Speaker 1: Choirs that we have knowledge of the laws of physics
and that the regularity in nature maintains. Right, if the
regularity didn't maintain, we wouldn't be able to explain anything
because it wouldn't maintain its identity over time. So if
your premise one is a miracle based on your naturalistic view,
is something that can't be explained definitionally by the laws
of physics and the regularity of nature, which is the
other way you explain things in reality. Right, I'm saying
those things themselves can't get explained by those laws.
Speaker 2: They just exist, right, Honestly, to be honest with you, Jimbob,
it sounds like a word game to try and convince
people that I somehow accept a miracle when I don't.
I just miracle tail. In this case, we're talking about
rising from the dead. We're talking about things logical consequences
that we've read in ancient text, and here we are
playing this game. Can you define the meaning of truth
by the word truth and stuff like that?
Speaker 1: And I'm going like, don't I understand.
Speaker 2: I don't see a miracle in any of that though,
I don't understand that truth and stuff like that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there he goes, that's all.
Speaker 1: That's all. I really want to run with you, Derek.
I know you have to eat, but this is one
guest who wanted to come on and ask a couple
of questions. Jay Me, Oh yeah, am I the guests
you're the guest.
Speaker 4: Now, Well, it seems like the argument rests on an
assumption of the things that like that you already know
what things are and are not possible. And I mean
maybe it's right the the you know, the criterion that
you've chosen. I think you appeal to things like scientists
and stuff like that, But well, how do you know
that you've chosen the right criteria for what is and
isn't possible? Like what what's the basis for that choice?
Speaker 2: You're talking to me? Yeah, I would just go with
based on my observations and experiences and those of countless
other critical scholars who evaluate this literature and recognizing that
we're dealing with legendary materials. Just like Suetonius discusses the
birth of Augustus through Apollo, several divine births and antiquity,
but you have the miracle of Jesus birth and they
look literarily very similar, I mean, very very close. Linguistically
in flat. In fact, Plutarch talks about the birth of
Plato by a virgin, Plato's mother being a virgin, by
the Numa and the denimos, the power and the spirit.
Plutarch's writing somewhat contemporaneous to the gospel literature. We're dealing
with legend and so this is what I would say
when I observe that material and I see legendary genre
like a category today we would fit Batman or Superman
or something in today's fiction. They would do something in
antiquity similar to that. So when I look at that
in a heuristic way, comparing the literature to other literature,
I would across the board say they're all acting and looking,
walking like a duck, talking like a duck, and they're
a duck. That's why I would say.
Speaker 4: By that definition, though, the evolutionary account of the origin
of human beings would also be mythological.
Speaker 2: Right, I don't I think we evolved, but you would
disagree with me.
Speaker 4: No, But I'm saying, by your standard, that would also
be mythology. Now, what would the evolutionary account of human
beings in there? Arising from the sea, I mean an
aximander says that, and he gives a kind of a
quasi mythological account.
Speaker 3: So is that is that.
Speaker 4: Count's mythology that we throw out or is that a solidarity.
Speaker 2: As far as anaximander.
Speaker 4: The evolutionary account that I just outlined, your criteria would
cancel out his origins of human beings as mythology.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would say that creation myths all across the
board in antiquity are trying.
Speaker 4: To now, in other words, evolutionary origins fit your standard
of mythology that should be tossed out.
Speaker 2: What about the would fit that? Where's the where's the
ancient textbook describing fossil records and going into the science
of these things the criteria?
Speaker 5: Well, then then you would say, there's also data, there's
also archaeology, there's also.
Speaker 2: Right, there's several fast.
Speaker 4: Things that map I asked for the criteria though, about
what cancels out myth versus fact.
Speaker 2: Well, that's why I said observable. I would look at
the observations of.
Speaker 4: What how do you did you observe any of that?
Speaker 2: No, and I didn't see Suetonius get talk about Augustus's birth.
He might be the chosen one and Jesus is a
false prophet. We don't know that.
Speaker 5: They're trying to get there to say that he's appealing
to authority, and the answer is obviously yes, yes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, of course I'm gonna appeal.
Speaker 4: To ask about an appeal to authority. I'm talking about now.
The criteria is observation, empirical observation.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm saying you can look at these texts and
compare this material and see what there's several scholars out
there that work in this to show we're dealing with literature.
We're dealing with literature, literature.
Speaker 4: I'm an argument. I'm asking a pistemological question, though, is
this which is not answered by just saying that we
look at the literature and the scholars.
Speaker 2: Okay, well what do you want to know?
Speaker 4: So the criteria that you set up your epistemic criteria
was on what basis? I'm asking you on what basis?
And you said, it's the things that don't appear to
be mythological based on various scholars. And then I said, well,
by that standard, certain things that you do believe would
also be mythology, like the Big Bang would count as that.
I'm assuming you believe that. I don't know if I.
Speaker 2: Think it's an outdated model now, but.
Speaker 4: Okay, well, I mean whatever origin myth you want doesn't
match up to the standard of empirical verification. Okay, so
you have an arbitrary standard if you need me to
spell it out for you.
Speaker 2: Okay, and you don't, what's the justification for your If
you don't, I'm asking you, do you no?
Speaker 4: I think if I believe in theism and I believe
in divine revelation, I have a basis for epistemology and
those kinds of standards. So I'm just trying to figure
out what yours is right?
Speaker 2: Your argument physical? It would be based on physical, observable, testable,
and even observational things like literature.
Speaker 4: You already said that all of these origin theories that
you believe go outside of your empirical evidence.
Speaker 2: What what do I believe that?
Speaker 4: Did you observe the origins of the human of Oh?
Speaker 2: No, no, no, that's where authority comes in. Like Neil
brought up that I would rely on scholars and experts.
Speaker 4: Scientif do you know you've chosen the right scholars?
Speaker 2: How do you know you got to do research yourself
and investigate it yourself. That's the thing, like you could
not criteria. We didn't evolve and therefore that criteria.
Speaker 5: You understand, Jay, when you chose the church to be
your guiding more you're guiding uh truth, you had to
at some point decide that for yourself, and you had
you had to make that judgment.
Speaker 4: The same category mistake. You're confusing an existential choice with
the criteria. Two different questions.
Speaker 5: Well, that's what you that's what you just said to him.
You said he had to How does he know that
these scientists are right? He really doesn't. He has to
kind of appeal to authority.
Speaker 4: I can't make an argument. I'm not just appealing to
an authority.
Speaker 5: Well, we can all make an arguments depending on what
we're exactly we're talking about.
Speaker 3: At some point, why do you.
Speaker 4: Want to believe your epistemic criteria?
Speaker 2: But you're saying you don't appeal to authority? Yet, what say?
Speaker 4: I just asked, what the what reasons we should believe
your epistemic criteria? I haven't even heard what the criteria
is other than what I chose and what I chose
from certain scholars. Well, how do you know where to
cut off the true and the false scholars.
Speaker 2: That's a good question. That's why I investigate.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I might want to know that if I'm But.
Speaker 2: Instead of swallowing the pill up front believing in a
book that several scholars have shown to be very very
I say, there's a lot of contention problems, issues, very
man made looking and evolved over time.
Speaker 3: A circular argument that you'd use for the church.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would, I would. I would investigate them. I
would across the board. But instead of swallowing that pill
up front, that's what I would do.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but I'm pointing out that you are you already
have swallowed your own version of an arbitrary, miraculous, miraculous pill.
Speaker 2: So I believe in a miracle? Is that what you're saying?
Many of them, you guys convinced me that miracles are
real tonight, I'm I hope the audience is as convinced
as I am.
Speaker 4: Understanding is that the argument is pointing out to you
that you have an arbitrary standard which allows you to
choose what evidences you will and won't accept from the outset.
Speaker 2: You know, I got an arbitrary standard, and you guys don't.
How about that?
Speaker 4: Correct?
Speaker 2: Right, it is borrowing from other mythology to build its
narratives that is floaded with legend contradictions and errors that
aren't then aren't the case argument?
Speaker 4: Yeah, but that argument that you're making is based on
the very thing that I asked you to justify, So
you keep resting your position without I'm not going.
Speaker 2: To do the research for you, brother, I'm not going
to do all the I've done all the day. Actually,
I have just watch myth vision for like ten years
and you'll see at all. It's all there. But I'm
not going to sit here and go in circles with
this like I have truth and I have logic and
you don't, and I have the actual epistemic, the proper position.
Speaker 4: In other words, you don't want to address the actual
philosophical challenges to your system.
Speaker 2: I'm not a philosopher. I'm really not. I'm going to
play around with philosophy, but I'm not a philosopher, and
I understand that you do that kind of stuff.
Speaker 4: So, but if you're going to make arguments, you're in
the domain of philosophy.
Speaker 2: That's why I have stalls on my channel, right, That's
why I'm not there.
Speaker 4: You're not going to make the argument now for the audience.
You just want people to go to your channel, and
you have really.
Speaker 5: Asked Derek never really asked to get into the deep
philosophical matter behind why he thinks we thinks.
Speaker 4: Never really asked that.
Speaker 3: It just kind of got through.
Speaker 4: So there's not good reasons to I mean.
Speaker 5: I like having these type of discussions, but I mean,
Derek's is not the type of It seems like you
guys are just throwing it on him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's.
Speaker 1: Is it fit? Is it fair? Is it fair to
say if you think you have good arguments against Christianity
or any other religion, that that would necessarily be tied
to some epistemic foundation that could be questioned. Is it
valid to questions the foundation? Okay, that's all that's happening.
Speaker 2: But what I'm saying is is it feels like a
gotcha thing. And I've watched plenty of online back and
forth between Christians and those like myself, and I honestly
have a serious distaste for the presupt kind of approach
of you don't have knowledge, you don't have, but we do,
we have it. Even though we're looking at an ancient
book loaded with legend I don't.
Speaker 4: Get it where wrong because you have a problem.
Speaker 2: That's my point. You're starting with the conclusion that you
have the answer, that you're the right one, that you
have the epistemic truth, that your positions correct to me.
Prove that your positions correct to me.
Speaker 4: Well, it would help to understand the form of that argument.
Speaker 2: Right, Just prove to me that you have this the standard,
the correct epistemic foundation. Show me how you know that
yours is.
Speaker 4: True because of the impossibility of the contrary, because the
other worldviews they mess up at a fundamental level when
it comes to the basics of a worldview, epistemology, metaphysicals.
Speaker 2: How do you know that? How do you know that
they've messed up?
Speaker 4: Because you can demonstrate it, Like as I'm arguing with you,
when you don't give an account for your arbitrary starting point,
we already know that.
Speaker 2: To give me your starting point, I've asked you for
that evidence.
Speaker 4: Not right, I'm a whole list an epistemic holest which
means that I believe in an entire paradigm. There's no
starting point that's neutral or arbitrary. It's the entire Christian
worldview compared to the gnostic worldview, the atheist worldview, the
humanist worldview. Those worldviews can't give an account for the
basic principles and metaphysics and epistemology and ethics. Our worldview
can give an account for how those things exist, and
so therefore ours is the true one.
Speaker 2: So we would disagree right there. I mean, obviously all
of that, all of these worldviews give you those exact
epistemic solutions to the problems of the world. Creation don't.
For example, they do Mesopotamian's creation mythology is literally being lifted.
Speaker 4: You don't even understand what this argument is arguing. I'm
not saying do they have a story? I'm talking about
epistemic justification in a philosophical sense. It's a very specific
claim of genesis.
Speaker 2: One has a philosophical statement in it about God.
Speaker 5: That doesn't matter to them.
Speaker 4: Because I even know what we're talking about. It's not
just does it have a claim. It's a very specific
type of argument in terms of logic. This is about
logical just God.
Speaker 2: This sounds like Darth Dawkins ship man. I'm not even kidding.
This sounds literally doesn't matter.
Speaker 4: It sounds like, I mean, do you have.
Speaker 2: Jay This is this is it's the same old thing man.
Speaker 4: You don't have an answer to it?
Speaker 2: No, I am sure don't. I'm not getting lost in
Derek saying.
Speaker 5: What Derek saying is this is no argument, which is
a valid form what Derek saying this is philosophical boxing.
Derek doesn't do the training you guys do.
Speaker 3: He doesn't really care.
Speaker 5: He's not he's not interested in and and if he's.
Speaker 4: Not interested in the domain of logic, then he shouldn't
try to debate these topics.
Speaker 3: He was.
Speaker 2: Anyone coming in, I thought we're talking on hang on.
Speaker 3: To be fair, it turned into a debate. Let's not
care kind of did.
Speaker 5: But you know, Joe, let's not get very permitted.
Speaker 1: We permitted the debate aspect of this conversation for sure.
It's just not formal and it's not guided or anything.
But Jay is uh, it's totally valid. And I would
take the same approach to as soon as someone's making
a claim about their view or what's possible what's not
possible regarding any religion, any faith, any legend, any myth.
You it's not like you saying, oh, you're pre supping me,
you're pre supping also, so everybody's pre supping.
Speaker 2: So if everybody's they're all man made, yes.
Speaker 6: I agree, I'm prepping that they aren't.
Speaker 4: If they're all man made, then what you just said
is also man made.
Speaker 2: And then well amen to that, hallelujah.
Speaker 4: Then there's no truth and it's a contradiction.
Speaker 1: Right, so there's no truth?
Speaker 4: Well you would be a relativist?
Speaker 2: Are we are? We? Are we puncious pilot asking Jesus
what truth is? Are we saying? I'm thinking what the
most factual thing is based on observations?
Speaker 4: And if all world views are man made, is that
also man made?
Speaker 2: I agree?
Speaker 4: That would be a contradiction.
Speaker 2: I think are the humans have constructed these world views
since the beginning of time? Before your universal claim that's
relatives have constructed He doesn't even care.
Speaker 4: Do you see that that's a contradiction. You don't You
think it's okay to contradict.
Speaker 1: Because you're you're doing a construct to right, So based
on your.
Speaker 2: Under no, I knew this was probably where this ship
was going to go before we just there.
Speaker 4: You don't want to be questioned on the middle level.
Speaker 1: This is you can question.
Speaker 3: You even know your question?
Speaker 4: God, this is how you so now it's at home,
and then now it's.
Speaker 3: I'm just you jumped in.
Speaker 5: You're all fiery, we were all we're just having a
chill conversation person.
Speaker 2: This person Christianity, and I was I was convinced of
it for a long time, and I was a pre
and it's started to become an evidentialist. I went down
the whole argument. It isn't. I have no interest in
engaging you back and forth on epistemic value. And to
begin with established the cos is true, to begin with,
as for your mine, can somehow can tell you the
origins of the world, and can can tell.
Speaker 4: You you're basic starting point. That's it.
Speaker 2: Well, you said answer all of these and none of
the others can.
Speaker 6: All right, all right, right, hang on, hang on, hang on,
hang on, guys, guys, all of you, hang on just
a second. Listen, Derek, we made sure I made sure
that uh, there was always supposed to be a fifth
on this panel, by the way, and I'm glad that
Dyer did hop on. The thing is is that you
haven't been dogpiled, and made sure that nobody did dogpile you.
But you've been kind of at the forefront, really hitting
as hard as you could, and you've gotten actually the
most hang on, you've actually gotten the most amount of
speaking time, which is fair right.
Speaker 3: The questions, and I think that's again.
Speaker 6: What I say, it's fair right, So backing up, let's
just kind of back up here between you and Jay, right,
just kind of lay out what your position is and
we could back up a little bit and won't. It
doesn't have to be so heated. Just kind of back
up a little bit. Yeah, give kind of your your
overall position, my position.
Speaker 3: Well, I want to make sure we've got a good reshape.
What's going to happen?
Speaker 5: Give this position, and Jay's going to philosophically do come
out and say? How do you know what you know?
You don't know what you know? How can I believe you?
Speaker 2: They don't ask him back, prove that your position, prove
your I gave a trans mine can answer this and
somehow it does. The other ones can't. That doesn't prove argument.
Speaker 4: Do you want to address that or just keep talking
past it? Transit arguments are wrong?
Speaker 2: What do you what do you want me to say?
Speaker 4: Let me, let me ask I gave an actual argument,
Tell me why those argument that yours is wrong? The
transcendental argument.
Speaker 2: Do what.
Speaker 1: The transcendental argument? Lets let me ask you.
Speaker 3: Let's do it.
Speaker 1: Let's do it this way, Derek, Are there any from
your view?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: Is there anything? Are there any necessary preconditions for anything
you're talking about to be true? Anything?
Speaker 2: What do you mean any?
Speaker 1: Is there anything that's necessary before you come to true?
An evaluation of claims, historical claims, logical claims, philosophical claims.
Speaker 2: Question is holistic, like it's they're trying to reconstruct things
through literature, that's the best. And then we have archaeology
that we're trying.
Speaker 4: To probabi relies on things like math.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they do.
Speaker 4: So if your argument relies on math, then you need
to give an account for math.
Speaker 1: Right, Oh my god?
Speaker 2: Can you therefore? Yeahweh? I mean you got don't geriously
don't get how math. I've heard this argument before from
from those who think that somehow the fact that math exists, so.
Speaker 4: You don't have an account therefore the fact.
Speaker 2: So I've heard that, and I'm like, no.
Speaker 1: How about just math? How about just math? How about
just math exists?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: We're not we don't skip to the god part. You
don't need to do that. We're asking you from your view,
How does your naturalistic view account for something like math
or logic, which you appeal to, Right, that's a that's
a fair question.
Speaker 2: Pretend like it's not fair observation of humans that we
have come up with systems we call mathematics, and they're
observable from the universe that we have seen in nature,
and that we've come up with systems in which we're
able to calculate and test observe. And that's where I
personally don't think math. The idea of math as a
construct is something that happens before humans come on the
scene and start systematizing.
Speaker 4: What they're logicwise, what about logic? So you think we
could make them otherwise if they're human constructs, I could
make Tipless to be five if we all agreed.
Speaker 2: No, I'm saying they observe it constructs. They have two
pine cones, right, They're not constructs. We've came up with
the idea that we came up to because there's two
Are you interrupting me the whole time? Bro? Like I
can't even talk, dude, you understanding you're asking me and
I'm trying to explain to you my word. I hear
your mouth and.
Speaker 3: I'm like, right, all right, well he.
Speaker 4: Let them let the account construct and then you said
it's objective.
Speaker 1: Those two he did say it's a construct So want
I want to verify?
Speaker 2: No, No, I don't know philosophy very well.
Speaker 4: We'll make it.
Speaker 1: We'll make it simple, We'll make math is a derivative
of logic. Right, So we're asking you if you said
math and its language is a construct right, if it's
derived from logic? Are you saying that logic is a
constructive of the human mind?
Speaker 2: Is logic logic?
Speaker 1: The laws of the three classical laws? Are they constructs?
Speaker 2: Dude? I don't even know the three classical laws?
Speaker 1: Okay, So the law of identity? Did the law of identity?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: Is that verified in nature with empiricism?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: You agree that it exists.
Speaker 2: I've never dealt in the philosophy.
Speaker 1: That's why it's you don't have to be defensive.
Speaker 3: This is like no.
Speaker 2: I mean like, you guys are asking tons of questions
I don't know the answer to, but you're making it
sound like like gotcha, And.
Speaker 1: I'm like, just does a law of identity exist?
Speaker 2: I don't know?
Speaker 3: Okay, If you're going to make.
Speaker 2: Are coming at it from philosophy, right, And I'm saying,
there's there's a handful of other philosophers that I could
pull in from a skeptical point of view who would
say everything you're saying fallacy. I'm not saying it is.
I'm telling you what I could do, just saying he's
not a philosophy I'm saying if you engage me textually,
you would be stomped on, just like you're doing to
me right now with precept stuff. Okay, there is no
comparison when it comes to biblical material on what I've
seen from you, Jay, But you can get me on
the philosophy stuff. That's all cool. But when we're talking textual,
we're talking biblical stuff. We're talking about mythology, legends and
such and understanding these ancient sources, the evolution of this
material and things. Derek, you got me on philosophy, I.
Speaker 1: Have no Derek, is your analysis of all the texts
and scripture does that require a philosophy?
Speaker 2: I imagine we all have something great.
Speaker 1: So what Jay's asking and maybe is not doing in
the language that you prefer that you're aware of, right,
So you're getting like kind of like heated about it.
Speaker 2: All he's asking is okay competitive guys.
Speaker 1: It's I'm yeah, we're competing for worldviews right now. So
if you have a worldview that says I can go
back and through history using a philosophy, you admit you
have a philosophy that informs how you do empiricism, historicity,
looking back, which authorities to listen to, which one not
to listen to. I'm telling you that your that activity
is informed by a philosophy that precedes the activity right right.
Speaker 2: And I think for me would have a common ground, okay,
when it comes to observable, normal, everyday things, right, you
and me would share that. You might go beyond me
and say, hey, there's metaphysical, they're spiritual, there's miraculous, and
things like that. We would step hand in hand. If
we were doing some detective case and going to observe
a murder or anything else, you and me would be
probably on the same page. I imagine you wouldn't go
to the palm reader or to the ghost whisperer to
find out who killed Sally Sue. Over here in this room,
we would both use the same tools, the same observations
in the natural world to come to those conclusions. I'm
saying I restricted my observations at that and what happens
when I see miraculous stuff appear in antiquity, Yes, I
cannot prove it did not happen, just like I say
I cannot prove a Sclepist did not heal the blind
or raise the dead, or Heracles or any other god
as well. The point I'm getting at is is what's
most likely on my observations, based on the tools that
I'm using, which you would walk hand in hand with
me on most cases, is that I'm looking at this
other material and saying, Asclepias legend, myth isis legend, myth,
Mesopotamian legend and myth, and I see the same characteristics
happen with the Caesars historical people that are being legendized, fictionalized.
Speaker 4: The kid.
Speaker 1: That's a lot. That's enough. That's enough. Now, what Jay
is saying is that you're everything you just said, by
your own standard is a myth.
Speaker 4: Are you do you agree with that.
Speaker 2: Myth is a story or a narrative or about about
something right?
Speaker 4: And that's what you.
Speaker 1: So based on your view the thing, the claim X
y Z is a myth based on your own standards
of the absence of empiricism, absence of observation. Is that
your account of the myths it meets the criteria of
myth correct?
Speaker 2: I guess I mean you guys are defining myth in
the strange.
Speaker 4: Criteria.
Speaker 2: Okay, I guess if that's what you guys wanted to mean.
I mean, I define something in antiquity that is fictional,
that is telling a fictional story, has no basis in
actually what happened. That's what I would say is myth.
It's a legend, it's a story to embellish and your
own position, that's your observation.
Speaker 5: In my position, Actually, what he thought about evolution, you
just brought up evolution, I don't.
Speaker 4: We don't even have to talk about that. The very
thing that he just said that all worldviews are constructs
applies to his worldview.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 1: And a thousand years. That means in a thousand years,
Derek myth vision right, the channel will be appropriately named.
In a thousand years, people look back and they'll go, oh,
this guy's account of history, right.
Speaker 2: And I'm a prophet, I'm gonna tell you what's really
gonna happen. You're gonna be shocked. By the end of
this year, I'll have half a million subscribers. There's gonna
be a serious online movement of people moving toward and
gearing toward what I'm actually showing on this channel. Less
and less people, I imagine, are going to go toward that
more fundamentalist approach and saying that this is the one
true religion. They're gonna find ways to somehow rationalize, maybe
even blend their beliefs to some seculars we talked about earlier, Andrew,
but myth vision is going to make a serious dent.
It's already been doing so, and I'm predicting half a
million subs by the end of.
Speaker 1: This year of people who you can't ask their their
foundational epistemic system. Well, I don't know if you want
those people, but I'm happy you're making a living.
Speaker 3: Derek.
Speaker 1: I actually don't you know. I hope, I hope. I
wish you the best, and you're actually welcome anytime. I
know we kept you a little longer this time, but
I do plan on doing these panels. I'm okay with
them being contentious, I'm okay with them going three hours.
We're hitting four now I apologize.
Speaker 3: Ok, with Neil not participating at all, though Neil.
Speaker 1: Conversation when I could, And to be fair, Jay didn't
actually know the context he was going into. He just
got thrown in, so, you.
Speaker 5: Know, her to pull the brakes out.
Speaker 3: I'm like, hey, chill, it's not that big of a deal.
Speaker 2: I watched a little before and Saws getting hype was like,
you're not having all the fun without me.
Speaker 1: It's still permissible though, And uh, I think it. I
think it does.
Speaker 6: I mean, so you can't even blame him, right, I
mean it was more fun than a human beings should
be allowed to have, let's face it. And and when
you have your hair all bound back like that, you
know what I mean, like you know, a couple of screws.
Speaker 1: You're close Jay? Well, no, I think all those questions
are actually valid. Yes, they're different ways of asking questions there.
I think there are actually more important questions what Jay
is asking, but we're not used to those questions. We
go into historicity. We just grant ourselves some access to
the past and we try to shuffle around what we
think is true and not. I think it's totally fair
and under another circumstance, Derek, I actually invite you to
actually try to engage with it, because every time this
happens our experience, right, the presup plan of of you
guys is you just say, oh, you're presupping me. I mean,
that's not you gotta I gotta understand from both views
that that.
Speaker 2: That mar It's not an answer, and that is a
out for me as someone who doesn't engage with precept stuff.
That's because I don't think there's any way to ever
convince someone who's in that, who's actually waited by there.
Speaker 6: Can I ask you for a favor when we have
one of these panels again, would you mind? Because I
understand if you don't have like a good philosophical background
or this or that, you know what I mean. I
do use a lot of intuitive argumentation myself. But these guys,
these scholars that you do know, would you be willing
to bring them on with you? And then we can
continue with this and we can have a guy like
Dire on here.
Speaker 3: We can all have this discussion.
Speaker 2: So what I like to do when it comes to philosophy,
I don't know, Dire, have you ever engaged with is
you'd rather Dire engage specifically?
Speaker 3: All of us can engage.
Speaker 2: I'm trying to have like a liter will we not
get distracted by any possible other stuff, and Dire can
engage and discuss his worldview. And then I'll have another
guest come on, maybe like Woodford, or I can get
Graham Appy.
Speaker 1: Maybe if you can get Stevid Woodford, that's good.
Speaker 2: Yeah, budget step And the reason I brought up that
I have friends that I could call in here.
Speaker 3: Don't have friends?
Speaker 1: Stop you have associated Do you have corporate associates? I
looked it up Derek Myth Vision LLC.
Speaker 3: Yeah, LLC. He's got the whole corporate board.
Speaker 6: You just gotta grab people from your corporate board to
go against a dire or.
Speaker 2: People from my notes.
Speaker 3: I love it.
Speaker 6: I would love it if you had some people, whether
or my my channel, Jimbobs or Jay Dyers, if you
guys would like to come back, you know, have one
of these guys, come on, let's tangle it up.
Speaker 5: Always I'm always.
Speaker 2: Done, Yeah, I will. I will see what I can
do with Steven because he is in the philosophy van
I'm not. I'm more into the textual history stuff like that.
And so maybe we could do a round table and
see if he'd be down for that. If not, then
maybe having a one on one discussion or something.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 2: We'll figure it out.
Speaker 3: We'll figure do it all. We do it all. But listen,
thanks for coming on, man.
Speaker 6: It was a lot of fun, and I hope you
had a lot of fun. Don't be mad at us
because Jay Dyer is so fucking mean. It's not our fault.
It has always been a mean bastard. There's nothing we
could do about it. Okay, he's always been that way.
Speaker 2: The way that Neil describes this Andrew is this when
I met him, hot headed as fuck. Okay, let's just
keep it real, Neils. Yeah, you you you can go
off the deep and quick when you get mad. Okay,
you know that. But then I'm like why, and he's like, dude,
where we're from in New York, we argue over the
football teams where you know, No, that's what say that.
It's You've you've said that to me. You've told me
like you're very you know, hype about it. Well, and
I got a little fun little hype, you know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, no, herd, we weren't. We weren't planning on
going philosophy We thought we we'd uh, you know, skim
the surface at least.
Speaker 6: But when Jay saw that you were wearing a salmon
colored shirt, which is the weakest color man can wear,
he decided to put on his salmon colored Hawaiian shirt
and wanted to show you what's up.
Speaker 4: Look salmon in the red light. But it's actually yellow.
Speaker 6: So but he Jay stuffed, hoping that's Sam And okay,
hey that's Sam, it's actually.
Speaker 1: Any last Neil. Why don't you shout out your channel
and your last words for the for the show here,
and then we'll go around Derek, Jay, Andrew and then
finally myself, Neil.
Speaker 5: My name is Neil from Gnostic Informant. Just look me
up on YouTube, comes right up, start a second channel.
I do shorter content toos Informant TV.
Speaker 3: I think it's called whatever.
Speaker 5: They're both up there, and I'm looking forward to more
of these because I I'm trying to gain get more
of an understanding of where you guys are coming from.
Speaker 3: And I think you helped me out. So can you
wear a less stupid hat next time? I got? I
got all right, share enough Derek.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thanks for having me on, guys. This was different.
I haven't done one of these, and long time since
I've had conversations like this. Yeah, and my channel is
if you're interested in like history, mythology. Just so you know,
many Christians watch it and appreciate it. Even if they
disagree with my conclusions, they appreciate it.
Speaker 1: So there's that appreciate it awesome Jay.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, Jay Dyer, Jay's Analysis. I host the fourth
Hour Bolex Jones every Friday and we do movie reviews, debates, philosophy, geopolitics, literature,
all that on my channel.
Speaker 1: Awesome. And do you guys have Derek I know Jay?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 1: Do you have Twitter spaces that seems to be a
more of a new fun forum thing where people can
actually attack you. Yeah, you can attack Jay on his
Twitter space.
Speaker 4: Time to debate.
Speaker 1: Yeah, nice, I do do you do that?
Speaker 2: I like use it just to share YouTube videos on.
I don't really get on engage because damn it's toxic.
Speaker 5: Heay not to put you on the spot.
Speaker 3: I jumped.
Speaker 5: I jumped on there one time and there was a
delay or something where we couldn't hear each other talk,
and you kicked me off and block me. But I'd
appreciate it. I didn't mean any will towards you when
I was on there last time. So if you want
to unblock, that'd be cool. I'll jump on there next time.
Speaker 1: Okay, that was a documented event, Andrew.
Speaker 6: Well, okay, Neil. To be fair, I've blocked you on
Twitter too. But but let me tell you why, hang on,
hang on. I got reason for this, got a good
reason for this. It's because I'm way smarter than you.
That's the only reason I did it. I say, no,
I'm kidding. You're not blocked on Twitter, bro, I'm just
fucking with you. My name is Andrew Wilson, host of
the one and only Crucible, fastest growing debate channel on
the Internet. You'll be able to catch more content. I'm
going live with Gavin McGinnis in early February for a
two show combo. Right after I'm heading back to whatever
for three shows, so it's going to be a kind
of long haul in February. I hope to see all
of you there, and Jim Bob, I really appreciate you
putting this panel together. Derek, it was great to meet you.
I basically I blame you for the derailment of the
entire panel, so your fault, I was just I just
wanted to have a couple of beers. Man, do you
see you see I had him? Yes, screwed the whole thing.
Speaker 5: I really want to getting dog.
Speaker 3: Piled and somehow anyway, thank you so much. I appreciate it. Me.
Speaker 2: Hey is the scapegoat. It's all his fault, every bit
that happened before and when he showed up. Sorry, Jay,
I I.
Speaker 3: Feel like he could take it. I feel like he
could take it.
Speaker 6: Guy is known internet wide as being the meanest man
in the Internet. I've been competing with him for the
last year and I'm still losing.
Speaker 1: Not even close. And he goes he goes right for
the juggular. Every time you're Andrew, You're like, Hey, how's
it going. Where do you live? Oh? You like ship
beer too. Jay's like, look, not trying to be mean,
but here's my cleaver.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: It's like, but we do appreciate you guys, coming on.
I do want to do this more. A lot of it.
A lot of our interactions are actually debate driven, which
I'm fine with. I love debating. I love to learn
about it and do more of it. But the panel
thing is is kind of more fun in a sense,
and you can hang out and cover other things because
because we did cover a lot of interesting things at
the at the front of this, right that wasn't super contentious, right,
interesting topics and technology and whatnot. So I'm going to
do this again.
Speaker 6: Also, guys, you're only going to be able to find this.
You're not gonna be able to find this on the Crucible.
You'll only be able to find it on Jim Bob's stream.
I strongly suggest you become a member because great content
like this, well he only puts it out for a
couple of days before it becomes member only, so true.
Speaker 3: Thank you strongly suggested.
Speaker 6: And of course any of you who want to clip
anything for any of your channels, you're more than welcome
to just and read and I'll read.
Speaker 1: This super Yeah, guys, I'll stay once they're off, I'll read,
go through and make sure I got all the super chats. Okay,
all right you guys, Thanks so much to every single
one of you. I hope to do this again soon. Also,
Derek and Neil, if there's anyone else, like you said
that might be interested in this format. No, it's not
going to always be like this contentious, but it could be.
And I think we could all handle it so so
it'll be fun anyway. So as right, all right, and
sorry for keeping you in. I'm glad you got some
food there, so all right, all right, yeah, have a
little something, all right, you guys. I want to take
you to take you guys all down. Audios. Thanks J
for jumping on. Uh see you