WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.120 --> 00:00:02.240 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 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 And I'm going like, don't I understand. 19 00:00:55.520 --> 00:00:57.719 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 Yeah, there he goes, that's all. 22 00:01:08.239 --> 00:01:10.000 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 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 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 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 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 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 So is that is that. 65 00:03:23.120 --> 00:03:27.479 Count's mythology that we throw out or is that a solidarity. 66 00:03:27.840 --> 00:03:30.039 As far as anaximander. 67 00:03:31.159 --> 00:03:36.520 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 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 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 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 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 Right, there's several fast. 79 00:04:10.840 --> 00:04:14.120 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 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 What how do you did you observe any of that? 84 00:04:23.120 --> 00:04:26.720 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 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 Yeah, I mean, of course I'm gonna appeal. 90 00:04:39.199 --> 00:04:41.600 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 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 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 Okay, well what do you want to know? 100 00:05:06.800 --> 00:05:09.879 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 Think it's an outdated model now, but. 108 00:05:30.519 --> 00:05:34.360 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 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 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 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 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 What what do I believe that? 123 00:06:14.199 --> 00:06:16.519 Did you observe the origins of the human of Oh? 124 00:06:16.600 --> 00:06:19.120 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 Scientif do you know you've chosen the right scholars? 127 00:06:25.399 --> 00:06:28.639 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 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 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 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 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 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 At some point, why do you. 145 00:07:13.319 --> 00:07:16.439 Want to believe your epistemic criteria? 146 00:07:16.519 --> 00:07:21.079 But you're saying you don't appeal to authority? Yet, what say? 147 00:07:21.720 --> 00:07:24.959 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 That's a good question. That's why I investigate. 153 00:07:39.680 --> 00:07:42.600 Yeah, I might want to know that if I'm But. 154 00:07:42.480 --> 00:07:45.199 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 A circular argument that you'd use for the church. 159 00:07:59.000 --> 00:08:01.120 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 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 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 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 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 Correct? 174 00:08:40.480 --> 00:08:46.720 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Never really asked that. 202 00:09:46.799 --> 00:09:47.559 It just kind of got through. 203 00:09:48.440 --> 00:09:50.039 So there's not good reasons to I mean. 204 00:09:49.919 --> 00:09:51.960 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 Yeah, it's. 208 00:09:59.360 --> 00:10:01.960 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 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 Get it where wrong because you have a problem. 221 00:10:41.879 --> 00:10:45.279 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 Well, it would help to understand the form of that argument. 226 00:10:56.960 --> 00:11:00.600 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 One has a philosophical statement in it about God. 256 00:12:28.960 --> 00:12:29.879 That doesn't matter to them. 257 00:12:29.799 --> 00:12:31.600 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 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 It sounds like, I mean, do you have. 264 00:12:47.639 --> 00:12:50.679 Jay This is this is it's the same old thing man. 265 00:12:50.799 --> 00:12:51.879 You don't have an answer to it? 266 00:12:51.960 --> 00:12:54.360 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 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 He doesn't really care. 272 00:13:09.679 --> 00:13:12.519 He's not he's not interested in and and if he's. 273 00:13:12.399 --> 00:13:14.840 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 He was. 276 00:13:18.120 --> 00:13:26.159 Anyone coming in, I thought we're talking on hang on. 277 00:13:26.440 --> 00:13:29.159 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 But you know, Joe, let's not get very permitted. 280 00:13:35.279 --> 00:13:38.519 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 So if everybody's they're all man made, yes. 289 00:14:05.399 --> 00:14:09.399 I agree, I'm prepping that they aren't. 290 00:14:10.000 --> 00:14:12.000 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 And then well amen to that, hallelujah. 293 00:14:16.840 --> 00:14:18.720 Then there's no truth and it's a contradiction. 294 00:14:19.240 --> 00:14:20.360 Right, so there's no truth? 295 00:14:21.000 --> 00:14:22.320 Well you would be a relativist? 296 00:14:22.799 --> 00:14:25.440 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 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 I agree? 302 00:14:35.799 --> 00:14:37.120 That would be a contradiction. 303 00:14:38.559 --> 00:14:42.000 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 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 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 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 You don't want to be questioned on the middle level. 313 00:15:07.840 --> 00:15:08.879 This is you can question. 314 00:15:09.919 --> 00:15:11.120 You even know your question? 315 00:15:11.480 --> 00:15:15.360 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 I'm just you jumped in. 318 00:15:20.799 --> 00:15:22.679 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 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 You you're basic starting point. That's it. 329 00:16:01.799 --> 00:16:06.120 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 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 The questions, and I think that's again. 343 00:16:39.720 --> 00:16:43.000 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 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 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 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 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 What do you what do you want me to say? 361 00:17:26.319 --> 00:17:29.480 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 Do what. 365 00:17:39.519 --> 00:17:41.759 The transcendental argument? Lets let me ask you. 366 00:17:42.319 --> 00:17:42.759 Let's do it. 367 00:17:42.960 --> 00:17:46.119 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 Right? 370 00:17:47.680 --> 00:17:51.720 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 What do you mean any? 373 00:17:56.400 --> 00:17:59.960 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 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 To probabi relies on things like math. 379 00:18:15.839 --> 00:18:16.559 Yeah, they do. 380 00:18:16.920 --> 00:18:19.200 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 Right, Oh my god? 383 00:18:22.759 --> 00:18:28.400 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 You don't have an account therefore the fact. 387 00:18:38.519 --> 00:18:40.640 So I've heard that, and I'm like, no. 388 00:18:40.720 --> 00:18:42.599 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 Right? 391 00:18:43.680 --> 00:18:45.359 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 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