we

405
00:19:28,119 --> 00:19:30,559
could make them otherwise if they're human constructs, I could

406
00:19:30,599 --> 00:19:32,480
make Tipless to be five if we all agreed.

407
00:19:33,519 --> 00:19:37,039
Speaker 2: No, I'm saying they observe it constructs. They have two

408
00:19:37,039 --> 00:19:40,759
pine cones, right, They're not constructs. We've came up with

409
00:19:40,839 --> 00:19:43,799
the idea that we came up to because there's two

410
00:19:45,079 --> 00:19:47,200
Are you interrupting me the whole time? Bro? Like I

411
00:19:47,200 --> 00:19:51,000
can't even talk, dude, you understanding you're asking me and

412
00:19:51,039 --> 00:19:54,559
I'm trying to explain to you my word. I hear

413
00:19:54,599 --> 00:19:55,119
your mouth and.

414
00:19:55,039 --> 00:19:56,319
Speaker 3: I'm like, right, all right, well he.

415
00:19:59,000 --> 00:20:01,359
Speaker 4: Let them let the account construct and then you said

416
00:20:01,400 --> 00:20:02,039
it's objective.

417
00:20:02,079 --> 00:20:04,920
Speaker 1: Those two he did say it's a construct So want

418
00:20:05,039 --> 00:20:05,720
I want to verify?

419
00:20:05,960 --> 00:20:08,200
Speaker 2: No, No, I don't know philosophy very well.

420
00:20:09,039 --> 00:20:10,400
Speaker 4: We'll make it.

421
00:20:10,440 --> 00:20:12,920
Speaker 1: We'll make it simple, We'll make math is a derivative

422
00:20:12,960 --> 00:20:16,119
of logic. Right, So we're asking you if you said

423
00:20:16,160 --> 00:20:18,559
math and its language is a construct right, if it's

424
00:20:18,599 --> 00:20:21,000
derived from logic? Are you saying that logic is a

425
00:20:21,039 --> 00:20:22,680
constructive of the human mind?

426
00:20:24,279 --> 00:20:25,480
Speaker 2: Is logic logic?

427
00:20:25,519 --> 00:20:29,559
Speaker 1: The laws of the three classical laws? Are they constructs?

428
00:20:29,680 --> 00:20:32,039
Speaker 2: Dude? I don't even know the three classical laws?

429
00:20:32,279 --> 00:20:35,200
Speaker 1: Okay, So the law of identity? Did the law of identity?

430
00:20:35,400 --> 00:20:35,519
Speaker 3: Right?

431
00:20:35,640 --> 00:20:38,319
Speaker 1: Is that verified in nature with empiricism?

432
00:20:38,799 --> 00:20:39,279
Speaker 2: I don't know.

433
00:20:40,160 --> 00:20:41,519
Speaker 1: You agree that it exists.

434
00:20:41,680 --> 00:20:42,880
Speaker 2: I've never dealt in the philosophy.

435
00:20:43,599 --> 00:20:45,440
Speaker 1: That's why it's you don't have to be defensive.

436
00:20:45,480 --> 00:20:46,000
Speaker 3: This is like no.

437
00:20:46,119 --> 00:20:48,400
Speaker 2: I mean like, you guys are asking tons of questions

438
00:20:48,440 --> 00:20:50,000
I don't know the answer to, but you're making it

439
00:20:50,039 --> 00:20:52,079
sound like like gotcha, And.

440
00:20:52,000 --> 00:20:55,000
Speaker 1: I'm like, just does a law of identity exist?

441
00:20:55,960 --> 00:20:56,480
Speaker 2: I don't know?

442
00:20:57,200 --> 00:21:00,000
Speaker 3: Okay, If you're going to make.

443
00:21:01,839 --> 00:21:04,599
Speaker 2: Are coming at it from philosophy, right, And I'm saying,

444
00:21:04,720 --> 00:21:08,039
there's there's a handful of other philosophers that I could

445
00:21:08,079 --> 00:21:10,440
pull in from a skeptical point of view who would

446
00:21:10,440 --> 00:21:14,640
say everything you're saying fallacy. I'm not saying it is.

447
00:21:14,720 --> 00:21:18,720
I'm telling you what I could do, just saying he's

448
00:21:18,720 --> 00:21:22,839
not a philosophy I'm saying if you engage me textually,

449
00:21:23,400 --> 00:21:25,359
you would be stomped on, just like you're doing to

450
00:21:25,400 --> 00:21:27,960
me right now with precept stuff. Okay, there is no

451
00:21:28,039 --> 00:21:31,720
comparison when it comes to biblical material on what I've

452
00:21:31,759 --> 00:21:33,920
seen from you, Jay, But you can get me on

453
00:21:33,960 --> 00:21:37,400
the philosophy stuff. That's all cool. But when we're talking textual,

454
00:21:37,400 --> 00:21:39,960
we're talking biblical stuff. We're talking about mythology, legends and

455
00:21:40,000 --> 00:21:42,880
such and understanding these ancient sources, the evolution of this

456
00:21:42,960 --> 00:21:48,240
material and things. Derek, you got me on philosophy, I.

457
00:21:48,799 --> 00:21:53,680
Speaker 1: Have no Derek, is your analysis of all the texts

458
00:21:53,680 --> 00:21:56,759
and scripture does that require a philosophy?

459
00:21:57,920 --> 00:22:00,720
Speaker 2: I imagine we all have something great.

460
00:22:00,759 --> 00:22:03,119
Speaker 1: So what Jay's asking and maybe is not doing in

461
00:22:03,160 --> 00:22:05,440
the language that you prefer that you're aware of, right,

462
00:22:05,480 --> 00:22:07,720
So you're getting like kind of like heated about it.

463
00:22:07,759 --> 00:22:11,079
Speaker 2: All he's asking is okay competitive guys.

464
00:22:11,559 --> 00:22:14,799
Speaker 1: It's I'm yeah, we're competing for worldviews right now. So

465
00:22:14,960 --> 00:22:16,799
if you have a worldview that says I can go

466
00:22:16,880 --> 00:22:20,400
back and through history using a philosophy, you admit you

467
00:22:20,400 --> 00:22:24,200
have a philosophy that informs how you do empiricism, historicity,

468
00:22:24,599 --> 00:22:28,319
looking back, which authorities to listen to, which one not

469
00:22:28,440 --> 00:22:31,920
to listen to. I'm telling you that your that activity

470
00:22:32,519 --> 00:22:36,680
is informed by a philosophy that precedes the activity right right.

471
00:22:36,799 --> 00:22:39,519
Speaker 2: And I think for me would have a common ground, okay,

472
00:22:39,519 --> 00:22:42,720
when it comes to observable, normal, everyday things, right, you

473
00:22:42,759 --> 00:22:44,839
and me would share that. You might go beyond me

474
00:22:45,000 --> 00:22:48,200
and say, hey, there's metaphysical, they're spiritual, there's miraculous, and

475
00:22:48,200 --> 00:22:51,319
things like that. We would step hand in hand. If

476
00:22:51,359 --> 00:22:53,799
we were doing some detective case and going to observe

477
00:22:53,839 --> 00:22:55,960
a murder or anything else, you and me would be

478
00:22:56,160 --> 00:22:58,240
probably on the same page. I imagine you wouldn't go

479
00:22:58,279 --> 00:23:00,880
to the palm reader or to the ghost whisperer to

480
00:23:00,920 --> 00:23:03,680
find out who killed Sally Sue. Over here in this room,

481
00:23:03,839 --> 00:23:07,359
we would both use the same tools, the same observations

482
00:23:07,359 --> 00:23:09,799
in the natural world to come to those conclusions. I'm

483
00:23:09,839 --> 00:23:15,000
saying I restricted my observations at that and what happens

484
00:23:15,039 --> 00:23:18,359
when I see miraculous stuff appear in antiquity, Yes, I

485
00:23:18,400 --> 00:23:21,680
cannot prove it did not happen, just like I say

486
00:23:21,720 --> 00:23:24,000
I cannot prove a Sclepist did not heal the blind

487
00:23:24,279 --> 00:23:26,400
or raise the dead, or Heracles or any other god

488
00:23:26,519 --> 00:23:28,839
as well. The point I'm getting at is is what's

489
00:23:28,880 --> 00:23:32,039
most likely on my observations, based on the tools that

490
00:23:32,079 --> 00:23:34,240
I'm using, which you would walk hand in hand with

491
00:23:34,279 --> 00:23:37,200
me on most cases, is that I'm looking at this

492
00:23:37,279 --> 00:23:43,680
other material and saying, Asclepias legend, myth isis legend, myth,

493
00:23:43,759 --> 00:23:47,240
Mesopotamian legend and myth, and I see the same characteristics

494
00:23:47,440 --> 00:23:53,160
happen with the Caesars historical people that are being legendized, fictionalized.

495
00:23:53,720 --> 00:23:53,920
Speaker 4: The kid.

496
00:23:54,039 --> 00:23:56,200
Speaker 1: That's a lot. That's enough. That's enough. Now, what Jay

497
00:23:56,240 --> 00:23:59,519
is saying is that you're everything you just said, by

498
00:23:59,559 --> 00:24:01,400
your own standard is a myth.

499
00:24:01,640 --> 00:24:05,000
Speaker 4: Are you do you agree with that.

500
00:24:04,000 --> 00:24:06,720
Speaker 2: Myth is a story or a narrative or about about

501
00:24:06,720 --> 00:24:07,200
something right?

502
00:24:07,359 --> 00:24:08,039
Speaker 4: And that's what you.

503
00:24:09,480 --> 00:24:13,000
Speaker 1: So based on your view the thing, the claim X

504
00:24:13,160 --> 00:24:15,880
y Z is a myth based on your own standards

505
00:24:15,880 --> 00:24:20,119
of the absence of empiricism, absence of observation. Is that

506
00:24:20,279 --> 00:24:24,279
your account of the myths it meets the criteria of

507
00:24:24,319 --> 00:24:25,000
myth correct?

508
00:24:25,799 --> 00:24:28,839
Speaker 2: I guess I mean you guys are defining myth in

509
00:24:28,880 --> 00:24:29,799
the strange.

510
00:24:31,119 --> 00:24:31,599
Speaker 4: Criteria.

511
00:24:31,920 --> 00:24:35,160
Speaker 2: Okay, I guess if that's what you guys wanted to mean.

512
00:24:35,279 --> 00:24:40,559
I mean, I define something in antiquity that is fictional,

513
00:24:40,839 --> 00:24:43,519
that is telling a fictional story, has no basis in

514
00:24:43,640 --> 00:24:45,799
actually what happened. That's what I would say is myth.

515
00:24:46,119 --> 00:24:48,960
It's a legend, it's a story to embellish and your

516
00:24:48,960 --> 00:24:52,400
own position, that's your observation.

517
00:24:52,519 --> 00:24:58,160
Speaker 5: In my position, Actually, what he thought about evolution, you

518
00:24:58,279 --> 00:25:00,400
just brought up evolution, I don't.

519
00:25:00,279 --> 00:25:02,079
Speaker 4: We don't even have to talk about that. The very

520
00:25:02,079 --> 00:25:04,720
thing that he just said that all worldviews are constructs

521
00:25:04,720 --> 00:25:05,880
applies to his worldview.

522
00:25:06,240 --> 00:25:06,440
Speaker 3: Yep.

523
00:25:06,720 --> 00:25:11,720
Speaker 1: And a thousand years. That means in a thousand years,

524
00:25:12,240 --> 00:25:15,720
Derek myth vision right, the channel will be appropriately named.

525
00:25:16,200 --> 00:25:19,240
In a thousand years, people look back and they'll go, oh,

526
00:25:19,559 --> 00:25:21,400
this guy's account of history, right.

527
00:25:21,240 --> 00:25:23,799
Speaker 2: And I'm a prophet, I'm gonna tell you what's really

528
00:25:23,839 --> 00:25:25,799
gonna happen. You're gonna be shocked. By the end of

529
00:25:25,839 --> 00:25:28,400
this year, I'll have half a million subscribers. There's gonna

530
00:25:28,400 --> 00:25:30,720
be a serious online movement of people moving toward and

531
00:25:30,759 --> 00:25:34,559
gearing toward what I'm actually showing on this channel. Less

532
00:25:34,599 --> 00:25:37,039
and less people, I imagine, are going to go toward that

533
00:25:37,079 --> 00:25:41,000
more fundamentalist approach and saying that this is the one

534
00:25:41,079 --> 00:25:44,400
true religion. They're gonna find ways to somehow rationalize, maybe

535
00:25:44,400 --> 00:25:50,240
even blend their beliefs to some seculars we talked about earlier, Andrew,

536
00:25:51,640 --> 00:25:53,480
but myth vision is going to make a serious dent.

537
00:25:53,960 --> 00:25:56,720
It's already been doing so, and I'm predicting half a

538
00:25:56,759 --> 00:25:57,759
million subs by the end of.

539
00:25:57,759 --> 00:26:00,960
Speaker 1: This year of people who you can't ask their their

540
00:26:01,000 --> 00:26:05,960
foundational epistemic system. Well, I don't know if you want

541
00:26:06,000 --> 00:26:08,319
those people, but I'm happy you're making a living.

542
00:26:08,359 --> 00:26:08,640
Speaker 3: Derek.

543
00:26:08,720 --> 00:26:10,799
Speaker 1: I actually don't you know. I hope, I hope. I

544
00:26:10,839 --> 00:26:12,920
wish you the best, and you're actually welcome anytime. I

545
00:26:12,960 --> 00:26:15,279
know we kept you a little longer this time, but

546
00:26:15,359 --> 00:26:18,680
I do plan on doing these panels. I'm okay with

547
00:26:18,720 --> 00:26:21,640
them being contentious, I'm okay with them going three hours.

548
00:26:21,680 --> 00:26:24,599
We're hitting four now I apologize.

549
00:26:24,079 --> 00:26:27,680
Speaker 3: Ok, with Neil not participating at all, though Neil.

550
00:26:28,880 --> 00:26:33,720
Speaker 1: Conversation when I could, And to be fair, Jay didn't

551
00:26:33,720 --> 00:26:36,319
actually know the context he was going into. He just

552
00:26:36,359 --> 00:26:37,519
got thrown in, so, you.

553
00:26:37,480 --> 00:26:39,480
Speaker 5: Know, her to pull the brakes out.

554
00:26:39,519 --> 00:26:41,160
Speaker 3: I'm like, hey, chill, it's not that big of a deal.

555
00:26:41,559 --> 00:26:46,759
Speaker 2: I watched a little before and Saws getting hype was like,

556
00:26:46,920 --> 00:26:48,359
you're not having all the fun without me.

557
00:26:48,599 --> 00:26:51,680
Speaker 1: It's still permissible though, And uh, I think it. I

558
00:26:51,680 --> 00:26:52,039
think it does.

559
00:26:52,240 --> 00:26:54,799
Speaker 6: I mean, so you can't even blame him, right, I

560
00:26:54,799 --> 00:26:56,640
mean it was more fun than a human beings should

561
00:26:56,640 --> 00:27:00,200
be allowed to have, let's face it. And and when

562
00:27:00,240 --> 00:27:02,400
you have your hair all bound back like that, you

563
00:27:02,440 --> 00:27:06,000
know what I mean, like you know, a couple of screws.

564
00:27:08,400 --> 00:27:13,799
Speaker 1: You're close Jay? Well, no, I think all those questions

565
00:27:13,799 --> 00:27:17,559
are actually valid. Yes, they're different ways of asking questions there.

566
00:27:17,799 --> 00:27:20,200
I think there are actually more important questions what Jay

567
00:27:20,240 --> 00:27:22,759
is asking, but we're not used to those questions. We

568
00:27:22,799 --> 00:27:26,000
go into historicity. We just grant ourselves some access to

569
00:27:26,039 --> 00:27:27,920
the past and we try to shuffle around what we

570
00:27:27,960 --> 00:27:30,359
think is true and not. I think it's totally fair

571
00:27:30,480 --> 00:27:34,200
and under another circumstance, Derek, I actually invite you to

572
00:27:34,359 --> 00:27:37,359
actually try to engage with it, because every time this

573
00:27:37,519 --> 00:27:41,799
happens our experience, right, the presup plan of of you

574
00:27:41,880 --> 00:27:44,279
guys is you just say, oh, you're presupping me. I mean,

575
00:27:44,319 --> 00:27:46,880
that's not you gotta I gotta understand from both views

576
00:27:46,880 --> 00:27:47,359
that that.

577
00:27:47,200 --> 00:27:49,920
Speaker 2: That mar It's not an answer, and that is a

578
00:27:50,200 --> 00:27:53,000
out for me as someone who doesn't engage with precept stuff.

579
00:27:53,200 --> 00:27:56,759
That's because I don't think there's any way to ever

580
00:27:56,839 --> 00:28:00,759
convince someone who's in that, who's actually waited by there.

581
00:28:00,839 --> 00:28:03,519
Speaker 6: Can I ask you for a favor when we have

582
00:28:03,559 --> 00:28:07,400
one of these panels again, would you mind? Because I

583
00:28:07,480 --> 00:28:10,599
understand if you don't have like a good philosophical background

584
00:28:10,680 --> 00:28:11,799
or this or that, you know what I mean. I

585
00:28:11,799 --> 00:28:15,240
do use a lot of intuitive argumentation myself. But these guys,

586
00:28:15,279 --> 00:28:17,799
these scholars that you do know, would you be willing

587
00:28:17,799 --> 00:28:19,559
to bring them on with you? And then we can

588
00:28:19,599 --> 00:28:21,519
continue with this and we can have a guy like

589
00:28:21,559 --> 00:28:22,200
Dire on here.

590
00:28:22,200 --> 00:28:23,480
Speaker 3: We can all have this discussion.

591
00:28:23,759 --> 00:28:26,559
Speaker 2: So what I like to do when it comes to philosophy,

592
00:28:26,920 --> 00:28:29,680
I don't know, Dire, have you ever engaged with is

593
00:28:29,960 --> 00:28:33,400
you'd rather Dire engage specifically?

594
00:28:33,440 --> 00:28:34,680
Speaker 3: All of us can engage.

595
00:28:35,480 --> 00:28:38,240
Speaker 2: I'm trying to have like a liter will we not

596
00:28:38,279 --> 00:28:41,279
get distracted by any possible other stuff, and Dire can

597
00:28:41,319 --> 00:28:44,880
engage and discuss his worldview. And then I'll have another

598
00:28:44,920 --> 00:28:48,960
guest come on, maybe like Woodford, or I can get

599
00:28:49,000 --> 00:28:49,519
Graham Appy.

600
00:28:49,640 --> 00:28:51,680
Speaker 1: Maybe if you can get Stevid Woodford, that's good.

601
00:28:52,240 --> 00:28:55,440
Speaker 2: Yeah, budget step And the reason I brought up that

602
00:28:55,480 --> 00:28:57,400
I have friends that I could call in here.

603
00:28:57,519 --> 00:28:58,440
Speaker 3: Don't have friends?

604
00:28:58,480 --> 00:29:06,240
Speaker 1: Stop you have associated Do you have corporate associates? I

605
00:29:06,279 --> 00:29:08,640
looked it up Derek Myth Vision LLC.

606
00:29:09,200 --> 00:29:12,559
Speaker 3: Yeah, LLC. He's got the whole corporate board.

607
00:29:12,839 --> 00:29:14,920
Speaker 6: You just gotta grab people from your corporate board to

608
00:29:15,480 --> 00:29:16,839
go against a dire or.

609
00:29:16,960 --> 00:29:17,799
Speaker 2: People from my notes.

610
00:29:18,039 --> 00:29:18,559
Speaker 3: I love it.

611
00:29:18,599 --> 00:29:20,400
Speaker 6: I would love it if you had some people, whether

612
00:29:20,480 --> 00:29:22,880
or my my channel, Jimbobs or Jay Dyers, if you

613
00:29:22,880 --> 00:29:26,119
guys would like to come back, you know, have one

614
00:29:26,160 --> 00:29:27,799
of these guys, come on, let's tangle it up.

615
00:29:27,880 --> 00:29:29,440
Speaker 5: Always I'm always.

616
00:29:29,119 --> 00:29:31,559
Speaker 2: Done, Yeah, I will. I will see what I can

617
00:29:31,559 --> 00:29:34,880
do with Steven because he is in the philosophy van

618
00:29:35,559 --> 00:29:39,039
I'm not. I'm more into the textual history stuff like that.

619
00:29:39,400 --> 00:29:42,079
And so maybe we could do a round table and

620
00:29:42,119 --> 00:29:44,160
see if he'd be down for that. If not, then

621
00:29:44,200 --> 00:29:47,000
maybe having a one on one discussion or something.

622
00:29:47,039 --> 00:29:47,359
Speaker 5: I don't know.

623
00:29:47,400 --> 00:29:48,000
Speaker 2: We'll figure it out.

624
00:29:48,039 --> 00:29:49,960
Speaker 3: We'll figure do it all. We do it all. But listen,

625
00:29:50,440 --> 00:29:51,519
thanks for coming on, man.

626
00:29:51,559 --> 00:29:52,960
Speaker 6: It was a lot of fun, and I hope you

627
00:29:53,000 --> 00:29:56,559
had a lot of fun. Don't be mad at us

628
00:29:56,599 --> 00:29:59,960
because Jay Dyer is so fucking mean. It's not our fault.

629
00:30:00,119 --> 00:30:02,480
It has always been a mean bastard. There's nothing we

630
00:30:02,519 --> 00:30:07,279
could do about it. Okay, he's always been that way.

631
00:30:07,440 --> 00:30:10,039
Speaker 2: The way that Neil describes this Andrew is this when

632
00:30:10,039 --> 00:30:12,920
I met him, hot headed as fuck. Okay, let's just

633
00:30:13,000 --> 00:30:16,359
keep it real, Neils. Yeah, you you you can go

634
00:30:16,440 --> 00:30:18,599
off the deep and quick when you get mad. Okay,

635
00:30:18,640 --> 00:30:21,200
you know that. But then I'm like why, and he's like, dude,

636
00:30:21,200 --> 00:30:23,359
where we're from in New York, we argue over the

637
00:30:23,359 --> 00:30:28,119
football teams where you know, No, that's what say that.

638
00:30:28,200 --> 00:30:30,440
It's You've you've said that to me. You've told me

639
00:30:30,480 --> 00:30:33,160
like you're very you know, hype about it. Well, and

640
00:30:33,240 --> 00:30:35,200
I got a little fun little hype, you know.

641
00:30:35,640 --> 00:30:37,960
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, no, herd, we weren't. We weren't planning on

642
00:30:38,039 --> 00:30:41,440
going philosophy We thought we we'd uh, you know, skim

643
00:30:41,519 --> 00:30:42,559
the surface at least.

644
00:30:42,480 --> 00:30:45,480
Speaker 6: But when Jay saw that you were wearing a salmon

645
00:30:45,559 --> 00:30:48,680
colored shirt, which is the weakest color man can wear,

646
00:30:49,000 --> 00:30:51,559
he decided to put on his salmon colored Hawaiian shirt

647
00:30:51,599 --> 00:30:53,279
and wanted to show you what's up.

648
00:30:53,839 --> 00:30:56,440
Speaker 4: Look salmon in the red light. But it's actually yellow.

649
00:30:56,599 --> 00:31:01,599
Speaker 6: So but he Jay stuffed, hoping that's Sam And okay,

650
00:31:01,599 --> 00:31:03,640
hey that's Sam, it's actually.

651
00:31:05,759 --> 00:31:08,119
Speaker 1: Any last Neil. Why don't you shout out your channel

652
00:31:08,240 --> 00:31:11,839
and your last words for the for the show here,

653
00:31:12,359 --> 00:31:16,119
and then we'll go around Derek, Jay, Andrew and then

654
00:31:16,160 --> 00:31:18,160
finally myself, Neil.

655
00:31:18,200 --> 00:31:20,200
Speaker 5: My name is Neil from Gnostic Informant. Just look me

656
00:31:20,240 --> 00:31:22,920
up on YouTube, comes right up, start a second channel.

657
00:31:23,039 --> 00:31:27,000
I do shorter content toos Informant TV.

658
00:31:27,119 --> 00:31:28,079
Speaker 3: I think it's called whatever.

659
00:31:28,319 --> 00:31:30,880
Speaker 5: They're both up there, and I'm looking forward to more

660
00:31:30,880 --> 00:31:33,839
of these because I I'm trying to gain get more

661
00:31:33,880 --> 00:31:36,359
of an understanding of where you guys are coming from.

662
00:31:36,400 --> 00:31:38,880
Speaker 3: And I think you helped me out. So can you

663
00:31:38,920 --> 00:31:41,119
wear a less stupid hat next time? I got? I

664
00:31:41,160 --> 00:31:43,759
got all right, share enough Derek.

665
00:31:44,759 --> 00:31:47,640
Speaker 2: Yeah, thanks for having me on, guys. This was different.

666
00:31:47,759 --> 00:31:50,759
I haven't done one of these, and long time since

667
00:31:50,799 --> 00:31:55,200
I've had conversations like this. Yeah, and my channel is

668
00:31:55,240 --> 00:31:58,279
if you're interested in like history, mythology. Just so you know,

669
00:31:59,279 --> 00:32:02,079
many Christians watch it and appreciate it. Even if they

670
00:32:02,160 --> 00:32:04,359
disagree with my conclusions, they appreciate it.

671
00:32:04,400 --> 00:32:08,440
Speaker 1: So there's that appreciate it awesome Jay.

672
00:32:10,720 --> 00:32:14,799
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, Jay Dyer, Jay's Analysis. I host the fourth

673
00:32:14,839 --> 00:32:22,319
Hour Bolex Jones every Friday and we do movie reviews, debates, philosophy, geopolitics, literature,

674
00:32:22,440 --> 00:32:23,440
all that on my channel.

675
00:32:24,240 --> 00:32:27,160
Speaker 1: Awesome. And do you guys have Derek I know Jay?

676
00:32:27,519 --> 00:32:28,079
Speaker 3: Uh?

677
00:32:28,319 --> 00:32:30,839
Speaker 1: Do you have Twitter spaces that seems to be a

678
00:32:30,880 --> 00:32:33,480
more of a new fun forum thing where people can

679
00:32:33,519 --> 00:32:36,480
actually attack you. Yeah, you can attack Jay on his

680
00:32:36,519 --> 00:32:37,400
Twitter space.

681
00:32:38,079 --> 00:32:38,759
Speaker 4: Time to debate.

682
00:32:38,839 --> 00:32:41,039
Speaker 1: Yeah, nice, I do do you do that?

683
00:32:41,440 --> 00:32:43,599
Speaker 2: I like use it just to share YouTube videos on.

684
00:32:43,640 --> 00:32:46,400
I don't really get on engage because damn it's toxic.

685
00:32:46,519 --> 00:32:48,599
Speaker 5: Heay not to put you on the spot.

686
00:32:48,680 --> 00:32:49,119
Speaker 3: I jumped.

687
00:32:49,640 --> 00:32:51,200
Speaker 5: I jumped on there one time and there was a

688
00:32:51,200 --> 00:32:53,240
delay or something where we couldn't hear each other talk,

689
00:32:53,279 --> 00:32:55,319
and you kicked me off and block me. But I'd

690
00:32:55,359 --> 00:32:57,640
appreciate it. I didn't mean any will towards you when

691
00:32:57,640 --> 00:32:59,119
I was on there last time. So if you want

692
00:32:59,119 --> 00:33:01,799
to unblock, that'd be cool. I'll jump on there next time.

693
00:33:02,160 --> 00:33:05,160
Speaker 1: Okay, that was a documented event, Andrew.

694
00:33:07,200 --> 00:33:11,079
Speaker 6: Well, okay, Neil. To be fair, I've blocked you on

695
00:33:11,119 --> 00:33:14,119
Twitter too. But but let me tell you why, hang on,

696
00:33:14,160 --> 00:33:16,400
hang on. I got reason for this, got a good

697
00:33:16,400 --> 00:33:20,319
reason for this. It's because I'm way smarter than you.

698
00:33:20,440 --> 00:33:23,319
That's the only reason I did it. I say, no,

699
00:33:23,359 --> 00:33:26,240
I'm kidding. You're not blocked on Twitter, bro, I'm just

700
00:33:26,240 --> 00:33:29,640
fucking with you. My name is Andrew Wilson, host of

701
00:33:29,720 --> 00:33:33,559
the one and only Crucible, fastest growing debate channel on

702
00:33:33,559 --> 00:33:36,119
the Internet. You'll be able to catch more content. I'm

703
00:33:36,160 --> 00:33:39,079
going live with Gavin McGinnis in early February for a

704
00:33:39,119 --> 00:33:43,160
two show combo. Right after I'm heading back to whatever

705
00:33:44,079 --> 00:33:46,640
for three shows, so it's going to be a kind

706
00:33:46,680 --> 00:33:48,880
of long haul in February. I hope to see all

707
00:33:48,920 --> 00:33:51,799
of you there, and Jim Bob, I really appreciate you

708
00:33:51,839 --> 00:33:54,240
putting this panel together. Derek, it was great to meet you.

709
00:33:55,920 --> 00:33:58,880
I basically I blame you for the derailment of the

710
00:33:59,000 --> 00:34:01,920
entire panel, so your fault, I was just I just

711
00:34:01,920 --> 00:34:04,000
wanted to have a couple of beers. Man, do you

712
00:34:04,000 --> 00:34:07,160
see you see I had him? Yes, screwed the whole thing.

713
00:34:07,240 --> 00:34:08,480
Speaker 5: I really want to getting dog.

714
00:34:08,320 --> 00:34:12,840
Speaker 3: Piled and somehow anyway, thank you so much. I appreciate it. Me.

715
00:34:12,920 --> 00:34:15,400
Speaker 2: Hey is the scapegoat. It's all his fault, every bit

716
00:34:15,440 --> 00:34:18,199
that happened before and when he showed up. Sorry, Jay,

717
00:34:18,920 --> 00:34:19,960
I I.

718
00:34:19,880 --> 00:34:21,280
Speaker 3: Feel like he could take it. I feel like he

719
00:34:21,320 --> 00:34:21,920
could take it.

720
00:34:22,239 --> 00:34:24,880
Speaker 6: Guy is known internet wide as being the meanest man

721
00:34:24,920 --> 00:34:26,559
in the Internet. I've been competing with him for the

722
00:34:26,639 --> 00:34:30,480
last year and I'm still losing.

723
00:34:28,719 --> 00:34:32,239
Speaker 1: Not even close. And he goes he goes right for

724
00:34:32,320 --> 00:34:35,480
the juggular. Every time you're Andrew, You're like, Hey, how's

725
00:34:35,480 --> 00:34:37,679
it going. Where do you live? Oh? You like ship

726
00:34:37,719 --> 00:34:41,480
beer too. Jay's like, look, not trying to be mean,

727
00:34:41,480 --> 00:34:42,280
but here's my cleaver.

728
00:34:42,559 --> 00:34:42,719
Speaker 3: You know.

729
00:34:42,800 --> 00:34:47,280
Speaker 1: It's like, but we do appreciate you guys, coming on.

730
00:34:47,320 --> 00:34:49,440
I do want to do this more. A lot of it.

731
00:34:49,599 --> 00:34:52,639
A lot of our interactions are actually debate driven, which

732
00:34:52,679 --> 00:34:55,159
I'm fine with. I love debating. I love to learn

733
00:34:55,159 --> 00:34:57,320
about it and do more of it. But the panel

734
00:34:57,400 --> 00:34:59,800
thing is is kind of more fun in a sense,

735
00:35:00,039 --> 00:35:02,880
and you can hang out and cover other things because

736
00:35:02,920 --> 00:35:05,119
because we did cover a lot of interesting things at

737
00:35:05,119 --> 00:35:08,800
the at the front of this, right that wasn't super contentious, right,

738
00:35:08,920 --> 00:35:12,559
interesting topics and technology and whatnot. So I'm going to

739
00:35:12,599 --> 00:35:13,079
do this again.

740
00:35:13,159 --> 00:35:14,960
Speaker 6: Also, guys, you're only going to be able to find this.

741
00:35:15,039 --> 00:35:16,960
You're not gonna be able to find this on the Crucible.

742
00:35:16,960 --> 00:35:19,320
You'll only be able to find it on Jim Bob's stream.

743
00:35:19,440 --> 00:35:22,719
I strongly suggest you become a member because great content

744
00:35:22,920 --> 00:35:24,960
like this, well he only puts it out for a

745
00:35:25,000 --> 00:35:27,920
couple of days before it becomes member only, so true.

746
00:35:28,199 --> 00:35:29,559
Speaker 3: Thank you strongly suggested.

747
00:35:30,320 --> 00:35:32,039
Speaker 6: And of course any of you who want to clip

748
00:35:32,079 --> 00:35:34,639
anything for any of your channels, you're more than welcome

749
00:35:34,679 --> 00:35:37,280
to just and read and I'll read.

750
00:35:37,079 --> 00:35:40,960
Speaker 1: This super Yeah, guys, I'll stay once they're off, I'll read,

751
00:35:41,159 --> 00:35:43,239
go through and make sure I got all the super chats. Okay,

752
00:35:43,440 --> 00:35:45,480
all right you guys, Thanks so much to every single

753
00:35:45,480 --> 00:35:47,639
one of you. I hope to do this again soon. Also,

754
00:35:48,000 --> 00:35:50,800
Derek and Neil, if there's anyone else, like you said

755
00:35:50,800 --> 00:35:53,159
that might be interested in this format. No, it's not

756
00:35:53,199 --> 00:35:55,639
going to always be like this contentious, but it could be.

757
00:35:55,760 --> 00:35:57,679
And I think we could all handle it so so

758
00:35:57,679 --> 00:36:00,599
it'll be fun anyway. So as right, all right, and

759
00:36:01,039 --> 00:36:03,280
sorry for keeping you in. I'm glad you got some

760
00:36:03,639 --> 00:36:07,079
food there, so all right, all right, yeah, have a

761
00:36:07,119 --> 00:36:08,840
little something, all right, you guys. I want to take

762
00:36:08,840 --> 00:36:13,119
you to take you guys all down. Audios. Thanks J

763
00:36:13,199 --> 00:36:14,679
for jumping on. Uh see you