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