Speaker 1: God and religion have the same fatal flaw. They don't
feel inherently dangerous or problematic. It's comforting to think that
there's a cosmic father or mother that loves you and
cares for you. Maybe they have a plan for you
and might even grant you protection and favor. The problem
is that nothing prevents a person from standing in front
of a large group of believers and claiming that God
communicated with them, and now they get to make war brides,
commit genocide and burn down villages. And since God cannot
be questioned, human beings are motivated by an imaginary voice
to do the unthinkable, and often under threat themselves by
said invisible being. Thus, the very idea of a supreme
being existing while also being hidden and acting in mysterious
ways inevitably results in mankind acting out their worst instincts
under the guise of divine authority. Religion is the greatest
bait and switch in history. It starts with God loves you,
and it ends with get on the fucking train. But
if you have evans for this cosmic dictator, let us know.
The show starts now.
Speaker 2: Coome Ben Friends. It's April twelve, twenty twenty six. I
am happy to be with you all and happy to
be with my co host J Mike today.
Speaker 3: How are you doing, buddy, I'm doing great. I'm I'm
looking extra vampirey today. I'm looking like a Skyrim mod
with like the bloom thrown on because of my weird
lighting that I did. I gave. I give the producers
like the probably the hardest time in the world with everything.
So everybody in the chat give them love because I
only make things difficult for them.
Speaker 2: I promise it's a whole vibe.
Speaker 3: Though it works, it's not them, It's the Skit's the
vampire's skin. It just like comes off.
Speaker 1: So I completely understand. But then again, we were talking earlier.
Speaker 2: About philosophy and wizardry.
Speaker 1: Do you find that having at least a little bit
of a wizard's beard helps with philosophy?
Speaker 3: It does, And like you, I like a professional wrestling gimmick,
you know, so if I have to shed this gimmick,
I can be like a wizard. And you know that
I can. I get two. I can have a gimmick
of two supernatural personas for the show. So I'm I'm okay,
I'm actually like I asked if they could filter out
some of the grays and my beard, but I'm actually
gonna go I'm gonna go full on. You were there,
you were I'm not making this up. You heard it,
you heard me. It wasn't serious. I swear I'm not.
I'm not that delusional. I think that we could do
that right now, but I'm gonna I think I'm gonna
embrace it. I think I realized then it would look
pretty cool to look like a I don't know Greg
said the name, but I'm not good with fictional characters
outside of God and Jesus, so you know you have
to help me out.
Speaker 2: Well, I think all the most powerful wizards that have
been in the media have had gray beards. I could
be wrong.
Speaker 3: It also like adds like plus five stat bonus to
your philosophy.
Speaker 1: I feel like, well, friends, we've got a couple announcements
and then we've got some people loading up in the
call in q already if you want to call in
the numbers five one two nine nine to one nine
two four two.
Speaker 2: We'd love to talk about your God today.
Speaker 1: And we've got J Mike with us, which means if
you've got like a formal syllogism or if you've got
some philosophical answer to the problem of God, hey, we're
happy to hear it.
Speaker 2: In fact, I've got a notepad open.
Speaker 1: I'll take notes while j Mike educates all of us
on whatever syllogism we're going to be diving into.
Speaker 2: So whatever your God concept is, whether there's.
Speaker 1: Jesus or Allah or the God of classical theism, as
they say, hey, we're happy to listen to the God
concept and we'll evaluate fairly before that. The Atheists Experienced
Friends is a product of the Atheist Community of a Bustin,
a five oh one c three nonprofit organization dedicated to
the promotion of atheism, critical thinking, secular humanism, and the
separation of religion and government. Also reminder, we are try
streaming tonight a big shout out to our viewers on
TikTok and and on YouTube mobile. If you're watching on
TikTok tonight and you'd like to talk to us, you
can hit the request button. You'll get joined up to
the queue and we'll bring you on stage just as
though you're having a TikTok forum. Please make sure that
you're over the age of eighteen though, in order to
comply with our terms of service and also with the
TikTok terms of service. We cannot talk to children, That's
what priests served for. Nevertheless, we can't talk to full
grown adults about the God concepts that you hold, and
we're more than happy to give a fair shake.
Speaker 2: In fact, I used to be a believer.
Speaker 1: I changed my mind based on what I would consider
new evidence, different thinking.
Speaker 2: So if there was better evidence out there, I mean,
I think it would convince me. Would it convince you? Jim, Mike,
what would convince me? Sorry, it was say, if there
was good evidence, I think it? Yeah, yeah, yeah, so
you think, Yeah.
Speaker 3: My brain, my brain like stopped for like those words
went in, they stopped for a beer on the way,
and then that's I don't know what happened with my
brain there.
Speaker 2: Alright, Well, listen, we've got a theist online already, Steve
calling in from Ohio Go Dog Pound and wants to
discuss the Noah Hyde laws. So let's see what's going
on here. Steve, Welcome to XP with Justin and Jim.
How you doing this sounds like.
Speaker 3: Something that I'm more of an expert than you, jesin jected,
take it away.
Speaker 4: Well, Steve here, I'm.
Speaker 2: Sorry, I can hear you just a little bit quiet? Okay, okay,
So Steve, first of all, what God do you follow?
Speaker 5: What God do I follow? I'm Christian?
Speaker 6: So all right?
Speaker 5: The guy named Jesus in the Holy Spirit, so I
would say the Trinity all in one?
Speaker 2: Sure? Fantastic.
Speaker 1: And did you want to present an argument for God
or did you just have a question about the NOA
Hyde laws?
Speaker 5: You know, it's kind of heard about it two weeks ago.
I was I heard that they were possibly coming back,
and I was surprised. And when I heard about it,
it sounded just like the Mark of the Beast. It
really did part of the laws, an it was part
of it anyways, but some laws come along with this.
So yeah, I didn't know I was going to be
talking about it today, but we'll go ahead and do this.
It'll be fine.
Speaker 2: You didn't know that you were going to be talking
about the no Hide laws?
Speaker 5: Well what do you want to calling you guys?
Speaker 6: Up?
Speaker 5: I was asking about something else and I said, well,
you know, I was kind of curious about the subject anyway,
So here I am. Huh, but yeah, hear the Noah
Hide laws. You guys might know about more about it
than I do. I'm sure you do, and uh, but
I know a little bit. And uh, I guess back
in Reagan and Bush's day, George's Bush, they signed something
into law. They did something back there, and and anyways,
it's going to be implemented. Part of a reset is
from what I hear.
Speaker 1: Sure, but we're talking about Noah, did you want to
talk about the no Hyde laws?
Speaker 5: Yes, I do, no High laws.
Speaker 2: What's your question?
Speaker 5: Well, the question is have you heard about them?
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 1: It's basically seven different laws that are essentially supposed to
be pre mosaic, even though they do come up into
mosaic laws. So there's like you can't commit adultery, blasphemy, murder,
and then sexual immorality. Although that one.
Speaker 5: That's the big problems.
Speaker 1: I said that, like the first or second one also
also theft, and then also the sixth or seventh one
is usually not to eat the blood of a living animal,
but there's different variants of that.
Speaker 3: Unfortunately on first God this week, so I guess I'm
kind of screwed.
Speaker 2: The Tepans one is kind of generic. It's basically that
you just need to enact justice. But that's still vague
in the text, it's hard to say that's really it
should be considered a law.
Speaker 5: I mean they do say quite a bit about it, actually,
I mean the hide laws when they put them in.
One thing they caught them is just one of many
is you're not supposed to have idols. May consider Jesus
an idol. So if you do that, you can get beheaded.
I here absolutely if you break that law.
Speaker 2: Well, in the Bible typically you would be stoned.
Speaker 1: But if you read the Talmet, they do have four
different punishments for people that get capital punishment. There's behinding,
there's strangulation, there're stoning.
Speaker 2: And then hanging them up the dry in the wood.
There's another one somewhere in there too.
Speaker 1: But nevertheless, all right, I feel like maybe there's a
question in here, but maybe we didn't catch it yet.
Speaker 2: What's the question?
Speaker 5: Well, it's coming this way. It's kind of an evil system,
to put it bluntly, very evil. It's part of the
synagogue at Satan.
Speaker 6: It's what it is to have laws.
Speaker 5: Was that, No, No, I don't mind laws. There's ten commandments.
That's what I go by, not seven laws. As I
go by ten. So I honored that Okay, no, I
can't hold I can't do them perfect.
Speaker 1: You know that Jesus, part of the ten Commandments cross
over this right, like not committing murder, not doing.
Speaker 4: That, that's in the Ten Commandments anyway, So why idolatry?
Speaker 2: So what's wrong with these no hyde laws?
Speaker 5: Well, for one, it's back in Noah's day, like the
Times of no It reminds me of something else. But anyways,
back in Noah, like it's like, you can't take a
limb from a living animal. Well back then they didn't
have refrigerators, so I guess they did that they would
cut off a limb while the animal is alive, and
that's like torture to them, and no kidding anyways, So yeah,
no hide laws are strange to have them come back
though in this day.
Speaker 2: Typically Genesis nine to four is supposed to be and
most Jews recognize this as eating the blood. Right, that's
what the Viticus says, that life is in the blood.
Speaker 1: So when it says in Genesis and not to eat
the animal with the life in it, that typically means
the blood. It doesn't mean that you can't, uh, like
while it's still giving its last breath.
Speaker 2: But Nevertheless, that's neither here nor there.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to figure out what the point of the
call is the point.
Speaker 5: Coming Wait a minute, why is it even coming back?
Speaker 3: This is not what do you okay? Can I ask you?
What do you mean it's coming back? What are you
saying it online?
Speaker 5: People are trying to push it and now that but.
Speaker 3: There's people are trying to push crystals online. I wouldn't
say crystals are coming back like they were they were
established and wait.
Speaker 5: Why would you find it more?
Speaker 3: But now they're you know, their back. Baby.
Speaker 1: I've been praying to this crystal right here though, and
it's answered as many prayers as Jesus.
Speaker 2: So maybe crystals are the way.
Speaker 3: I'll put it this way, just to help you out,
Like what if they come back? Like I assume that's
like some ad popular and like there's a lot of
people that believe it kind of thing I would just say,
I don't. I mean, there's reasons I should care, but
I don't care the fact that a bunch of people
think some thing that they think is true. There's still
a full separate question on whether or not that's true
or we should we should follow those imperatives, right, I
would argue we shouldn't, right, so I just wouldn't care.
And it's like coming to me with like a moral
factor machine.
Speaker 5: You get it, you get it. I don't get it
because it's part of the mark of the Beast. I
mean you're gonna get it because I don't anything.
Speaker 3: I don't believe in any of that stuff. So I
don't really know what that.
Speaker 5: That's what I said.
Speaker 2: How is how is the Noah Hyde laws of mark
of the Beast? Because the Mark of the Beast is
just the name of Nero.
Speaker 5: Oh no, it's not.
Speaker 4: It is.
Speaker 3: It's like six one six and like originally.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So the reason why, first of all, scholars overwhelmingly agree
that it's Nero for a lot of reasons. One because
the manuscripts in Greek mostly say six six sixth, which
if you do the camatria on that, it comes out
to neuron kiser, which is the Greek nominal ending for
his name. If you look at the Latin manuscripts, they
say six one six yeh, which follows the Latin Ied
spelling of Nero's name. And we also have another variant,
to believe it or not, in Greek, it's six h
six what comes out to gaias Kaiser, which at one
point was a nickname for two different Caesars, one of
them Nero, I learned something.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Justin I would just say, don't put anything in your
arm or i'm sorry, your hand or your forehead. I
would advise anybody not to do that and mark themselves.
It's coming back all this stuff, and that's what all
these machines we got, these ais.
Speaker 2: Not those but the mean nothing.
Speaker 3: But it's coming back. It's like it's like a movie theater.
Speaker 5: It's coming mark of the Beast. It makes think, it's fun.
Speaker 1: The mark of the Beast is symbolic, the at least
the part where you put it on your hand or
your forehead.
Speaker 2: That's why in Revelations thirteen and fourteen, if.
Speaker 1: You just read on into the next chapter, we also
hear that there are human beings. In fact, the same chapter,
there are human beings who have marks on their forehead.
Speaker 2: But they're not from the beast. They're actually from the Lord.
Speaker 5: Okay, I know that I got what you're saying there.
I would say that I'm marked with God as far
as the forehead. That's what I think. With in a
hands or by action, I get that, but this is
going to be literal. That's what I'm talking about. Now
the laws will come into play.
Speaker 1: So what do you mean by literal, Because it says
in Revelation fourteen nine, right, another angel a third of
the follower a third followed them, crying a loud voice.
Those who worship the beast in its image receive a
brand on their foreheads, or on their foreheads, or on
their hands. But then, when we keep reading, when we've
got the harvest, it says, then I looked and there
was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud one
like the son of Man, with a golden crown on
his head and a sharp sickle in his hand.
Speaker 2: And then if you.
Speaker 1: Keep reading, it talks about how the Christians are going
to be reaped, as you might say suggest, and they've
got a mark on their forehead, which is these are
a reminiscent of the tephilem. So do you know about
the prayer boxes?
Speaker 5: Huh?
Speaker 2: No, I know about the prayer boxes.
Speaker 5: I have no idea.
Speaker 2: So what they would do?
Speaker 1: The ancient Jews would put prayer boxes with Bible versus
on their forehead, and they would bind them to their hand.
According to Deuteronomy, chapter six. So people who wore these
were considered stealed to the Lord. Is that's why we
see this language inside of Revelation. It's it's picking up
on this idea that those that are opposed to God
will be sealed on their hand, in their forehead in
the opposite manner to the beast, whereas those who are
sealed to Yahweh will have the appropriate seal on them.
Speaker 5: Right right, Okay, Well, alls I know is for one
thing is that you don't take any marks far as
putting any anything they buy, sell or trade with, it'll
be something that actually goes to the computer system. That
the computer system is part of the beast. It's everywhere,
and that's that's what they want to implement. I mean,
it's right. We got this huge buildings everywhere right next
to us by the way, tanks about by mile down
the road, a strip of buildings. I live in Ohio
and Columbus Hilliar.
Speaker 2: Does this have to do with the march?
Speaker 1: This is completely unrelated Revelation fourteen to one. Look, there
was the lamb standing on Zion, and with him were
one hundred and forty four thousand who had his name,
had his name and his father's name written on their foreheads.
Do you think that the Christians, the one hundred and
forty four thousand Jews who essentially become Christians, that they're
going to have Jesus and Yahweh literally written on their foreheads.
Speaker 5: Well, I who knows, But I will say this that
you're talking about the twelve tribes at twelve thousand from
each tribe. That's the one hundred and forty four thousand.
The Jewish people that have never defiled themselves with a woman.
That would not be me. I've defiled myself with a woman,
So I have this. I'm not Jewish, even though you know,
blah blah blah. But you're not supposed to take the
mark of the beast. That's that's what I want to
here's a deal, no Hide laws. We'll go with this,
and if a Christian takes it up he was, they
are damned to go to Hell. They cannot take this
mark or the Noah Hyde laws. They go together. I
do believe, and if you.
Speaker 1: Do, But the Noahide laws aren't related to the mark
of the beast.
Speaker 2: The mark of the beast is about.
Speaker 1: Nero and the Noah Hyde laws are just laws that
existed prior to the Laws of Moses. So the reason
why Noahyde laws are making comeback is because there's a
lot of Christians that are deconverting from Christianity and going
to Judaism because they're recognizing that Christianity is not a
logical extension of the Hebrew religion.
Speaker 2: So, and I agree with them. I think the Jewish
were right to.
Speaker 1: Have Jesus are murdered in the way that they did
because he committed laws against their own religion that we're
worthy of capital punishment. So a lot of Christians are saying, hey,
maybe this Jesus thing didn't work out, but the God
of the Hebrew Bible is still real, So what do
I need to do to be part of that religion. Well,
they don't have to follow the six hundred and fourteen
laws give the Moses because that's a specific covenant with
a specific people. So most Jews, when you have a
goy Eme or a GOI convert to the religion, they'll
say follow the seven Noah Hyde laws, the pre Mosaic laws,
rather than trying to stick to the six hundred and
fourteen laws.
Speaker 2: So that's why it's making a comeback, I say something
to seven.
Speaker 5: That's like titles. There's there's at least one hundred laws
that come along with that. You've got to mention that.
You forgot to mention that that those are more or
less titles for it. And then you have to get
into death and they say there's like a hundred of them.
And I've heard that over and over. So you might
want to tell your audience that much that there's a
hundred laws that come with it and blasphemy. Don't do that.
Speaker 2: Now, what is one hundred laws that come with me?
Speaker 5: The Noahide laws? Those are like.
Speaker 1: There's those are seven noah Hyde laws. And Christians have
laws too. I don't know if you knew that.
Speaker 5: No, yeah, I know Christians have, but we don't force
them on people. For one.
Speaker 2: And the thing is, no one said that they're being
forced on anyone.
Speaker 5: Well, they will be, there will be, there will be, Well,
they won't be.
Speaker 2: Why why would they be forced on anyone?
Speaker 5: Because they will wait for some type of tragedy to happen,
which you know could happen to any moment.
Speaker 1: Who is who's forcing it?
Speaker 5: Well, it would be the.
Speaker 2: Who's forcing them? Well, which government? Which government?
Speaker 1: Is going to be forcing people to follow the seven
Noah Hyde Laws.
Speaker 5: Well, they signed them in back, and what you can
help me out was it was it George H. Bush
or Reagan?
Speaker 1: Just trying to get your answer, which individuals, which people?
Which government are going to be forcing people to follow
the NOA.
Speaker 2: Hyde Laws?
Speaker 5: All right, our government will force these people, I imagine.
I'm guessing. I would imagine because they're the ones that
signed it into law, so I imagine they.
Speaker 2: Would know what into law.
Speaker 5: I think.
Speaker 3: I think guessing was the most honest word you've said today.
Speaker 5: All Right, the no Hyde laws. Can you trace them
back to you know, George H. Bush who signed whatever
it was? Could you have it in front of you.
I don't have this stuff, Firch H.
Speaker 1: Bush did not sign any Noah Hide laws into the legislation.
Speaker 5: They put it. Now you're playing games.
Speaker 3: You didn't see it. It's right after you know, no children,
no child left behind. It threw it right at the bottom.
Speaker 2: We said, well that policy worked out, right.
Speaker 5: You guys already said you think it's a good idea
that Christians can't get it? For one, if they do,
they cannot.
Speaker 2: You get what what are we talking about?
Speaker 5: The laws under idols. They are not allowed to worship Jesus. Okay,
they consider that I thought you were a trinity. They
will kill you if.
Speaker 3: You don't think you don't think he knows what he is?
Speaker 2: No, okay? And are you a Christian?
Speaker 5: Of course?
Speaker 6: I am sure.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: Do you know that some of the noah Hyde laws
are specifically given to non Jewish Christians to follow in
the Book of Acts.
Speaker 5: I don't know what that was about. It's just talking
about something. No I have no idea. I heard somebody
mention something yesterday, but I didn't look into anything. I
did hear something there.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, Act fifteen.
Speaker 1: There are four laws that are given to the gentiles
converting to this Messianic religion. And they don't want to
make them follow all the laws of Moses, so they
send a letter, and that letter has four different laws
that they need to abide by.
Speaker 2: So the four laws are as follows. In fact, I'll
read you the letter. Therefore, I reached.
Speaker 1: The decision that we should not trouble those gentiles who
are turned into God, but we should write to them
to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality,
and from whatever has been strangled and also from blood,
which is why people like Christians who want to follow
some kind of laws from the Hebrew Bible would point
to these, or even people deconverting from Christianity would point
to these, because these are laws that were very serious
to the Jewish people that you don't have to be
part of the Covenant to follow.
Speaker 5: Well, I got ten commandments, not seven laws, and I
follow those and they conflict the other seven.
Speaker 1: So the ten commandments are part of the Mosaic law. Steve,
That's what I'm trying to tell you. If you're not
part of that covenant, if you're not part of the
Jewish people, you're not technically required. According to the Jews,
you're not technically required to follow all these laws. What
that means is that if we're going to apply some
of God's laws, we would apply the pre mosaic laws,
the laws that God lays out for humans who are
not Jewish or not Hebrew.
Speaker 5: Okay, well, just nobody, they're saying. Other people that know
a lot more about this than I do, they say
online not to take it. I believe them not to
take it because and the Jews say you cannot. They
said it if you take this. If you're a Christian,
you'll get beheaded if you believe in the Trinity.
Speaker 2: The Jews have not said that.
Speaker 5: Do you believe it's a saint? What's that?
Speaker 2: Did you do not say that?
Speaker 5: Well, they can look this up, and so.
Speaker 2: You're you're not telling the truth.
Speaker 5: Oh I'm a liar. Now you call me? Thank you?
Speaker 2: Yes, you can call you a liar.
Speaker 5: Yeah about okay, I called up to you before you
on about Daniel chapter eight, and you guys called me
a liar. They're saying that, Yeah.
Speaker 2: Maybe you're the common denominator here, Like, no.
Speaker 5: I've called you before. He did the same thing every time,
and then you're wrong.
Speaker 3: Do you think that we just say you're a liar
because we think that's like a card in our back
pocket they use or do you think do you think
that he has but like, honestly, just answer me, honestly.
Do you think like Justin has this like card in
his back pocket? I called the like charge him with
lying card and he just pulls it out and he
uses it? Or like, do you think there was a
reason why he thinks you might be lying about this?
Just answer me. Do you think that he has a
reason or no reason.
Speaker 5: I don't know, he has no faith.
Speaker 3: I can maybe you should ask him why he thinks lying.
You can probably explain why he thinks you're being deceptive.
Speaker 5: I'm being deceptive, he said.
Speaker 3: I'm saying, if you inquired on why Justin called you
a liar, you could ask what reason you would have?
You guys, did this last time you called me a liar?
Last time you're calling you this time? Well, maybe inquire,
like the reasons why we think you're a liar and
then you'd understand. But just like blanket statement saying like
that's just what you do, or something like he has
no reasons, kind of insulting, like Justin presumably has a
reason on why he thinks you've lied on both occasions.
So you should just ask about that rather than just
going no, no, no, no, I know, listen, like that's
what you did. You literally were just like a child.
Speaker 5: I'll have to live with that. I guess we're about
to get hit.
Speaker 3: By Yeah, it's you. It's your life, not me. I
don't it's you. Being a child doesn't affect me, it
affects you. So you should probably look into that.
Speaker 5: Telling you right now, I ran it's going to put
one together. I've talked about this many years ago with you,
and you hung up on me, and you said that
was crazy back then, and I talked about Dan, We're
going to go to war. I said, go with go
to war with Iran. Six years ago I called you
and and Trump was going to be king and laughed,
and I said, wait a minute, and you guys.
Speaker 2: Laugh I would I would laugh at you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't know that. I've done it for six years,
so I don't know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Iran doesn't show up in the Book of Daniel.
In fact, it doesn't show up anywhere in in like
the prophecies. So the Book of Daniel ends with the
final kingdom being the Macedonians, and they're supposed to get
wiped out by God's kingdom.
Speaker 5: So talking about we're going to get hit, it says it.
So in Daniel chapter eight, verse eight, we're going to hit.
It's therefore the anyway, I'm not going to get into
it right now.
Speaker 1: The final kingdom and Daniel eight verse twenty one is
the Kingdom of Greece. The male goat, that's the final
kingdom is the male Goat is the king of Greece,
and the great horn between his eyes is its first king.
This is Alexander.
Speaker 3: So is this the Is this the beasts that come
out of like the water and I'm trying to think
of it. That's in Daniel right like the represented He's
like these rulers and societies that are like kind of metaphorical.
Is that is that what you're from?
Speaker 1: Sorry, there's a couple different beast prophecies.
Speaker 2: This one they don't come out of the water.
Speaker 1: There's a ram that has two horns dignifying two united kingdoms,
that gets devastated by another beast, and the other beast
is represented as the King of Greece.
Speaker 4: I see.
Speaker 1: So if the King of Greece is the mister shaggy go,
if the King of Greece is the Final Kingdom, then
Iran has nothing to do with this. And in fact
this is about the Greeks. But way back in the
second century.
Speaker 5: Now, it's not the Final Kingdom. Listen to me, you guys.
At the end of chapter eight right now, we're in
verse seven and and it's epic fury.
Speaker 2: Oh no, we're not.
Speaker 5: Yes, yeah, it says right here. And he came to
the ram. They had two horns, which I seen standing
before the river person.
Speaker 2: Golf, what are the horns? The two horns represent the
Persian gulf.
Speaker 3: I just blows by, no question, persion. Fucking golf is
like the DX like suck it it is. It is
totally on version golf, blow by it everything.
Speaker 1: In chapter eight, Steve is about antio Kis Epiphanies. Anti
Kis Epiphanies is the guy that comes in and tramples
the sanctuary and the city.
Speaker 2: That's Anti Kis. That's first mccabees chapter one, verse thirty.
Speaker 1: So this is this is referring to what happened under
Greek rule. It was written in the middle of the
Maccabean War, which is why it keeps referencing stuff during
the Maccabean War. This has nothing to do with anybody later.
The kingdom that is represented by the ram with two
horns is obviously Meto Persia.
Speaker 5: Yes, it is Persia, and it's also seven. Yeah, they're
done in nineteen this time of the End.
Speaker 1: Yes, the time of the End was supposed to be
the second century. It says, as for the ram that
you saw with two horns, these are the kings of
Media and Persia and the goat that's the final kingdom
is the king of Greece, and the great horn between
his eyes is the first king. And for the horn
that was broken in place in place of which four
others arose West division division of four.
Speaker 2: Of the Kingdom of Greece.
Speaker 1: After the death of Alexander, four kingdom shall arise from
his nation, but not with its power. This is clearly
talking about what happened to the Greeks. They envisioned that
after the breakup of the Grecian Kingdom and after the
defeat of antaikes Epiphanes, that God's kingdom would finally be realized,
and it wasn't.
Speaker 2: It was realized for.
Speaker 1: Maybe seventy five to one hundred years before they got
beat down again by the Roman.
Speaker 5: Okay, it says time of the end. I can't make
it any clue, And it says twice.
Speaker 1: No, they thought the time of the end was then,
that's my point.
Speaker 5: So I'm telling you you're gonna get hit. We're gonna
get hit real hard, and.
Speaker 2: We're not worried about that.
Speaker 5: We're going to go down on this one, buddy, And
I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: All right, we're now officially just off the rail, so
we'll just move on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we'll just uh, we'll we'll have put him back
to bed and move.
Speaker 3: On to the So you're this is a good I
have you so I can ask you because like maybe
a lot of my own ignorance just comes into play here.
But like yeah, because you said the Persians, but it's like,
but you have like what the I'll probably mispronounced what
the Ptolemy's cuclidic kings. The Persian guys like all of
like they're just kind of getting their ass kicked like
over and over, like where God's chosen people. It seems
like you have like all of these kind of chances
to kind of think like, yeah, this is it is
that is that far off the mark? Or am I
because I'm kind of just playing a little guessing game there, No.
Speaker 2: You got it.
Speaker 1: That's actually the point of apocalyptic writing. In that game,
Vandercam did a really good.
Speaker 2: Uh book on this.
Speaker 1: Also in the Old Testament Library series, there's a good
book on apocalyptic visions and how they function inside of Judaism.
But the idea is, hey, I know things are bad now,
but just around the corner, yeah, it's gonna be it's
gonna be great. And so that's why in Danty seven,
Daniel eight, Daniel nine, Dangle ten. They keep giving these images,
but the last entity in all of these visions is
always the Kingdom of Greece.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's why the the.
Speaker 1: Final battle that the archangel Michael is waging is going
to be against the the Prince of Greece. So like
that that's the end, that's and then God's Kingdom is
going to be realized.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, that I've like looked, I've listened to like
Paula Frederickson a little bit on this kind of like
stream that runs through like Judaism's like apocalyptic Judaism around
like the Intertestamental period up till you know, like the
first books of the Bible, and it's it's probably the
like I don't know a ton about it, but it
was the most eye open as a not someone who's
never been a Christian. It was the most eye opening
like change of perspective that I've had leading up up
to Jesus in my view, which is the standard view
of his kind of apocalyptic message that gets muted in
Matthew and then like cast it away and like Luke
and John and Gospel of Thomas and all that. So
that stuff. So one thing fascinating. It's so fucking fascinating,
it really is.
Speaker 2: It really is fun to ensure.
Speaker 1: And the reason why, you know, you can just know
that's not about Jesus for a lot of reasons other
than that it's talking about the second century is the
one who is like the son of man.
Speaker 2: They think that's Jesus. It's clearly Michael the Ark.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was gonna ask you that because I have reason.
I talked to someone that was it. Daniel twelve. What
is that?
Speaker 1: The it shows up in Daniel pen, shows up in
Daniel seven, verse fourteen, and it shows up on a
couple occasions. But if you go to Daniel ten, it's clear.
It says, again, one in human form touched me and
strengthened me. Well, this happens when the angel touches him.
He describes the author of this book describes these archangels
as being like the son of Man and then also
like the Son of God.
Speaker 2: There's some kind of an in between.
Speaker 1: And so in Daniel four when you hear about the
fiery furnace, that individual is referred to as one like
the son of God and also an angel. So we
know the angel for sure is directly identified with someone
who looks or is like God, and is directly identified
as someone who looks or is similar to a human,
which is why and Daniel seven when we hear one
like the Son of Man, like, oh.
Speaker 2: That's just another fucking archangel, but not Jesus. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think I've heard like Tabor or someone talk
about the Michael stuff. But it's like, what is it,
James Tabor.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to think James Taber attention a little bit,
but John Jay Collins for.
Speaker 3: Sure, Okay, maybe that's it. I remember, like it sucks
because you you talk about a lot of stuff that
I'm like, I vaguely remember, like listening stuff I wish
I would have retained information and then been able to
impress you. But yeah, whatever, but.
Speaker 1: I remember the Bible stuff, like you remember the fl
Be stuff.
Speaker 3: I would trade it, and I would trade it tomorrow
some genie comes like you could trade all this wizardry
metaphysical stuff for like like stuff that like probably actually
happened in history. It probably didn't happen in history, and
you have a decent guide at figuring out those things
with yeah, making the trade and like get up there
like like an NFL draft, like uh thed J Mike's
have issue to trade.
Speaker 1: Well, you get to flex your brain muscle now because
I'm going to bring in a theist. Jason, also from Ohio.
Apparently Ohio is the place to be today, wants to
ask the host is a mind dependent universe more reasonable
than a mind dependent one?
Speaker 2: Well, welcome in, Jason. You're on XP with Justin and
J Mike. How you doing.
Speaker 6: Good? How are you well?
Speaker 2: Thanks for asking?
Speaker 3: All right, I'm really hungry, so I could have a
full belly if I'm being honest.
Speaker 1: Jason, I think it's a fun question that you come
up with, But I'm gonna punt this over to J Mike.
I think this is kind of his area of exocchise.
So if you want, you can kind of rephrase or
build out your question a little bit before we we
we interact with it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that'd be great because, yeah, like a general reasonable
it's like, I don't know, maybe someone who's limited on
their experience and books and what they have access to them,
it might be reasonable for them, you know, or something.
So it's a little broad. Could you could you kind
of go more into that?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean I guess I like to think intuitively.
I like to approach things like intuitively too, to see being.
But like you said, I mean, intuition can vary.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but.
Speaker 4: Yeah, like I was, I was. Actually I hadn't gone
through like a hard time when a couple of two
years going me like two years ago three But like
questioning you know why, I believe what I believe and
I believe in a god, you know. Yeah, and this
this approach the whole mind independence and like the nature
of like existence. It's not like directly related to Christianity
at all.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's like general kind of fundamental mind kind of idea.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's I've always met. Yeah, yeah, no, that's fine.
But I want to I guess I want to ask
you because I think I know what you mean, but
maybe we should unpack it for anyone that doesn't hear
the kind of stance independent mind independent talking. I mean,
it's pretty I guess easy to figure out. But so
your view, you think that it is more reasonable to
think that the universe is mind dependent, like it depends
on a mind in the sense that like it's within
the mind, or it just depends on and like some
antecedent event like God fundamental mind creating the universe, because
you feel like you could interpret that two different ways.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, I mean I guess that's where I take it.
I haven't been down like the roads of.
Speaker 3: Like sorry for clarity, which one that that God's responsible
to mind is responsible, or that it's within the mind
of God.
Speaker 4: Like there's like there's because you have like maybe pan
psychism or yeah, like maybe panpyism, which I hardly know
anything about those concepts, or Buddhism or something, but it.
Speaker 3: Sounds like That's why I'm asking because it sounds like
you might be describing like idealism. Sure, yeah, you can
call it that, Okay, Yeah, I just want it for
clarity's sake.
Speaker 7: M.
Speaker 5: Ideal.
Speaker 4: But how many people know of idealism is almost people
think it has to do with being an ideal Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean, yeah, that's fine. I just it just yeah,
it just helps me kind of understand whether or not
you're saying thing God is required for like the universe
to exist, or like it exists within the mind of God.
But yeah, that's fine. I guess, like I don't know,
I'm weirded out by like I can give you initial thoughts.
I don't think this is like the greatest thing in
the world. But I find like the separation of things
being mind independent, like they're being a meaningful distinction between
mind dependence and mind independence is like what helps me
in my Like if I'm like, oh, my friend lied
to me, or someone might have stolen something from me,
I'm trying to figure something out I might have in
my head like yeah, they lied to me, But there's
like this further investigation that I need to do to
see if, like the imagination I have kind of maps
onto the reality around me. And I'm wondering, like what, Like,
I don't know. That distinction is really weird to me
when you just say, like we're all in the mind
of God, Like I don't even know what establishes like
real versus just imaginary at that point. So I'm kind
of weirded out by the thought just initially what you say,
the universe of wits, and I don't know where that means.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I don't know. I don't know if I said that,
but I approach it. I guess two ways. One has
to do with the universe as we know it, like
material and science and study studying the universe studying matter
of space time, and the other has to do with
consciousness in people. Okay, and so those are two roumins.
We could attack either one.
Speaker 2: But yeah, I'm still me.
Speaker 3: I'm still I'm still not really understand like because when
I said, just a second ago, when you say it's
in the mind of God, he said, you didn't say that,
but I was asking for clarity if that was your position.
Speaker 4: Oh sure that is.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so I mean you might have said those words,
but you clarify that that is your position. Okay, But
why think that. I'm trying to understand what what makes
you look at the way?
Speaker 4: I don't know if idealism is that what idealism is
that we are in the mind of God.
Speaker 3: Well, that's like a theistic form, like it's a theistic
form of idealism.
Speaker 4: Of vague too, it's kind of like mind.
Speaker 3: I mean, let's not worry, let's not get hung up
on the philosoph you know, speak or anything like that.
That's my bad. But I just want I would just
very simply, why why would you think Because like I
feel like you said you were a Christian, so there's
some background stuff going on there on what what you believe.
But why would you think it's more reasonable to think
that there's a the universe or us exists within the
mind of God as opposed to it being like mind
independent or.
Speaker 4: As a product of the mind of God. Let's say
either one.
Speaker 3: If that was what I asked, that's what I asked.
That the app from the outset for the clarity between
those two. They're two different like, those are two different
dialogue trees for me to go off of.
Speaker 4: Right, Well, I guess, okay, in the mind of God,
I mean as a product I think like I think,
I mean, I don't know.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 4: I guess you could say in the mind of God.
Let's just let's go with that and see how far
I guess it takes us.
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, I just want to know what makes like why?
Speaker 6: Why?
Speaker 3: How did you come to that position? Let's just start
real simple.
Speaker 4: Well, so I struggled with why, with the question of
why humans generally, by default, seem to believe in some
kind of creator, at least in times past, maybe not today,
maybe not these days is up for debate, and there's
different arguments right as to why people you know, you
go ask people on the street, are.
Speaker 3: You I'm genuinely not worried about other people at the moment.
I'm only worried about you. So I just want to
know why you b.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well it has to do with like myself and others,
you know, and why we believe, why we believe almost intuitively.
So that's what I was going to get into, which
is like the material universe, is how do we start
with this consciousness and material and the question as well
as physical two physical things I think and have experience.
Speaker 3: Yes, they do.
Speaker 4: It's a question. Okay, can you name at least two things.
Speaker 3: That do my brain Justin's brain.
Speaker 4: That's a that's a brain. Can you name anything else
but a brain?
Speaker 3: Well, I don't know about jellyfish, but they have I
don't know if they have conscious or sentience, but they
have like neural sacs.
Speaker 4: Or something like that.
Speaker 3: I don't remember exactly what it is, but I don't know. Look,
there's things that have quality experience. I don't need to
have like a one, two, five, seven or eight. I
mean there's physical things and then have qualitative.
Speaker 4: Experiences with a central nervous system.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean we can go with that. That's fine.
Speaker 4: So you have one thing in the entire universe that
has your planning is physical, it has.
Speaker 3: I don't know what the veracity of whether or not
it's true matters. And like it's if it's singular, there's
a plurality of things. It seems epistemically irrelevant.
Speaker 4: Right well, I just think that you.
Speaker 3: Think that if there's one, if you think there's only
only the central nervous system that can experience consciousness, that
that somehow like should make a physicalist like shaking their boots,
because they would just laugh. They would just go, I
don't care. That's that they would just go, that's a
that's an insane like qualification that you have for truth.
Right well, there was like if there was like two
things like a Schmenchelsh nervous system, then we'd be.
Speaker 4: Talking now, right, so we know, like we know like
matter or physical things are subject to gravity and and
what what material things can you hold? You know, I
can list like thousands, but.
Speaker 3: I'm failing to see where we're going with this. I'm
not trying to be rude, but I've yet to I've
yet to gather any insight on why you believe that
the universe's mind dependent on God. I have no insight
on I genuinely don't have a rea. I couldn't even
if I tried my hardest to be to apply principle
of charity figure out what the reason might be. I've
just heard like some people and.
Speaker 4: Well that's one that's one reason.
Speaker 3: Well stuff only has one thing that has consciousness, one.
Speaker 4: Reason to add to like to like lean in that way,
if you can only name one thing in the entire
universe that does a good reason to question it.
Speaker 3: I think I don't think so like you say because
there's you say that because there's a specific No, because.
Speaker 4: Look, there's a central nervous system has a property of
matter that no other Just look the material system has.
Speaker 3: You could make the same argument with like computers and
display screens. Look, there's only like a couple of these
things that display images or like. You could do this
with anything and nobody. I don't see how it's It
seems like a total waste of time to focus on
the number of things in the universe that could amount
to consciousness. You just look, if I have a view. Look,
let me just tell you I have a view. You
need some type of physical substrate just to have consciousness.
That substrate happens to be a central nervous system and
axons and neurons and these kind of things, right, this
collective kind of package of things. Uh, and you get
you get consciousness with that. What's the problem Because you
can't come back and say, oh, it's only one thing.
I'm gonna go yeah, I just said that to you, right,
I don't see a problem. Yeah, Okay, you insist there's
a problem, and I'm wondering why.
Speaker 4: I'm not saying it's like a serious problem. What you're saying.
It's a good thing that you know, it's a reasonable.
Speaker 3: That's what I'm trying to say. That's what I'm trying
to tell you. It is not no, no, listen, it's not reason.
It's not reasonable. Look, it's not reasonable to take the
number of this one thing and then go h that
gives me, Like, I understand, I genuinely do understand how
somebody can think that they're like, oh, man, the only
things that's cool, like smoking a bong at a party,
talking with your friends. But if you really like sit
down and think about it, and you go, okay, how
do I like, how does this get ruled out epistemically
like things that I know, how do I rule this
out just basically base based on only the central nervous
system is like this only thing that can produce consciousness.
If you sat there, you would you would have to
like lie to yourself to go. That just qualifies it
one thing it's not. It's not reasonable in any sense
to think that that does anything. It shouldn't do anything
for you. It doesn't raise the probability or lower the probability.
It does nothing. It could be a million things. I
mean it could. It could be doctor evil, right and
just be like one billion different things. Like it wouldn't
make it more true because there's a one billion things, right,
So I think we need to get back on track.
So like one thing we've established is the number of
like in my view, if I'm a physicalist, that doesn't
really matter to me. If there's like one thing that
doesn't make me shake in my boots at all, if
I'm a physicalist at all. So we have one reason.
Speaker 4: That you when people decide what's like reasonable to believe,
they go with like what's as like has least amount
of like burdles to overcome with explaining things you know.
Speaker 3: You want to you want to trade off between the
things that you like postulate versus their ex explanatory power. Right,
you don't want to like just add a whole bunch
of things there. I agree with you. If I just
started to explain consciousness and added a whole bunch of
things into my hypothesis, it wouldn't do me favors if
I don't need those things. But that's what I think
is actually favorable about the position I have. I don't
need this like mind of God that within it has
the universe. I just have the universe, right, I can
just shave off the mind dependent God part of it,
and I can explain consciousness just as well as you do.
And so like for me, it's it seems like it's
the opposite of kind of what you're saying there is
that I favor because I don't have an extra postulate
like you believe in the universe, so do I, but
you believe in God. And it seems like it's up
to you to show me why I need to have
that extra postulate, right, like like what the position on
your side should be. No, mister j Mike, you actually
can't explain consciousness, not because of the one central nervous thing,
but because you don't get out of quod explanation without
it being a mind dependent product of God. And that's
what I've been trying to get an argument from you for, right,
because everything else is there to do anything for me?
Speaker 4: Sure, So can we say, let's talk about consciousness? Can
we say consciousness?
Speaker 6: No?
Speaker 3: I don't want I want to talk about I want
I want you to tell me unless this has to
do with it. I want you to give me a
reason why I should add God. Look, I have the universe,
and I think the universe is not mine dependent, right,
I think it's independent of minds. It exists. Now you think.
Speaker 4: That they're relations, you think that you.
Speaker 3: Think that there's a sorry, you think that there's a
God and within that the universe, or you've played with
the other idea that there's this product of the universe
that's an extra entity. Right, Me and you agree there
are electrons, there are chairs, there's things in the universe.
We all agree there's there's sons, right, m Okay, you
know what. I don't believe in God, right, so you
can show me that. Look, Mike, you don't get an
adequate explanation unless do this postulate. But until you do that,
I'm just going to like leave the call going, I
don't need this additional postulate in my theory. My theory
is working and operating perfectly fine without this fundamental mind.
So it seems like if you wanted to convince me,
I'm not saying you have this, you know, like, oh
you you have to go around and convince me right now.
But if you had the goal of helping me see
your side or convincing me, what you should do is
show your explanation without that thing is inadequate. And here's
why you need God. But you keep talking about like
other people and stuff like that, and I'm not sure.
Yeah right, I'll try not to cut you off too. Actually,
producers give him a minute on the clock if you
have that up.
Speaker 4: So you have the university you have on you know, space,
time matter, and you think about there was a plots
for a long time ago who wrote this book and
it was on this subject. He took like an apple
at say, and he reduced it down to its qualities
and you know the qualities of the apple until he
realized that they're so he went so just what he
did was he asked about the color of the apple.
Apple was red. Then he asked well, he's red an
intrinsic property of the apple, And you would say, well, no,
it's in the eye of the viewer.
Speaker 3: So that has to do with like reflective surface properties
and photons and like the cones in your eyes.
Speaker 4: Right, But the experience of red is not without the eye, right,
like the seeing of bread.
Speaker 3: Well for us, yes, but there are different intermediate stages
of like eye development that you can see in different species,
right now.
Speaker 4: So but for us, yes, yeah, but that that redness
is not like intrines. But that redness we ascribed to
like an apple, is not part of the apple.
Speaker 3: No, it's a collection of the photo It's the collection
of the reflective surface properties. Right, It's a collect in
conjunction with the photons hitting that surface and our bouncy
back to our eyes. Right, there's a big Yeah. It's
not like none of that's mind dependent or dependent solely
on me.
Speaker 4: The experience, the experience of the redness.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there was no If there were no photons and
reflected then there would be a redness for me to observe.
Speaker 4: Right, Yeah, if no one was looking at the apple,
the apple wouldn't have a color.
Speaker 3: Right, Sure, I I don't really know where we're going,
Like I if you're going into Mary's room or something
like that. We can talk about that, But that seems
like we're shift thing because I don't know about physical
I don't know that this is about physicalism or idealism.
This is just like whether or not you can show
me that there's a mind independent there's a universe.
Speaker 4: The universe is built on like things to be experienced
by a mind.
Speaker 3: That's okay, But what's incompatible with having evolutionary and cosmological
processes where you have a product of being able to
observe things I don't understand, like theological aspect? Here for it? Right?
Speaker 5: You?
Speaker 3: You you grow into your environments, right, I mean look
you you look at it like this one thing like
we just had an eye, right, we had like a
like a little sell, like a little fuck. I'm forgetting.
Someone can help maybe justin can help me. The you
have like a little sell, like a little hole, like
a little pin hole, right you? Like you can see
this and was it nautilus? I can't pin hole? Yeah,
I can't. You have like a little pinhole? You have
developments that the eye develops like a glob.
Speaker 2: You.
Speaker 3: Well, I'm going like way off my memory here, So
people that know this stuff are probably cringing really hard.
Point being is there's an immediate stages between like I development.
Looking at like what we have now is this product
of like, oh this was like for me or something.
It seems kind of equivalent to like the puddle analogy
or something like. You're not really focusing on like so
many other aspects of the development.
Speaker 4: So you're pointing to the evolutionary like processes that happened
before human minds emerged. Okay, doing that, you're you're assuming
the existence of a universe. That's not.
Speaker 3: What am I assuming.
Speaker 4: You're looking at these the existence of a universe that
is with completely without any mind whatsoever. I'm saying that
mind is God.
Speaker 3: I understand that's your position. I've I've come to a
position that such a being doesn't exist because look when
I do, when I look at the views and I
compare those views, I can explain the same data without
extra postulates. I'm going to do that every time with anything,
anything in my life. If I don't need that extra
uh thing in my hypothesis, I'm going to shave it off.
It's it's not needed. It's an idle wheel in your
explanatory housing. Why would I use it? Right, It's like
having a chair you don't use. What the fuck would
you have it?
Speaker 4: It's almost like you're removing a postulate that is like necessary.
Speaker 6: I am.
Speaker 3: I'm in fact not doing that because I've I've explained
to you that it's that if you could change my
position by showing me why that postulates needed, I didn't say.
Speaker 4: It's like saying I don't want to believe in gravity
because and I'm just going to go ahead and explain.
Speaker 3: Brother, do this with God. What the fuck are you
talking about? Don't compare it to something that I demonstrate
in front of you. Do this with God. Do that.
If you're talking about comparing it to gravity, they're not
the same thing. It's not analogous at all. If you
want an analogy, you need a common property between the
two things you're comparing. There's no common property there. I
can demonstrate that thing you.
Speaker 4: Think I'm saying that. I'm saying that the mind, that
the fundamental mind, we'll call it God, should never have
been removed in the first place.
Speaker 3: Okay, first, okay, you you can you can show me,
you can bring me to God. You can just show me,
but you're evading that. You're focused on like me, ruling
it out. No, I talk with a lot of people
about this. I've had a lot of conversations weighing out
the different different worldviews. It's a comparative method that I
opt to use. I do this all the time. If
you go back in the archive of the show, you won't,
you'll you'll go might shut the fuck up about this
comparative methodology that you use. You'll you will literally say
that I say it too much. Right, So I've gone
through this process. In fact, I was a non naturalist.
I was a duelist. I believed that there was a
non physical component of the mind. Guess why I don't
believe that anymore Because I compared it with this view
and I realized that this has less postulates than I
explained the data just as well. So I don't need
to believe in something that I have no reason to believe. Right,
there's no reason for me to believe it. I shave
it off. So you don't know my history on why
I believe the things I believe. So let's just leave
that off the table, and let's put what should be
on the table which is you convincing me, and then
I want to get this back to Justin because I
feel like I'm going over time that Justin should be
chiming in. I know we kind of split up the
last two calls, but I'm not getting any reasons out
of you. You sound like a really cool guy, but
you're not giving me a single reason. The last thing
you told me was I don't think you should rule
it out.
Speaker 4: Okay, show me well, I think, okay, I don't think
you should rule it out because because, yeah, because there's
these relationships that make up the entire universe and what
you claim, yeah, like space, space is relationships.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 4: If I say this house is in Ohio, right, that
means it's in a location and not in Georgia. It's
in Ohio. Were assumer relationship.
Speaker 3: I can confirm that I'm in Georgia.
Speaker 2: I can confirm that, right.
Speaker 4: So there's a relationship between like the distance between you
and I. And that's not the only thing that has relationships.
There's like size. So if I like a simple one
that you like a tree, a tree, right, a tree,
you say, wow, that's a big tree, right, that that
only means it's big in relation to smaller trees, right,
or maybe it's big in relation to your body. It's
much taller than you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I look, I'm saying like, this.
Speaker 4: Is a big tree in an absolute sense. There's no
such thing as bigness, you know, unless you related it
to something smaller. But you fan that type. I agree
with this type of stuff.
Speaker 2: Okay, cool, glad, I use I literally use this argument.
Speaker 3: I use this argument, Sorr. I use this same talking
point idea when I talk to people about morality and
not understanding what it means for something to be minded,
like a mind independent obligation. It just sounds like saying
bigger without anything like that's built into it, like relation,
comparative analysis between something else. I get that. But okay,
so we're both on board. You can compare things and go,
that's bigger. It makes no sense to say Mike is taller,
but there's no taller than we all we agree there, right,
we have there needs to be a taller than or
a bigger than. We get that. How does how is
that now get me to God? From there? Because I'm
not seeing where we're going.
Speaker 4: So you find that with everything, right, you find that
with distance? You might say wow, that's that's really far
far from what far from you, right, or it's really
close close to what close to you, or you can
even apply it to the texture of matter and material.
You can say, wow, this apple is really hard.
Speaker 3: Things we can do one hundred Yeah, these are things
we can do. What now we got to drive. We're
running a show. We need we need like more meat
on it. Like you're like, it's kind of like me
being like there's a water bottle and there's a microphone.
It's like those are things. They're compatible in both of
our views.
Speaker 2: Okay, So yeah, so I just spent that is for
twenty six minutes. I just haven't seen the connection with
God yet. If you could clarify where that connection of
the be grat.
Speaker 4: So the connection is right there is that all these relationships,
relationships need a framework to be registered inside of to
be and to be realized in size.
Speaker 3: Getting suspiciously question begging sounding, but we'll go ahead.
Speaker 2: I don't know what you're trying to say.
Speaker 1: We agree, right, in order to make relational claims, you
need more than one object because you need to compare
it to something else.
Speaker 2: I don't see where God comes in.
Speaker 4: So you need the experience er to have that relation,
to observe that relationship to registers.
Speaker 2: Me and you and j Mike. Yeah, what about God?
Speaker 4: Well, the universe, we can all agree, exists independently from us.
Speaker 3: Yeah, how do you?
Speaker 6: How do you?
Speaker 2: How do you make that we're part of the universe.
I don't know what you mean by independent.
Speaker 4: Well, so, well, so this relationship between a big tree
and a small tree, if we're looking at it and
we're claiming that we can die the next day, and
that relationship we will as you know, any reasonable person
would say that relationship, I believe it's still there for
a next person to see and for the next person
to see. And why because the very nature of what
is you believe it exists. You believe those trees that
you're looking at exists.
Speaker 2: The relationship doesn't exist.
Speaker 4: It doesn't exist.
Speaker 1: It does not exist. It's an observation, it's not a relationship.
Relationships are abstract thoughts. They're just us saying, hey, this
thing is pletely different from that thing.
Speaker 2: But that relationship doesn't have ontology. It's not a thing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you be like, there's the relationship.
Speaker 4: There really is. There really is a tree. It's like
the other one.
Speaker 1: Form of tag except rather than using like the laws
of logic or some other metaphysical universal, you're trying to
use relationship as a metaphysical universal.
Speaker 2: And this is just silly.
Speaker 3: It sounds like you you want to make this inference
from we're observers, we observe things that those things like
require some observer, which I don't even agree with that,
like there could just be no mind you don't think,
you don't think, hold on, hold on, hold on real quick,
but you seem like you want it seems like you
want to make an inference further that therefore, like the
universe needs an observer, which would just if we like
made this into a formal argument, it just it would
just be formally invalid, Like that does not follow at all.
But if I try to apply like a principle of
charity to you and what you're saying, I mean, all
I can really do is inquire why you think we
should make such an inference, Like what gives you, like
why like motivate that right? It just I don't really
hear much motivation. It's just kind of like I see
this thing in the world, we observe things, and it
seems like I can extrapolate that up to the top level.
I don't see any reason why you would do that.
It also just seems like all you did to me
from my advantage point, the way that I see it
is you now introduced a totally unnecessary idle wheel in
your explanatory housing. Right, there's no I don't see how
it's doing any heavy lifting at all. And so for me,
I'm working at that and I'm going it seems like
it was a good thing for me to shave that
thing off, because I'm still not hearing any reason to
bring it back into my theory.
Speaker 4: So you believe, so do you believe there are no objects?
If you believe there are no relationships, there are no objects.
Speaker 1: No relationships are observations about objects, but they're abstract thoughts.
Speaker 2: They're not things that exist. If humans didn't exist, these
relationships wouldn't.
Speaker 4: Exist between objects.
Speaker 1: Relationships wouldn't exist because they're propositions that come from minds.
Speaker 3: Yeah, unless you want to be like a Platonist or something,
But then I could argue it's like so many more
additional that you don't need.
Speaker 4: The relationship might not be being made in time by somebody,
but those objects are existing in space and time, whether
you're there or not.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they do, but relationships don't. Relationships are propositions.
Speaker 2: Made by human brains.
Speaker 1: They're not things that have like platonic realism or anything.
It is a listen, uh, Jason, this is really an
interesting conversation. But it's been a half hour an hour
going in circles, and I haven't heard a good motivation
to overturn Okham's raiser for jmex position. So I've left
to conclude that our explanation of the universe without God
is just simpler and cleaner, and I don't have a
reason to adopt either a God or universal relations So
thanks for calling in, though, I mean you're you sound
like a nice young fella. Were just in being cordial,
But we do have some other people waiting to get in,
and we don't have on These Sunday shows aren't all
that long, so we do have to cycle through guests.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and that last that last point is super important.
I have a go on. Last point is super important
just because with the what I had for the from
the call screener, which is what he you know, said
that the CAUs screen was, is it more reasonable to
believe in a mind independent versus mind dependent universe, and
so I tried to offer up a view, you know,
and let's see kind of what's more reasonable to believe.
And I'll leave that to the audience what they would.
Speaker 1: Think, right Yeah, yeah, Well, friends, we've got more people
waiting to get in before we grab We're gonna get
pushback ministries from the TikTok q before we do that.
We just got a couple more announcements before it gets
the show gets too late, or rather too long in
the tooth. So let's go to a couple announcements and
then we'll bring in our next guest. We want to
bring in Jamie, our friend blind Laimey to talk about
a May event.
Speaker 2: Do we have them on tap?
Speaker 8: Jamie's the blind Boy, and I've got some interesting news
for you. On Saturday, May sixteenth, at six pm, we'll
be hosting our twenty four hour We Are Here live
stream and fundraiser to highlight secular voices around the world.
We've invited dozens of your favorite content creators like genetically
Modified Skeptic, the Antibot, Justin DZ and more to let
the world know that we are here and we're not
going anywhere. If you're in Austin, come join us at
Free Thought Library at fifteen oh seven West Cain and Length.
Well we'll be kicking things off in style. And if
you're online, do join us on the Atheist Experience channel
to check out the stream and joining the fun. So
join us from wherever you are in the world, and
together we can dedicate ourselves to secular humanist values wherever
we are.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Jamie, and also we want to send a
thank you for putting the show together to our cast
and crew. Every week we have people putting the show
together operators, audio operators, note takers, call screamers, chat moderators,
and a video personnel that make this show possible. Jamike
and I have the fun task of just getting up
here and getting to talk, which is our favorite thing,
but a lot of people help.
Speaker 2: Them make this show go well.
Speaker 1: And if you want to volunteer or lend some expertise
to the ACA, or even perhaps be a host, you
can contact the ACA and let's see contact the ACA
at volunteer at atheistdashcommunity.
Speaker 2: Dot org to get involved. I gotta say it again
because it's a long one.
Speaker 1: Volunteer at atheistdashcommunity dot org. Always looking for people that
can help out. If you have the time and a
useful skill for the ACA, we'd love to talk about
how we can get you plugged.
Speaker 2: Into the events.
Speaker 1: And now with that, we said, we're going to bring
up pushback ministries from our TikTok you so let me
grab them and hopefully we'll get some debate.
Speaker 3: And there you go to the Spina fam. I will
be emailing you back about the fundraiser, so I will
be there.
Speaker 2: Boocome bushback ministries. You're on XP with Justin and Jmike.
How aream? Hey? How's it going well? Are you at
least eighteen?
Speaker 6: Yes?
Speaker 2: Awesome? Just checking for TikTok terms of service? And do
you believe in God?
Speaker 6: Yes?
Speaker 2: I'm a Christian? Awesome?
Speaker 1: And what do you think would be a good argument
for your God existing?
Speaker 2: Or did you come to talk about something else? No,
we can do that. I'm not a I'm not.
Speaker 9: A phil bro, but I do believe if I could
piggyback on the other callers, I think he was trying
to get somewhere, but he was kind of like, you know,
going off a little bit.
Speaker 2: But I do think metaphysical.
Speaker 9: Concepts is a strong argument for the existence of God. Numbers, mathematics, information, time,
things that are.
Speaker 1: But I agree that those are interesting, I don't think
that numbers actually exist.
Speaker 2: I fall into nominalism. J Mike, what are you classified as?
Speaker 3: I am also a nominalist. I was a platist though,
so I've been a platonist. I've argued platonism. I have
arguments for Platonism. I just don't think they work.
Speaker 1: So in order to move forward with some sort of
transcendental argument, I guess you'd probably have to convince us
that there are some transcendentals.
Speaker 2: Right, So I would say, Uh.
Speaker 9: One of the things that made me become a believer, Uh,
is because I was I was really into science before
I became a believer, and you know, I started thinking
about it. And to get to the transnidentals is like
I realized that mathematics perfectly describes the universe in equations,
and I had to ask myself, seriously, if I think
that everything came from blind, unconscious random forces, then why
would there be this background language that perfectly describes things
like engineering and gravity and the speed of light, And
they can be perfectly articulated formulated and then and then
used practically, and that they're in veir and that that
was that's point I became. I started to become a believer,
and I realized that the Christian worldview was the most
coherent worldview.
Speaker 2: And there's a lot there.
Speaker 1: I would say, I think the Christian worldview is like
the least coherent because like it just violates the laws
of logic.
Speaker 2: But outside of that, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Why we would assume that these any of the things
you listed are related to God. I don't believe that
numbers are a thing that exist that just happened to
be there that we discovered. Seems like numbers are more
like the English language, where we invented words to describe concepts.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I wouldn't.
Speaker 9: I would say that that's that's not an accurate description
because numbers are universal. Whereas so with the English language,
you've got different languages and you can have completely different
words and completely sound different sounds. But numbers are a
universal concept, meaning they.
Speaker 2: They are there. There are no cross languages. Numbers are
just like languages. They're describing an idea.
Speaker 1: Like so if we have the idea of a tree,
every language has its own way of saying read. But
the yeah, the idea tree though, is still there. It's
universal across all languages, like no matter which language of
matth you're speaking, whether you're doing Roman numerals or you're
doing binary or you're doing like standard integers. Like we're
just these numbers are languages to describe a concept. It's
not like they exist transcendentally and if they if they did,
I mean I'd love to know where I can find them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, absolutely so.
Speaker 9: So we're looking at like the number, like when we
write the symbol down for the number seven, or when
I say the word seven and then can convey the
thing to you that is seven. It's different when you
need seven protons and seven neutrons to balance this particular substance,
and that's always the case. It's not mind contingent. So
you're speaking on mind content numbers things, which are how
we describe things. Yes, numbers are not mind contingent numbers.
Speaker 3: Just look if you look, if you have like seven acorns,
you have, what's there are the acorns? Like when we
take brains and then just make descriptions about the acorns
like there's seven or something. I think you're getting lost
on this weird thought that like when there's seven acorns,
like there's something imbued with like seven in the world
when there's not, right, there's just like instances of this
object right.
Speaker 9: Right, But but but I'm getting down to the fundamentals
of like how different chemicals and elements are balanced and created,
like you've got like uranium.
Speaker 3: And I mean, look, I get I could be a
plate in and will not believe in God. Right, I
can think numbers are real and still not believe in God.
So I don't really know if we should go down
this for like a lengthy period of time. Like because
I was a Platonist in conjunction with being an atheist,
I thought, you know, propositions were mind independent things, right, right,
It's right, It's perfectly fine to have that belief, But
you know, I don't see what turns on it for theism.
Speaker 9: Right, And I'm not real good on all the philosophical terms,
But I would just say that when it hit me
when I became a believer, I believed in God, and
then I became a Christian because I felt led to
Christianity being the most coherent worldview. But what but it
hit me that there is an order in the universe.
And because I used to be an atheist and a
physicalist and I believed in the Big Bang and I
believed in evolution, I drank that sort of kool aid.
And then I realized that how strength, how could.
Speaker 2: Let me just give me? And you read the science
and believed it.
Speaker 3: So you don't think that there was like a series
of pop.
Speaker 9: To like fig In and I mean I was. I
was into Bryson and Dawkins. I mean I was, I
was definitely to all that stuff. But now I now,
when I realized that like chemicals and chemistry and balance
and strong and new weak nuclear forces and all these
things have a mathematical symmetry that is not explained well
in a random physicalist universe, that.
Speaker 3: Okay, that you're already wrong there, because again, being like
you said this at the very beginning, that's not it's
not a dichotomy of theism or blind random chance like indeterminacy.
That's not a dichotomy. You can In fact, I'd be
willing to bet if I pold the audience if they
were determinists, a lot of them would say they are determinists,
and a lot of them might be like, take it
as far as like really hard determinism. They might go
what's called necessity arianism, this idea that everything is necessary,
there's no randomness at all. God doesn't exist, there's absolutely
no indeterminacy in the world. An interpretation of quantum mechanics
isn't going to have indeterminacy under this view. And so
when you make when you stage it like that, you've
already created this false like scenario, this false dichotomy. It's
not God or blind random chance. It could just be
necessary that the initial state of the universe starts the
way it does, and every subsequent event is also necessary. Right.
In other words, the domino hits the next domino and
there's nothing else, there's no other domino to be a hit,
all right, So we got to squash that because that's
already wrong thinking for my people.
Speaker 9: Well, I understand that, but I mean, in that sense
of determinism, you do realize that you're actually negating the
possibility for their being truth claims and falsities.
Speaker 2: So like for us to have this com.
Speaker 3: Not at all, not at all, give that argument. I'm
sure it'll be forthcoming.
Speaker 1: Oh boy, hey, pushback ministries. Are you familiar with Frank Turk. Oh, yeah,
because these kind of sound like Frank Turk talking points.
There's not great talking points there are. There are better
apologetics than this.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 9: Well, I mean this is just us having a conversation.
I mean, I just can't see how you can give
an account for balance and order and information in a
universe that, even if it's deterministic, what determined?
Speaker 2: What do you think order means?
Speaker 9: Order means like sequence like things are seqt like there's
repetitive nature.
Speaker 2: Is there a reason why that wouldn't exist in our worldview?
That is discernible rule?
Speaker 3: What rules that out in our view? Why wouldn't that
That's a great question. Why wouldn't that exist in our view?
How is that not compatible with our view?
Speaker 9: I guess I would I guess I would ask you
to give a justification for why it would exist.
Speaker 3: I mean, it sounds like we've classic textbook burden shifting.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: Right, So your your claim is basically incredulity. I don't
know how the atheist worldview can account for order.
Speaker 2: But that's not really an argument. That's just you being incredular.
Speaker 9: I think that the true Okham's raisor would would present
that if we have a mind, and we use logic
to determine order.
Speaker 2: That order could only come from a mind.
Speaker 3: And Maham's razor. You've you've you've added like numbers, logic
being its own thing. I don't know if it was
you were the other guy with relations, but I think
you have probably that view, right. So you you've inflated
your ontology massively, and we're looking at that. Me and
Justin are like, I don't want that ship in my
in my metaphysical theory. That's way too much ontology. That's
like the ontology pie Like it's like an ontology buffet.
They don't need to eat that much. Dude.
Speaker 9: Yeah, But then then do you think that there's a
thing to being overly simplistic and like you so basically
so when I ask you you want me to give
a justification for God, which I'd say, God is metaphysical, okay,
But then when I asked you for.
Speaker 3: That mean what does that mean? I'm a naturalist. I'm
a metaph if I'm a metaphysical naturalist, my view is metaphysical.
It's just naturalism that it's not like a spooky word
that only works for like supernatural people. People think it's
like means something like supernatural. If you're a naturalist, a
metaphysical naturalist, that is a metaphysical thesis. Physical is a
metaphysical thesis.
Speaker 2: What is a what is a metaphysical naturalist? I'm not
a philosophy gud.
Speaker 3: Oh, that's fine. Like so like for me, it would
be like if I was if I said I was
a metaphysical naturalist, what somebody like myself might say is
that there are There's like causal closure might be one
thing that they go, there's nothing outside of the universe.
There are no gods or goddesses. So like for me,
I would say, look, every possible world the initial the
universe starts with an initial state, and that initial state
is necessary. There's no like gods popping in and out,
but that initial point of existence that is metaphysically necessary. Right,
I'm talking about metaphysics, talking about the grand scheme of
some view, but it just doesn't have gods in it
because theism doesn't monopolize metaphysics.
Speaker 9: Right, I understand, But it isn't it fair for a
theist to say that that's question begging you get to
just say it is because it is.
Speaker 3: No I have look I can understand how somebody, if
I'm telling them my view, I can understand how they
could misunderstand what I'm saying and charge me with question begging.
The problem is is that I have independent motivations that
I'd be happy to compare the view with with somebody.
It's not just a footstomping or begging or question begging.
It's going through a view like. Look, you don't have
to have a view at all to do this process,
really like, you don't have to have an established view.
You can look at two comparative views and see which
one you think wins out. And you do this with
enough people or enough positions that you start to iron out,
will look it idealism, platonism, property, egalism, all this kind
of stuff that I believed is slowly getting ruled out
as I compared this with some of my friends or
in my own head. And so for me, it wasn't
question begging because I came to this position from the
antithesis of this position. Right so, I don't know how
I beg the question on a position I didn't hold
in the first place. Right now, It's what's true, I
could like beg the question when I talk to you.
But what I'm gonna what I'm gonna end up doing
is trying to compare our views and show, look, I
think that my ontological economy, in other words, like all
the things that I have postulated in my you know,
my theory or in my framework, it's not as much
as you. And I think there's a real a good
reason why there's not as much, because I don't need
that much to explain the data, right, And we go
through it. We just go one by one. I look
at you and you say, well, you think God created
the initial state of the universe, And I go, I
don't think of God created the initial state of the universe.
It's necessary. We can start talking about it's this will
get too much into the weeds. We could start talking
about its motal status, whether it's contingent or necessary. And
I can just go through this process and show you
why I wouldn't have God as this brute contingent origin
or the universe being this kind of brute contingent fact
that comes from God. Right, not an optimal theory by
my lights.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I mean I understand, but again, I mean when
it comes down to it with me, I mean as
far as we know the information and order are our
mind contingent. And your justification is that was just the
initial state of the universe. And my justification is, no,
there's a mind because information is mind contingent. It is
the Okham's raisor than a mind created order and created
the universe.
Speaker 3: It not Oukham's raisor look how look, look you have
the same thing I said to the other caller. We
both agree electrons and chairs and things in the universe exist.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 3: You don't deny like stars existing, right?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 3: Okay, great? We don't do is We don't take a
proposition like God exists and then make some logical derivation
to the existence of electrons or the existence of chairs.
We don't get that for free by postulating God. I
don't get that for free by postulating the initial state
of the universe. We're both on an even playing field, right,
So what ends up happening is we do like this countenance.
We both have the same kind of things in our view.
Maybe there's some stuff in the world we both don't share,
but the point of the comparison is to find data
we do agree upon. There's no point of me talking
to you about angels and explaining angels, because there's no
angels in my view. But what is shared between our
view is an initial state of the universe. You think
God creates it. I don't think God creates it. I
think it's a necessary initial point. But we're in agreement
for the sake of this conversation that there's no infinite
past universe. We're both in agreement, so we have something
to compare. What do I think best explains that initial state,
that it's metaphysically necessary. What do you think? You think
that it's brutally contingent or you think it's contingent. It
depends on whether or not God decides to create one. Okay, well,
your view talks about explanations. What's the explanation for why
God chooses to make an initial state of the universe
rather than not Why does he do that? Rather than
just not smoking a big fat God bowl or a
big fat God blunt, being like, I'm fucking awesome, I'm God.
Why does any do that? It's part of your explanatory
framework to explain why he does this rather than not
do it. But I have a feeling if I was
to press you on that, we get into this weird
brute area of explanation. You wouldn't to know why God
chooses to create a universe rather than not create a universe,
And that just seems like, Wow, you have an extra
additional thing in your view and you can't even give
its explanatory role. So that's why I opt for views
that don't do that, that don't add an additional entity,
and that when pressed why does God create the universe
rather than not create the universe? And someone throws their
hands up, or we get into this infinite chain of
brute contingent desires. I'm just gonna go, I don't want
that view, but that view is not optimal for.
Speaker 2: Me, right, No, no, no, I got you.
Speaker 9: And again, So I mean, I think that when you
do philosophical arguments, ultimately you can almost always get down
to a point of circularity.
Speaker 2: And in my mind, God.
Speaker 9: Is the only thing that can get you out of
that circularity because basically, what we're saying is there was
a point of origin of the universe, and you're saying,
I don't know, but I believe that there is natural
processes and balances and order and information, and I don't
need to give an account.
Speaker 2: And I'm saying God and always said, Okay.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we didn't say that. And look, Justin can explain
this to you, like, we both have very similar thoughts
about this, and so I need to stop walking over Justin. Right,
I'm going to shut up.
Speaker 2: It's okay.
Speaker 1: Well, you keep saying that we have to explain the
order and the information.
Speaker 2: I don't believe that it exists. I think the things
that we call.
Speaker 1: Order, the things that we call information and are just
abstracts that our mind are saying, Oh, that does a thing,
the thing that it does, We're just going to call
it order. But like the fact that we call it order,
it doesn't mean that it is in fact order. That's
just how we have chosen to describe a particular process.
I'm not really sure what you mean when we say,
like we have to explain order. Why do we have
to explain order?
Speaker 9: Well, because I would say that because of our minds,
and only because of our minds, things are demonstratable, repeatable,
we can give an epistemic justification for them, and that,
as far as we know, that is mind contingent. So
the fact that that's outside of the mind, and yet
the mind is the only reason that we can.
Speaker 2: Verify that process leads.
Speaker 9: Me to believe that those things that are outside of
the mind required and mind, they require a mind to observe,
to repeat, to test, and then to use and like
for example, engineering principles that have stood the test of
time for thanks, but they also they epistemically require an
initial mind.
Speaker 1: But I think you've confused. I think you're confusing what's
happening here. The order that we speak of, Like when
I say when I look at something, I say that
looks orderly. The orderliness doesn't exist outside of my mind.
That's just a phrase that I used to describe something.
And we could determine what we think orderly is. There's
so many ways to describe something that we think is
in order. So it's not like there's this mind dependent
thing that exists outside of our own minds. That's not
what we're saying. What we're saying is that the word
order is just describing what our minds think about something.
Speaker 2: That's it.
Speaker 9: Right, Well, let's go into that because I can. I
could give you some examples. Let's say time you have
past present future induction. You have a perfect system that,
as far as we know it can't be violated out
unless you're out in my worldview, you would say that
God supernaturally could violate it. But let's just say, for example,
in the human mind, you have past, present in the future.
The past is always the past. It always becomes the present,
and then and then tomorrow. The future always becomes the present.
Why would that system exist and then perfectly? And that's
are you saying that that's mind dependent, that's only inside
the mind.
Speaker 1: No, I have no idea what you're talking about. The
sequencing of events is not mind dependent. We describe it
by using time terminology. But the sequencing of events is
just how reality behaves.
Speaker 2: Everything that doesn't happen all at once.
Speaker 9: But when I could say the same, I could just
be like, well, that's just how God behaves, like when
I look at nature, like that's the thing.
Speaker 2: You're using the same argument that I would make.
Speaker 1: Well, you don't know how God behaves because you don't
have any demonstration of God. Right, you're just saying that
I could say that's how zaboomafu behaves. Well, okay, well
tell me it's the boomafoo, right.
Speaker 9: But I would say that that the Scripture and the
Church give an account of God creating nature and the
order in nature is a demonstration of God. And so
like when I say, then, you say, well past present,
why would I trust the script They.
Speaker 2: Just behaved that way, like why do you get to
use that? But I can't. But why do you mean
why would we trust the scripture on any of this?
Speaker 1: Like we're evidence based, like we're basing it on actual evidence,
not what a book said.
Speaker 9: Yeah, but but but yours is unfalsifiable because the second
that I say, will give me acation for it? You say, oh, no,
that's just how it is. So you questioned big everybody,
I didn't say that.
Speaker 4: In a corner.
Speaker 2: I never said that one to.
Speaker 3: Do I think, no, hold on, hold on, I think
he's I think he's talking about what I said about
the initial state being necessary, and he's just saying it's
like foot stomping that that's the case. No, Like, look, yeah,
that's that is what you're saying, right, you're talking about
what I had said.
Speaker 2: Well basically, well both of you, because when I asked, justin.
Speaker 3: That's all that's wine. Hold On, I don't want to
get I don't want to get off off that yet. Look,
the point that there's a difference between scientific inquery and
what metaphysicians do right. Their metaphysicians aren't going out doing
novel predictions for their metaphysical thesis. Something they're doing a
right Like at least I'm not aware of these. Someone
can bring it to my attention to be great, But
it seems like we enter into the realm of like
empirical investigation. And luckily for a lot of people with
different metaphysical views, our investigation about the world and what
we do is compatible with a range of metaphysical thesis
that are not compatible with each other. Right, So an
idealist can look at scientific query and make it part
of their view, like anyone can do this, They can
umbrella that with their view pretty easily. Right, when we're
talking about metaphysics, I think we're kind of shit out
of luck with a lot of our Like someone just
tells me, well, I think your view violates a metaphysical
principle or something. Okay, what's the principle and virtue of what?
Did I?
Speaker 5: Like?
Speaker 3: Why should I even adopt this principle? Like you know,
is this just seems the falsity of my position. So
what we have to do instead is from my lights
is compare the view, find a data point at which
we agree and compare what's better? Now, would you agree
with me that you shouldn't have more things than that
are required to explain that if like all hell, all
else equal, right, we should get rid of one an
extra thing. If me and Justin are talking about evolution
and he has one more postulate than I do, and
I make the same predictions that he does, but he's
got one more thing. Pretty clear that the extra thing
he has isn't doing work because I'm getting the same
result without it, right.
Speaker 9: I would agree if it doesn't lead to question big, Okay,
just stay with me, stay, just stay with me.
Speaker 3: So we agree that when comparing the some about hypotheses,
we're comparing those hypotheses. It's clear that Justin's doesn't favor out.
He makes the same prediction, so he gets results, but
so do I, and I don't have the extra thing
he does, so clearly that thing's not doing work. So
now when I look at your view and your metaphysical view, right,
you have an extra thing? Now that doesn't disqualify you.
You could give me like reasons on why you think
that you need to postulate God and that in fact,
mister naturalist or mister Mike, you do have less things
than me, but you need this additional thing to explain
the data. Right, That's one task that you should be doing.
That's the burden that you need to meet to convince
someone like me my background with the reason I have
the position I do. I never met you, bro, I
don't need to explain to you the hundreds and hundreds
of conversations I've had and what I've read and the
things I've done in my own time to go, I've
landed up this is the better position. I've had positions.
I think the universe has passed infinite. I've had different
positions that I've changed from. I don't just go, I'm
going to beg the question. I have reasons motivations on
why I prefer that thesis over other ones, and it
typically it's because I don't need to add extra entities
where I already explained the data equally, right, So we
can go through this process and I can kind of
show it to you how you have extra things. But
I don't want to waste you know, I don't want
to talk over Justin and waste more people's time. But I,
you know, point out to me where anything I've said
is parasitic on accepting the conclusion. I've never once said,
I've never given you a reason in this entire conversation
that if in order for you to accept that reason,
you would already have to be a naturalist. I've never
done that once to you.
Speaker 2: No, I get it.
Speaker 9: I mean the whole, the entirety of my argument has
been that information, order, balance, the laws of nature are fundamentally,
as far as we know, mind contingent, and that I
would say that that makes the claim that there had
to be a mind to create them, for to have
a mind that observed them. And when I take it
back to that initial state of the universe, yours has
been that, Hey, numbers and order and balance and these things.
Speaker 3: Are he can explain why there's an initial state and
subsequent events events without God. What do you not understand
about it?
Speaker 6: What is it?
Speaker 9: You haven't okay, you haven't given me an explanation. And
Justin said he doesn't need to give a justification of that.
Speaker 2: I can't have address that at all, actually give a
source for it. Yeah, I didn't say that. Well what okay?
Speaker 9: So how do you account for induction, past, present, and
future being orderly, smooth and invariant like.
Speaker 3: This stop and this is also just going to be
so like detrimental to your own position. How do you
know God won't change his nature from X to Y tomorrow?
Do you think you you think adding God's solves some
problem of induction that you don't have to deal with.
How do you know God doesn't has X character? How
do you know tomorrow he won't be why character? How
do you know? How does God solve that problem of
induction for you? Go ahead?
Speaker 9: Because God? Because the concept of numbers. I'm not talking
linguistic about numbers. I'm talking about mathematics as a universal
metaphysical principle.
Speaker 2: If I don't believe they're metaphoral.
Speaker 9: It has it has explanatory power in the universe. When
we look at elements, when we look at chemistry, when
we look at gravity, when we look at strong and
weak nuclear forces, we can apply the concepts of numbers.
Speaker 2: No matter what symbols you use.
Speaker 9: We can balance and make credative equations.
Speaker 1: We've already whenever we invented numbers to describe quantities in reality,
that's what they do, and they describe relationships too. But
these are these are things that we invented. We invented
the usage of numbers, but.
Speaker 9: The concept of number. We didn't invent the concept of numbers.
Speaker 2: We did the concept of Really, for example, let me
give you an example.
Speaker 9: Okay, a squirrel is in a tree, right, a squirrel
has seven seven baby squirrels. Does the squirrel go out
and get eight nuts? Does a scroll go out and
get six nuts? Certainly, certainly depends.
Speaker 2: On how many nuts it wants to get. But you're
you're missing the point.
Speaker 1: If there are no human beings that have ever lived,
then there's no such thing as number seven.
Speaker 2: The question is that out of the gate, right the.
Speaker 9: But the principle of seven exists, and it's right, it doesn't.
Speaker 1: We invented it. We invented the principle of seven. We said, hey,
we're gonna we're gonna say this is one and this
is two. We we just invented that. The principle is
strictly dependent on humans creating it.
Speaker 9: So, so when you have elements that need a certain
number of protons and a certain number of electrons in
order to create that exact element, and that is always
demonstrated that way, you're telling me that it's not mind
that that's not mind dependent and that doesn't have a
number where that we gave a linguistic.
Speaker 1: Never said physics is much independent. I said math is right.
Speaker 9: But but math perfectly describes physics.
Speaker 2: I know, because we invented it. Right.
Speaker 1: When we get mathematical formulas that don't describe adequately physics,
we get rid of them.
Speaker 2: That's how math works.
Speaker 1: When we find something that works mathematically, said, oh, we
got something that adequately describes the speed of light. Congratulations,
let's keep it. And then sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes we
come up with a math formu that doesn't actually work.
We're like, oh, actually, we need to get rid of that.
So math is again it's us describing stuff.
Speaker 2: That's it.
Speaker 9: We We couldn't have invented it when the pre literally
did invent it to describe it. We're there before we
supposedly invented it. So we discovered it. We wrong invented.
Speaker 3: We didn't discover one plus one does it say algebraic expressions.
We're just like chilling out in.
Speaker 9: The book when you talk about just put a little
bit trigonometry in a bucket. It, Yeah, trigonometry, for example,
the calculation of angles I math my job.
Speaker 2: All the math mathys.
Speaker 3: Go grab me sign and tan oh wait.
Speaker 2: Okato, motherfuckers, let's go. So you guys are physically you
guys are physicalists.
Speaker 3: No one here said the no one here said no
one here said the word physicalism.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I didn't say that. But but also I feel
like this conversation.
Speaker 1: Could be spiced up a little bit because it sounds
like you're really interested in things that are logical. I
don't understand how you get to anything coherent in the Trinity.
You do believe in the Trinity, right.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, How do you how do you make uh like
the Trinity logical? Seems like a violences the law of identity.
How can Jesus be identically identical to God but lack
God's essential properties?
Speaker 9: Well, first off, God, you can't apply the laws of
logic to God because God.
Speaker 2: Is God, ill logical created the laws of God.
Speaker 9: Is not confined to the human minds, the illogical or
the human mind?
Speaker 2: Is God logical or illogical? I mean, I would say
that God is logical, okay, so does God do things
that are illogical?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 9: I would also I would also add that God is supernatural, so.
Speaker 2: Just needed yes or no logic? Just needed yes or no.
Speaker 1: Is God doing things logically or sometimes illogically?
Speaker 9: Uh, well, it's hard because we're limited to the confines
of the human mind, So it's not really a question
I can answer.
Speaker 2: I don't know. You don't know if God knows logic.
I mean, to our God is supernatural.
Speaker 9: So like when the sun stops in the Book of Joshua,
for example, is that logical?
Speaker 2: No, in the way we measure.
Speaker 3: There's no contradiction in the sun stopping in the sky,
that's what. There's no contradiction. So yeah, it is logical.
I think you're using a generic kind of way that
people normally speak, which is fine, but we mean something
a little bit more robust. Yeah, Like some people go,
that's it logical that the sun one just stops. No,
But like in pure there's no contradiction entailed by the
sun stopping in the sky. You would never get a
contradiction out of that. It's just probably physically impossible or
goes against our background knowledge of what we know about
the sun.
Speaker 4: But I have a.
Speaker 9: Very basic Christian worldview that goes on the basic Christian
principles and teachings of the Church, and I believe that
the Trinity is the only way to really read the Bible.
Speaker 2: If you don't have a triune God, well.
Speaker 1: Can maybe the Bible is wrong then, right, So if
the Bible is committing a violation against the law of identity,
maybe the Bible right, Maybe we shouldn't believe in a
God that's illogical.
Speaker 3: And maybe like maybe like think about it this way,
like I don't know, give you like something that might
hit more at home with a problem. I don't know
if it will, but like presumably on your view, God,
like the Father doesn't affirm the proposition that he's the Son.
Speaker 5: Right God?
Speaker 2: The Father doesn't, Yeah, he doesn't.
Speaker 3: He doesn't affir he denies the proposition. Like it's false
to say that he would affirm the a proposition that
he's the Son.
Speaker 9: Right, I mean, I would just say that God is
one being.
Speaker 3: I'm talking about the Father. The Father affirms he's the Father, right,
it seems that's a really easy one. The Father affirms
he's the Father, right, Okay, Yeah, Okay, Does the Father
affirm he's the Holy Spirit?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 6: I mean, I don't know.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I guess there's like some thinking to
do there. But I'm trying to point out that, like,
if you think that they have this kind of distinct person,
they're like these persons, they're gonna have different They're gonna
have different propositional attitudes, different cognitive mindsets. Right, Someone's going
to be saying, I'm not the father, uh, and I'm
the Son. And someone's gonna be saying, like, you know,
I'm not the son and I'm the Father, I'm not
the I don't know if I did the same thing twice,
but you know what I.
Speaker 2: Mean, Yeah, I understand.
Speaker 9: I mean the reason that I believe in the Trinity
so strong is I do believe that there are three
beings that are accredited to being God in the Bible,
but I believe that it's it's it's one God. And
I believe that when you read they wont the Old
Testament and you have like examples of like three beings
showing up to Abraham or Yahweh sending fire down from
Yahweh while Yahweh was watching Sodomon goamoor. I believe it's
the only like the Angel of the Lord, it's the
only way to read and then makes sense. But I
don't I disagree report to have perfect sense of the Scripture.
I just have a general Christian faith. It goes with
the teachings of the Church and the scriptures. And I'm
not a soul a script I disagree with.
Speaker 1: All those interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, but it's not
really on point.
Speaker 2: If if you're God.
Speaker 1: Violates like the Trinity violates the laws of logic, it's
like incoherent you're saying, there's three in one. What does
it mean to be one? How do you go from
three gods to one God? What makes them one instead
of three?
Speaker 9: Well, like one example would be like Terrence Howard to
figure it out. I'm yeah, like I'm I'm I'm pushback ministries,
but I'm also dad. I'm also a manager roles, I'm
also a home owner. Like you could those are roles,
I'm still those are just titles.
Speaker 2: For roles that you play. God isn't isn't role playing? Right? Well,
I you know what, I don't think that you can
violate when you're a manager. Do you pray to your elf?
Speaker 1: Do you pray to yourself in a different location and
wait for answers to come back?
Speaker 2: No, Because I'm a human being, I mean I pray
to God. Well, that's the difference.
Speaker 1: Jesus is praying to God, which means Jesus is either
completely distinct from God or Jesus has like got some
sort of a mental delusion. No, I would that if
modalism is modalism is true, Jesus is praying to nobody.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't believe in mobilism. I I Well, I
think that it's so if Jesus. If you don't believe
in modalism, and Jesus is praying to somebody, he's praying
to another entity, an entity that has its own mind,
will and emotions, so another entity we would call that God. Well,
so Jesus is either another God or he's not God. Yeah,
I mean I don't I'm not a soul of scriptoire.
Speaker 1: Guy.
Speaker 9: I believe the Scripture is there to teach us about
the state of the world and the Christian life. And
when Jesus prays in the Garden of Yosemite and says, nevertheless,
not my will, but thy will, I just think that's
an example for Christians on how to pray.
Speaker 3: Who wrote that down? By the way, who was like
there to write that down? I'm always so confused when
like Jesus is crying in the garden, Like, who's even there?
There's like no one there. Am I wrong about this?
Justin there's like no one there? But this story is
like written down. What the fuck is that? Like, I'm
I'm not trying to be rude, but like I've never
been a Christian. I see shit like that and I'm
immediately like, oh my God, Like this is so fake,
This is so fake.
Speaker 2: I also recall the disciples that were there. We're sleeping, well.
Speaker 3: They yeah, the disciples are sleeping. Yeah, I looked. I
could have sworn. There's no one there to jot it down,
but like we get it perfect. We know exactly what
Jesus said right crying, And it's like, what, I mean,
what reason would anybody have to think that other than
a book says a thing. That's literally all you could
ever do is a book says a thing and then
you accept it. You couldn't. There could be no other
way to it unless it was like God revealed it
to you or something. I guess.
Speaker 9: But yeah, well, I also don't think that I'm a
first peer three fifteen apologist.
Speaker 2: I'm I'm being obedient to defend the faith, but I don't.
Speaker 3: Think we appreciate it. We appreciate you. You actually live
up the first verse Peter three fifteen call in. We
ask people to do that all the time.
Speaker 2: So yeah, well, I appreciate I appreciate it.
Speaker 9: I think the strongest argument for the stronger argument for
God is on teleology, the moral argument. I mean, that's
if you believe in morality, and I just believe that if.
Speaker 2: Buddy, I don't know if you want to do the
more argument.
Speaker 9: There's no objective claim to right or wrong as long
as you admit that it's subjective.
Speaker 6: But I and you know.
Speaker 2: Ooman's one as an apologist.
Speaker 9: If you don't believe, you don't believe, there's nothing I
can do to you know, I'm just being obedient.
Speaker 2: Now, you could turn.
Speaker 9: God could deposit faith in you, but I don't believe
you'll believe in less time deposits faith you.
Speaker 2: I think seems like that's his problem.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I thought we said yeah.
Speaker 2: Roman says yeah, yeah, we're suppressing.
Speaker 6: With the faith.
Speaker 9: And to be brutally honest, justin when you say that
sounds like God's problem that is actually the Christian worldview
is that people are lost and until God deposits faith
in them, but the thing is, we don't as Christians.
Speaker 2: Know he's not going to do We're going to be
called out of the darkness or not.
Speaker 1: Like, yeah, it seems like, uh like God is uh
like super interested in seeing people burn if he could
save every one of us, and he doesn't.
Speaker 2: Just sounds like he just wants people to burn. Pretty sadistic.
Speaker 9: Actually, well, I don't think I don't think so, because
because because of Romans one says that deep down, if
we were honest with ourselves, that all would know that
he's that he exists and we would not the lie
and that it's not his.
Speaker 2: Wish that that that anyone should.
Speaker 3: But do you know, do you understand how weird that
is from someone who's never been a Christian to hear, Like, yeah,
it's it's like I could understand how like if you're
born into Christianity and then you're like out of it
and someone brings up Roman's one ten, there might be
this like residual kind of thing going on, and like
because it's so ingrained from a child as you was
a child, So I feel like it'd be really hard
to always shake the God stuff off or the Christian
stuff off completely, Like it feels like you'd always revert
kind of back in, And anyone who's been a Christian
can tell me, if I'm anywhere close to the ballpark,
this is how I think. And if that was the case,
like like I'm the opposite, right, I've never been grown
up into any of this. So when see people say,
like you're suppressing this proposition that you don't spend any
time thinking about, like, oh man, God's really existing, It's
the weirdest fucking thing. It's like it's like the ultimate
form of gas lighting. It's like I didn't I didn't
believe in any of this shit. It's like if I
came up to you and you believe in Zargonthonos and
you're like, what the fuck is Zargonthonos, Like you really
suppressed Argonthonos, Like it would just be weird to you.
You just be like, what the fuck is? What is this?
So I just don't understand.
Speaker 9: But I think Romans one is dealing with with the
teleological argument though Romans.
Speaker 3: Romans one is just something in a book that says
a thing. I really could care less about it. I
want to put like you know, it's it's.
Speaker 9: Not it's not necessarily saying that you will know salvation
through Jesus Christ.
Speaker 2: It's saying that you know there's a God. And that's
why I look, we don't looking at it.
Speaker 3: Do you understand when I say it's there's a book
and it says a thing like that, that's not like,
clearly that's a fact. It's a book. It's saying a thing.
We've gone nowhere else from there, right? Could you understand
how I'm just going, Look, you're just saying some more
books as a thing stuff. It could never convince me.
It's just some book has some words, says a thing.
Speaker 2: What do you think?
Speaker 3: J Mike and I just go, I think the book
says a thing. I agree, I think it says a thing.
But what how do I get convinced by that?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 9: I mean I don't think that you can get convinced
unless God opens your heart and deposit faith in you.
Speaker 3: That's what the case sounds like. He does not want
me to sounds like he doesn't want me to believe.
I mean, he would know exactly what I would walk
past and go like if he set up something for
me to to be like, you know, accepting of him
and believing him anything's any sign or anything that he
would do. He would know ahead of time if I'd
walk right by it and not notice it, right, he
would know that.
Speaker 2: He has done that for many people. That's what's what's interesting.
Speaker 3: Okay, So but he hasn't done it for He hasn't
done it for me. All right, Okay, so that's not
I don't yeah.
Speaker 2: Ok yeah, all right.
Speaker 9: In apologetics that that is one of the time.
Speaker 3: It sounds like God doesn't want everybody to be believers.
It sounds like the stuff you believe isn't true, like
he just wants me to burn it hell well.
Speaker 9: From the Christian worldview, from because because of Rome was
when we would say that we're all we've all sinned,
we've all fallen, and we all shake our fist to God.
Speaker 2: God knows the future, but we don't. We don't believe
in God of reality, right you? You don't want to
believe if it's not going to If I know, I
had nothing to do with wanting to believe. I was
a christon for twenty years. I wanted to believe. I
just don't believe anymore. So like if I read.
Speaker 1: From you like one of the the Vedas and it says, actually,
all Christians do believe in the Hindu gods.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's an adorable claim, but it's not true.
Speaker 3: Right, So that's a really good a really good example. Yeah,
that's a really good example, right, because you would just
look at that like, yeah, I understand this is an
established religion that billions of people believe or millions of
people believe, But that does nothing for.
Speaker 9: Me, right, Well, I mean from a Christian worldview, we
don't reject that there's not supernatural or demonic power in
other religions.
Speaker 2: No, I didn't say anything about demons.
Speaker 1: I said, you believe in the actual literal gods of
the Hindu pantheon, not demons.
Speaker 2: Well, we would believe that.
Speaker 9: Those are demonic God, I mean demons, I said God.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it's in there that you that's what you
you suppress and you actually believe. So yeah, that's not
different than and if I go if I did the
same thing with you, and I'm like no, and you're
like yeah, but it's yahweh, and I'm like no, But
under my view, it wouldn't be yahweh. It would just
be like, you know, this collective society like putting this
kind of fictional figure into my head and whatever. You're like, no, no, no,
that fictional figure thinks in your head's really God and
you really believe it. I'd be like, Okay, asshole, thanks right,
that would be my response.
Speaker 9: I understand that, I understand that you can make that argument,
and I grant you that argument. I don't granted as
the truth claim though, because I would say that in
the Christian worldview, we have the belief that the Most
High God is the God of the Bible, and that
he's gathering up with people. He's gathering up weed and tears,
and that people that are deluded were allowed to be deluded,
and those are terrors. They'll be thrown into fire and
the wheat will be gathered and harvested. I mean, that's
that's a Christian world that's an honest Christian worldview. We
want people to be harvested because.
Speaker 2: We know the worldview.
Speaker 1: We're asking why we should should believe that it's true. Like,
I don't think either one of us are confused by
the worldview.
Speaker 9: Okay, Okay, Well, I would say that when you compare
Christianity to other religions, is that it's the only coherent
truth claim of a supernatural deity, that is the God
of the Bible. I would say that that Christianity is
the only one that you.
Speaker 2: Not coherent nation.
Speaker 1: You already said it violates the laws of logic, so
it's it's already a logical out.
Speaker 2: Of the laws of logic. I don't think they. I
just demonstrated how it did.
Speaker 1: It violates the law of identity, right, So Jesus can't
be identical to God if he's distinct from God. God
has some like necessary characteristics. According to you, he's omniscient.
Jesus is not omnipresident. Jesus is not.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I never said God was omnisci though.
Speaker 4: Hold on.
Speaker 9: I believe that God knows knows the results. He can
see the beginning from the end. But I don't believe
that God necessarily knows all things. And the Bible doesn't claim.
Speaker 2: That the Bible does.
Speaker 3: In First John, he sees the beginning to the end,
but he doesn't know all things. What does that even mean?
Speaker 2: Hold on? When does?
Speaker 3: When does?
Speaker 9: When does the claim? When does the Bible claim that
God is omniscient?
Speaker 2: First John three twenty what's his day? Three? First it
says pray.
Speaker 1: Whenever your hearts condemn us whenever our hearts condemn us,
for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.
Speaker 2: The prior verse will actually give you a better context.
What are you're talking about?
Speaker 1: But it says, and by this we know that we
are from the truth and will reassure our hearts before
him whenever our hearts condemn us, for God is greater
than our hearts.
Speaker 2: He knows everything.
Speaker 9: Yeah, but I would have to look at a verse
like where it says that God cannot be tempted. So
if he cannot be tempted, he can't know what temptation is.
Speaker 2: Like you see what I'm so, let means Jesus thing God.
Speaker 1: Yeah, James says God cannot tempt nor can God be tempted.
Speaker 2: This means Jesus saying God. That's a good point.
Speaker 9: This is where the trinity would come in. So God
became a human being in order that he could be
tempted in the most the.
Speaker 1: Hebrew Bible says that God is not a man, the
father can does God's nature change?
Speaker 2: Does God's name?
Speaker 1: I don't know it could because if God's nature doesn't
include a human body, but he changes from non human
to human. What that means is that God's nature has
now changed. So now you're a modalist, you're a hair tech.
Speaker 9: Now, well, I'm just I mean, I'm not the I'm
not the best theologian. Like I said, I have a
very simplistic Christian worldview. I'm okay with saying that I
don't know and can't explain the mysteries of the Trinity.
But I do believe in the Christian God as being
the most high God, and I believe that it is
still the most coherent worldview in my research. And I
only can't be my life in the application of the
Christian faith in my life, which has made my life better.
Speaker 2: And I mean, I'm sure it did.
Speaker 1: I mean, but that's whether or not an improved life
isn't meaningful to us. Like there's a lot of things
that can improve a person's life. It doesn't actually make
the metaphysical claim true. But like, if we've already demonstrated
that the Christian worldview entails contradictions, it's not.
Speaker 2: Really a good worldview to believe in.
Speaker 1: And I would add to it as well, if you
are actually serious about the Christian worldview, like you should
have read the Hebrew Bible and asked yourself, what does
the Hebrew Bible say the Messiah is going to do?
And the Hebrew Bible describes lots of stuff that the
Messiah is going to do. Jesus didn't do none of it.
And when you look at the stuff he did do
not even in there. Jesus did a whole bunch of random,
out of context prophecies that aren't prophecies.
Speaker 9: Right, And I mean, I understand that's that's a deconstructionist
or an atheist worldview, but I would just say that
no limited knowledge of prophecy is they non fulfilled many prophecies.
And I mean that's going to be a faith claim.
I mean, I take it in faith.
Speaker 1: Well, you don't have to be an atheist to believe that.
The Jews already believed that. The Jews believe that Jesus
was a false messiah who fulfilled no prophecies.
Speaker 2: So it's not just an as the scripture.
Speaker 9: Says that that they that they denied that they that
they were the ones.
Speaker 2: They of course they denied it because he didn't do anything.
Speaker 1: The guy came, he led people astray and then he
claimed to be a messiah, knowing full well he wasn't Messiah,
and then he got his hung up.
Speaker 2: On a cross. So he's just a he's just a
bloke that was out of his mind and now he's
warm food.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 9: So the testimony of the Christian faith is totally different
than that, is that he violated They said he violated
the Sabbath and he was performing miracles, and they were
jealous and they wanted to go about their religion, you know,
in a fair sakes.
Speaker 2: They would say that.
Speaker 1: So they But if I was writing the book too
about my superhero, I'd say that too.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, well, but again, I'll leave you.
Speaker 1: I'll leave you with this because we were we had
two people I wanted to get in and one of
them just dropped.
Speaker 2: Because we're coming upon our time limit.
Speaker 1: One of the reasons why Jesus could not have been
the Messiah or anything to do with the New Covenant
is because it says in Jeremiah thirty one thirty one,
when the New Covenant comes, it's going to be tween
in between the House of Israel and Judah. So these
are the Hebrews, the Israelites, and says this covenant that
I will make with the House of Israel. After those days,
says the Lord, I will put my law within them.
I will write it on their hearts. I will be
their God, and they will be my people. No longer
shall they teach one another or say to each other,
know the Lord, For they shall all know.
Speaker 2: Me, from the least of them to the greatest, says
the Lord.
Speaker 1: So, according to Jeremiah thirty one, when this new Covenant
era rolls around, every single person of the House of Israel,
every Jewish person, every Hebrew that's left alive, they're going
to know the Lord.
Speaker 2: But that certainly has never happened.
Speaker 1: In fact, about fifty percent of worldwide Jews today don't
even believe in a God, So.
Speaker 2: This prophecy could have never come through so far.
Speaker 9: Say that's that that will be fulfilled in Christ ultimately, I.
Speaker 2: Mean, it just will never ends on. Well it wasn't
you read that prophecy?
Speaker 6: But it's not.
Speaker 2: Christianity is losing steam. People are leaving. I mean that's fine.
Speaker 9: I mean it's a narrow road an he's supposed to
lose stream. Actually, I would say deconstructionists are helping the
faith because they're sifting the wheat from the tears.
Speaker 2: Because people that certainly are they.
Speaker 1: Were they were never saved to be that's adorable that
you think that, But you're also wrong according to Hebrews
chapter four.
Speaker 3: But did you he also he was just about to
say they were never saved. He was, Yeah, it's funny
how that. I was like after the fact, that's like
really easy. But yeah, well they were.
Speaker 2: Christians that do get saved. Now Christians do get saved.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: I don't think that that push has actually saved, is
my my my claim. Demonstrate that you're claved, that you're saved.
Speaker 3: Or claved, that sounds hot information.
Speaker 9: I can demonstrate by the transformation of my life, the
fruit that I bear. I mean, I was, well, my
life was transformed when I became a Christian.
Speaker 2: And your life was transformed.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think every person that's ever been a Christian
would probably say that. I mean, like other they're not
just like, nah, I'm a Christian today. It's kind of
like a normal Tuesday.
Speaker 2: Speak to I can't speak to your experience. So here's
the thing.
Speaker 9: If I turned from my faith, then I would say, yes,
you turned you apostasized.
Speaker 6: I haven't.
Speaker 2: So if you bear fruit and.
Speaker 9: You know what it says, in John it says that
I won't lose any sheep out of my hand, that
I will preserve them. I give them eternal life. So
if I were to apostize, I always says I haven't
lost that.
Speaker 2: You're clear, I haven't lost any any of the sheep.
Speaker 9: I will keep them in my hand, right, yeah, So,
so I would say it when it was alive your
fruit and and you're transformed by the Christian faith, then
you will waltz your way into heaven and God will
preserve you.
Speaker 2: And well, that's not the Hebrews.
Speaker 1: Hebrews six, this abundantly disagrees with you, right says, is
it impossible. It is impossible to restore again to repentance
those who have once been enlightened and have tasted the
heavenly gift and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and
have tasted the good word of God and the powers
of the age to come, and then have fallen away,
since they are crucifying the Son of God to their
own harm and are holding them up to condemned. So
part of the book of Hebrews and other passages and
New Testament, you can in fact be like part of
the Holy Spirit. You can participate in the kingdom and
then you can fall away. In fact, if you couldn't
fall away, if become a Christian meant that you couldn't
change your mind. That means God is just removing your
free will, which is a that's like the whole thing
Christian's lean on. Like the reason why God had to
do all these genocides and create hell and all this
nonsense is because he valued free will so much. But
like the minute you decide to believe in this sky carcass,
all of a sudden, he removes your free will.
Speaker 2: That's another direct contract.
Speaker 9: That's why the Bible says that those are predestined, that
those who are called are predestined.
Speaker 1: That sounds like that, That sounds like people going to
Hell is just by his crusing then and again he's
a sadist.
Speaker 9: Now again, it's he knows the intentions and the thoughts
of your heart. So if you're not going to choose him,
and he knows the future, he's not going to call.
Speaker 2: He's not going to deposit faith because.
Speaker 1: No, but you would choose him if he called you,
because you can't resist as will Romans nine.
Speaker 9: Yeah, Well, he knows in his people who has the
ability for him to sustain through their free will, because
God is able to give free will to secondary beings
and know those who He's going to be able to
sustain in their free will. So free, God is sovereign.
God is sovereign over our free will.
Speaker 2: He can victually we actually send some of those powerful
delusions to the mask people's free will.
Speaker 9: According to the Bible, Yeah, because those people are not
they would continue to run back to their sin.
Speaker 2: They would, they would aposotize.
Speaker 3: But you know, he doesn't say that. Again, I don't
think he heard what he said.
Speaker 2: And the Bible says that God sends a strong delusion.
Speaker 1: It also says in second and Sence four four that
God allows Satan to blind the eyes of the unbelievers.
Says that the God of this world has blinded the
minds of the unbelievers to keep them from seeing clearly.
Speaker 2: The light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ. So, like, listen,
if God is allowing Satan to run around to just
blind people to a love the Gospel, it seems like
God doesn't really want people in heaven.
Speaker 9: No, because he's going to call his people, He's going
to have the wheat from the terrors sifted.
Speaker 2: He does want his people in heaven.
Speaker 3: It's a little special club that like God.
Speaker 2: Has allowed that.
Speaker 9: And when you look at the world, which you when
you look at what's going on with Epstein and Trump
and all this stuff, you see the strong delusion that's
the Bible is very.
Speaker 2: These people, these people are are pedophiles about God.
Speaker 3: We want accountability on that front. It's a little bit
we're just looking for, like the accountability for.
Speaker 1: Well, I'll tell you what We're We're running short on time,
so I'll make you one proposition. If you can show
me even one Messianic prophecy from the Hebrew Bible that
Jesus fulfilled, I will I will admit that Jesus wasn't
a complete fraud.
Speaker 2: Well, you're not going to accept him.
Speaker 9: But I mean, all the way back in Genesis you
got Psalm twenty two, Isaiah fifty three, Isaiah forty five.
Speaker 6: I mean, bick one.
Speaker 2: It's a bunch of them. Pick your I pick your
favorite one because none of those are about Jesus. You're
you're not going to You're not going to accept. I mean,
I'm going to explain to you why they're not about Jesus.
Which one you want to go to? Well, I'm not
going to accept your explanator. I've already been through this
many times. But you I mean going. You don't have
to accept my explanation.
Speaker 1: We're gonna put out on the table and the audience
is going to figure out who's right and who's wrong.
Speaker 2: So which one do you want to go to? If
God doesn't call him? Twenty two?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Psalm twenty six? All right?
Speaker 1: What about Psalm twenty two is a prophecy at all?
Speaker 2: But first of all, what do you think of prophecy? Is?
Speaker 9: Uh, it's it's speaking of wait, do I have to
do a messianic prophecy?
Speaker 2: Can I do?
Speaker 3: Any?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 2: Yeah, Jesus, Jesus.
Speaker 1: And if he didn't fulfill a messianic prophecy, he's not
a messiah.
Speaker 2: That's what it means to be the Messiah.
Speaker 3: You're doing Aladdin, Aladdin prophecy?
Speaker 4: What you do?
Speaker 9: Yeah, that's fine, I mean, we can we can go
with So, I mean I take it in faith that
Psalm twenty two it perfectly describes the cruise and fixion
when it says that they cast lots for my garment
for example, Actually.
Speaker 1: That's about me, that that, in fact, happened to me
two weeks ago.
Speaker 2: In fact, I had my clothes taken off of me
and cast it.
Speaker 1: They gambled for it, they cast lots for it on
live stream.
Speaker 2: You could watch it. It's obviously about me.
Speaker 3: It sounds hot.
Speaker 1: I've actually had both my hands and my feet hears too,
So it's clearly about me.
Speaker 9: Because I'm just wondering if my life gets better, then
you know, when I became a Christian and then well, this.
Speaker 1: Is a divergency. We're not going to allow you to
divert back to my life got better. We're talking about
Palm twenty two.
Speaker 2: I've already said Psalm twenty two, go ahead.
Speaker 9: I'm just asking you why I should Why would you
want somebody to deconstrul What would you be your argument
to deconstruct truth?
Speaker 1: I want people to follow truth. But that's not about
Psalm twenty two. So Psalm twenty two is David speaking.
It's about his struggle. It just says so at the
beginning of it is a plea for deliverance to the
deer of the dawn, a psalm of David. So David's
speaking here, and he's talking about his present trouble, his struggles. Remember,
he spent most of his life in war, and he's
talking about it using some very beautiful poetic language. In fact,
he says, the dogs are all around me, a company
of evildoers in circle. They bound my hands on my feet.
I can count all my bones. They stare and gloat
over me. They divide my clothes among themselves, and for
my clothing they cast lots.
Speaker 2: I have no idea why you would think this is
a prophecy.
Speaker 1: This is literally what happened in times of war, especially
if you're painting a picture of war as though like
you've actually been captured.
Speaker 2: That's what they did to people.
Speaker 1: They took their valuables, they took your weapons, they took
your clothing, they took your armor.
Speaker 2: It was gone.
Speaker 9: Well, I think it sounds like it describes the crucifixion,
So I mean, it.
Speaker 2: Doesn't say anything about a crucifixion. It just says that
they took his clothes.
Speaker 1: It could describe anybody that lost their clothes in this manner,
including myself, which why I brought it up.
Speaker 9: Yeah, but in a Christian worldview, we believe that prophecy
was put there to scribe I'm.
Speaker 2: Not asking about a Christian worldview.
Speaker 1: I'm asking you to show me from this text why
I would think it's about Jesus.
Speaker 9: I'm just saying that that we believe that that was
ordained to be in New Testament.
Speaker 3: We know that you.
Speaker 2: Believe, No you do.
Speaker 1: We're asking to demonstrate why anyone else should believe that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, We're just looking for reasons that might we can
reflect on and then maybe go, oh shit, that guy
was right.
Speaker 9: Mostly, yeah, it closely relates to the events, and those
that are have have faith are going to interpret it
that way and believe, and those that don't want event
it's a strong delusion that we talked about and not believe,
so the crucifation.
Speaker 1: So any time we find something in the Hebrew Bible
that sounds similar to something that happens later, it's just
now prophetic. I mean, if that's the case, I got
all kinds of prophecies that I've fulfilled. Yeah, Psalm ninety
five eleven. In my anger, I swore, fucking I did it.
Speaker 2: Right now, I fulfilled Psalm ninety five, awesome, Psalm one fifteen.
His word run swiftly. I'm a pretty fast talker.
Speaker 3: I am blowing down at you know, it's all.
Speaker 2: That's making go. I've ridden a donkey more than once.
I fulfilled zach Ryaan.
Speaker 1: Nine carrying the donkey Isaiah sixty six. Or when I spoke,
they did not listen. It's being fulfilled as we speak.
You just fulfilled Isaiah sixty six four. Right now as
we're talking fail easy. It is to fulfilled prophecies if
we just go to the Hebrew Bible and randomly fine
verses that sound familiar to something that like we want
to draw out.
Speaker 3: First Kings, I sent two bears at forty two children
one time, I'm God, kiss my ass.
Speaker 6: Soul.
Speaker 2: Push guys, so I don't we've been having a little bit.
Speaker 3: That one was an Yeah, that was a little less related.
I just really wanted to talk about the kings.
Speaker 2: Had to force it in there conversation. I'll call push.
You've been you've been a good sport.
Speaker 1: But we we really do have to move on to
the next guest. We were teasing near there near the end.
But it's just a good one, all right.
Speaker 2: I appreciate it, all right, I know.
Speaker 3: You're you're a good You're a good sport, good person
to talk to. We appreciate it all right.
Speaker 2: Well, now here's buddy. I just felt like a like
a dad.
Speaker 3: You were a good sport. I don't think I've ever
said that in my life, but the facts are wrong
on me.
Speaker 7: You'll get him next time, Bookeroo, Yeah, you get them
bookero a Champ. It's okay, friends, We're gonna get our
very last guest, Steph, and then we're gonna read our
super chats.
Speaker 1: Thank you for everybody who's send in super chats. It
does help to support the stream. And with that, let's
see Steph looks like they might be calling all the
way from the Great White North and is a theist
and wants to ask the host if they think it's
true that God exists. It sounds like a little bit
of a trap or a weird question.
Speaker 2: But Steff, you're on XP with Justin and Jim. How
you doing?
Speaker 5: Ah?
Speaker 6: Hey, too much war for my taste.
Speaker 10: But uh I good seeing you guys, And you're right,
it's most certainly a trap. My question is do you
think it's true that God exists?
Speaker 2: I mean, we're atheists, so it obviously we would say no,
we don't believe that God exists.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's two ways they could be like, I think
the propositions actually false, or yeah, I don't affirm the proposition.
So in either case, I'm not saying that the proposition
is true.
Speaker 6: Good enough, Yep, that'll do.
Speaker 10: So it's my position, all right, Or I should say
it's the position that anybody that would ask or answer
that question, save this example here where it was me
asking the question kind of tongue in cheek, anybody that
would ask or answer that question hasn't yet laid their
minds eye on God whatsoever. Because just like a cake
has ingredients like say, eggs, sugar, flour, a chair has
ingredients for legs used.
Speaker 6: To sit at table, et cetera.
Speaker 10: That were true, it's ingreedy, and when we look at.
Speaker 6: It is God.
Speaker 2: No, No, it's the Boomafoo.
Speaker 1: There's a there's a truth making character in the universe
called Za boom of food.
Speaker 2: The Booma food causes all truth to be truth y.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 10: And the point about the there's a there is a
truth making being this is really it's really awkward language.
That further shows that there's a probably fourteen billion years
worth of callous projection that you can't look through very well.
You have to talk about God through a reflective projection,
where all kinds of things obviously then are just you know,
you speaking of yourself like I think, but probably I was.
Speaker 2: I was just joking my friend.
Speaker 1: I don't believe there's a truth making entity anywhere, just
saying that if you believe there's a truth making entity,
it could literally anything. I've no reasonablieve that it's God.
But I don't believe that truth is a thing that exists.
Speaker 2: I think truth is just what we call a proposition
that seems to align with reality. That's all.
Speaker 1: There's no like transcendental truth that you can stick into
a bucket or anything like that.
Speaker 5: We can can.
Speaker 6: Certainly contest that as well. I've heard that.
Speaker 10: I've heard that said a lot, you know, a subjective
this subjection. No, like it's it's like I say, like,
as soon as it's time to change me five twenties
for one hundred, all.
Speaker 6: Of a sudden, all of a sudden.
Speaker 10: Like magic, you know, the truth you never give me.
Speaker 2: I don't know what that means.
Speaker 6: It's always five, you know, like the idea the truth.
Speaker 1: Is an evaluative property, Like we're saying, like here's a claim.
The claim is I'm holding a stick of cheese right now.
Speaker 2: Well, Jamike can look. I'm like, oh, this motherfucker looks
like he's got a stick of cheese. So we would
say that that claim that is because hand matches reality.
Speaker 3: That's it.
Speaker 2: That's relater.
Speaker 10: We can then see it's true because there's some kind
of rational reason for confirmation, etc.
Speaker 6: I see you holding up the thing there. Yeah, yeah,
it's to me, it's an objective.
Speaker 10: True sex you're holding something behind you're not coming through
right now.
Speaker 2: But I don't know what to mean by objective.
Speaker 1: I mean we agree that we would treat it as
though it's objectively true. But like when we say that
something's true, as we're saying is that it seems to.
Speaker 2: Align with our perception of reality.
Speaker 1: Sometimes we think that something's true and it's not because
our perception is not perfect.
Speaker 2: Sometimes we need to run more tests.
Speaker 1: But that's all we're When something is true, we're just
saying it seems to align with reality. We're not saying
that it has the property of being true, like not
in an ontological status.
Speaker 2: At least, it's.
Speaker 3: True that snow is white. I'm just saying snow is white.
That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 10: Me clarify quick. Let me let me clarify quick. The
best definition of science, I think possible is the one
that goes as follows. Science is the communication between the
information and our knowledge. And so when we're using this
word true here, I think that we're talking about information
versus our knowledge because actual guys pointed. I mean, yeah,
we can't really drill ahead for exanguination and you know,
let the demons out and be like, oh, there we
treated the fever. But then no, I mean knowledge changes right,
fair enough. But that's a big distinction between our knowledge
and the information.
Speaker 6: And that's what science is.
Speaker 10: It's just the communication between the information and our knowledge.
Speaker 6: And that point in information again is something I.
Speaker 1: Don't know what you mean by communication, and sorry to
interrupt your stuff by I think. I think sure we
would describe that different, Like I would say science is
the process that we engage in to acquire information that
could inform our knowledge. But I wouldn't say that, like
the universe isn't transferring information to us like we are
in we're making inquery about what's around us.
Speaker 10: Yeah, probably the universe wouldn't be transferring information to us.
Speaker 6: How would I put this? Hmm, all right, So, like
let's say, like you're a little kid, you have a.
Speaker 10: Toddler, and like we know, like glowing elements are like
fun to look at. Wow, that's glowing orange. Nothing I've
ever seen is like that. If you put a toddler
in a room with a glowing element for probably in
a few minutes, that kid's gonna learn quickly about you know,
don't touch fire.
Speaker 6: The idea that a toddler would sit next to a
red hot element and never touch it is.
Speaker 10: I don't think that's a thing. I think that's just
a natural process.
Speaker 6: Same thing here.
Speaker 10: When I say that science is the communication between the
information and our knowledge, it's in the exact same thing
where it's like, yeah, universe trying to no. No, it's
it's far more automatic and rigid than that, like not
Like I don't know what that means though, mm hmm.
Speaker 1: Information is what we decide information is. Information is an
abstract concept we decided.
Speaker 6: We're going to no. No.
Speaker 1: But I do know, I don't know what it means
for the universe to be communicating information.
Speaker 6: No, not the universe. Science is the process.
Speaker 1: Science the process of gathering information through observation and experimentation.
Speaker 10: Science is the communication between the information and our knowledge.
Speaker 6: So we're like, hey, how.
Speaker 1: That's not what science where like, hey, is a process
of inquiry and testing an hypothesis.
Speaker 2: Communicating is certainly something you could do.
Speaker 1: But like, if there's a guy that's alone in the woods,
he can do the scientific method without communicating anything.
Speaker 2: You can just do that thing.
Speaker 1: So it's it's not relevant, Like the word communication does
nothing for your definition of science.
Speaker 3: I'm like confusing, like where we're going, but I mean.
Speaker 10: It's it's all connected.
Speaker 6: I mean, like if you.
Speaker 10: Want to see, like make a plane and it doesn't work,
what happens next?
Speaker 2: You're like, where did they figure out why it doesn't work?
Speaker 6: Why didn't Okay?
Speaker 10: And then you're like, okay, long, you know what, Hey,
maybe this maybe that you try this, you try that. Hey,
when we try that, we noticed this and then this
and that or if you put this together with that
and then oh, hey, last night I had a dream
and then now oh and next thing you know, you're
off the cliff and you're actually flying instead of falling
straight to the bottom. What's happened there? There's been a
communication between what would work and what.
Speaker 1: Has not been a communication there's been a discovery. Communication
requires a communicator. The plane's not a communicator. So this
is this is the problem. I think you're just misusing
the word communication and maybe like whatever book you found
this talking point in, it sounded really cool, but the
way you're applying it isn't isn't working for us.
Speaker 6: No, I didn't find talking points and books I think.
I think, then okay, I mean that's enough. That' where
the hiccup is. That's easy enough to see.
Speaker 10: We would say that cold weather creates ice out of water.
We would say that it was cold weather created ice
the water, then cold the cold weather created dice. You
can see it that way, in that kind of a way.
Speaker 6: I'm gonna kind of a way, I would think.
Speaker 3: So again, I'm gonna try it because I'm rapidly losing
you and I'm not trying to be rude, but I
just don't know where we're going, and we're running up
on a little bit of the time, Like I don't all.
Speaker 2: Right, let's talk about actually, all right, so I want.
Speaker 3: To get to like, yeah, I just want to get
to like a point.
Speaker 10: Problem, sure, problem, problem of complex complexity, right, what's the problem.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I didn't know there was a problem.
Speaker 10: Yeah, well, I mean it's it's not a thing that
was not died a while ago, right, Like it's it's
if God made you, then what made your god? Or
who or what made your God?
Speaker 3: Right, I'm not sure what you're I.
Speaker 2: Don't know what you're communicating, my bud.
Speaker 10: Okay, So problem clip complexity goes like this. You can't
really postulate a god because then you have to explain
where that god came from.
Speaker 3: Right, No, you can just say it's necessary that that
God exists, just like I say it's necessary that there's
an initial state of the universe, and someone goes, well,
you need a prior moment before that. It's like, well no,
I could just be someone that denies an infinite past
universe and be like an atheist, and then someone say, oh,
well you need where did that initial state come from?
I could just say it's necessary it had to exist.
So someone can't say that whether it's true it is
a separate question. But someone can say that there's no
problem saying that.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 10: I'm concerned with truth more and more than maybe what
people say.
Speaker 6: My question would be.
Speaker 3: I'm like a deflationist when it comes to truth, Like
I'm not very like well versed in the truth aspect
of philosophy as much as like I would like to be,
But it's not as interesting to me like just to
talk about like the philosophy of truth right now, because
that's just not with the formula.
Speaker 10: Truth is God, I mean yeah, but the God that
you're denying.
Speaker 6: Is truths itself. That's that's the point.
Speaker 2: The truth is why are you denying zaboomafoo?
Speaker 10: I'm sorry, I again, I don't get that point.
Speaker 1: The boomo foo is an entity in outer space that
has always existed and just causes truth to be true.
Speaker 2: That's all.
Speaker 6: Causes truth to be true? Is that? Is that a
micromanaged process? That year you're talking about that.
Speaker 3: He's responsible for there being truth in the world.
Speaker 10: Yep, So it's it's a micromanaged process, right is bo
No just stands from his nature.
Speaker 6: Stands from his because he's truth.
Speaker 10: So then that's why this truth could see his truth Yep. Yeah,
that's God. Yeah, so far a lot.
Speaker 1: Of boom boom of woo is not a god. He
didn't create anything. All he does is is make sure
that truth is truth.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's like a cosmicing tom that lived, you know,
alongside the universe, but wasn't responsible for creating it, and
he just keeps everything in order, like a librarian of
the universe. Right, no contradiction, And a being that's always
existed but not responsible for like finds itself in a
world like a universe next to it that's also also existed,
and he's just maintaining truth. I don't see a contradiction.
Seemed perfectly like a someone could have.
Speaker 10: Existing and true are kind of synonymous. There would be
no aside there.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, no, no, that's not the case.
Speaker 1: Existence and truth are describing entirely separate ideas.
Speaker 6: Show me anything in existence without truth.
Speaker 1: So again they're describing different ideas. So the truth is
the idea that that a proposition comports the reality. Existence
is just saying something has existence.
Speaker 2: It's just a property of being.
Speaker 6: Anything exists without truth.
Speaker 1: Again, I'm not saying that you need to get rid
of one of the other, or like you can have
one without the other.
Speaker 2: What I'm saying is they're different.
Speaker 3: Yeah, like, look, you can you can have like a
tree exists and then someone goes, but is that true
that that tree at that park exists and it's like, well, yeah,
it is true that there is a tree at the
park and that exists.
Speaker 10: Okay, so like different like uh, scheme is H tool,
ice is H tool, and water's HE tool.
Speaker 6: They're H tool, but they're all different like that.
Speaker 2: That's not at all what we said. Nope, No, what
we're saying is that.
Speaker 1: Like truth, it doesn't exist. Truth isn't a thing that exists.
We already went over this place. I feel like we're
going in.
Speaker 3: Certain things and we can describe them as like it
being true that they exist or true that.
Speaker 6: They have leave.
Speaker 10: I say, truth doesn't exist until I try to change you.
You know, five twenties, four one hundred and all of
a sudden, I don't get six or seven or eight twenties.
You give me five twenties at free time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because we know how to do math. That's this
is called math.
Speaker 6: What's math?
Speaker 1: Disc Again, truth isn't something that exists. Truth is something
that we describe.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: If I said that I'm holding my hand up right now, listen,
it's either true or it's not that I'm holding my
hand up.
Speaker 2: But that doesn't mean that truth exists.
Speaker 1: It's just a way we describe the process of voute evaluation.
Speaker 2: That's like saying untruthfulness exists. Do you think untruthfulness exists?
Speaker 6: That's a very tricky question.
Speaker 10: It's a very tricky well not my worldview, but for
intens and purposes.
Speaker 6: No, but it shouldn't have.
Speaker 10: An effect then, but we see that nothingness has effect,
so it.
Speaker 2: Okay, So do you do you think false exists?
Speaker 6: Yeah? I guess, exact same answer. Exact same answer.
Speaker 2: Okay, So do you think true and false exists? Gotcha?
So again, we're going to.
Speaker 4: Give you the true.
Speaker 10: Yes, truth and true depart and parcel with existence itself.
Speaker 2: False, the truth exists, but falsity doesn't exist.
Speaker 6: False. Yeah, false has effect, But does it exist in
the same way truth exist?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 6: Absolutely not.
Speaker 1: Why like you can see why why would one exist
not the other in your world view?
Speaker 10: Okay, you simply take the uh right, we have space
launch recently, take a rocket?
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 10: If we've been observing two plus three pos before, yeah,
and not positing five in the place.
Speaker 6: Of what is two plus two equalism? Hold? Talk about this?
Do you think you got to hear me? She's the
thing two? Also, I haven't you're not.
Speaker 2: Answering the question.
Speaker 3: You're not so it's getting frustrating. This might be even easier.
Do you think that there's an entity called running?
Speaker 6: An entity?
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's like a thing we talk about. I went running.
Do you think there's a thing called running that exists
in the world.
Speaker 6: When somebody is running?
Speaker 3: And I didn't say when somebody's I didn't say about
performance of somebody doing the act. I'm saying of like
moving their legs and exerting force on the ground that
we could describe as running. I'm asking, is there an
entity called running in the world? Is there something? Is
there something that exists called running?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 6: I think that's when people are running.
Speaker 3: I think you're just so confused on this. There's not
a thing called running for people that move their legs
on the ground and exert force on pop and they
take their foot off, and we describe it as running.
There's not I can't get the run, No, friend, No,
hang on, are you talking about? This is very simple
to understand.
Speaker 6: Here's why. Here's why.
Speaker 2: Because friends, I'm not to interrupt you.
Speaker 1: I have an eight o'clock appointment that I have to
cut this short for, so I can't keep this conversation rolling.
Speaker 3: No worries, I'm I'm a empty stomach, so gives me
time to get some freez.
Speaker 10: Let me call back one time next time.
Speaker 1: I come on, let me come back and call us
whenever you want. I've got to I've got to shut
her down and get over to another another program. But
thank you for calling in and we'll talk to you
again soon, Willow Dragon our first super chat. That's my
boy right there, Stephi Phillo Dragon, thank you for sending
our first super chat tonight ten hours super because Mike
and Justin equals MJ of counter apologetic.
Speaker 2: Let's fucking go.
Speaker 1: Thank you Phil a Dragon, and I'm gonna make sure
I get this one right hard tip for a lot.
Thank you for the twenty yen super chat and also
an additional I think twenty yen super chat.
Speaker 2: I really appreciate that. Friends.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's that's awesome. That's really cool. I think that's
what it was, really okay.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 3: Whenever I would read the super chats and have the currency,
I'd be like sweat and bullets, like, oh, I'm gonna
look really dumb not knowing different currencies here, so I'm
gonna show my americanness like very quickly.
Speaker 2: And sorry. We have to.
Speaker 1: We have to cut it short directly at eight o'clock.
I kind of lost track of time, Ja, Mike, I
was having so much fun chat with you tonight. Can't
wait to do it again, and I thought we got
into some really good conversations. Actually it's a shame that
we didn't have more time, but we'll do it again
next week.
Speaker 2: Friends. We also want to thank our backup host Jamie
the Blind Life. Thank you so much, my friend.
Speaker 8: Not to use time, but the whole show just said
it to me, like if if forty is the power
of x red apple trees fall in the forests there
to experience counting them, does God killit?
Speaker 6: Squirrels? Anyway?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think those and the callers listen don't like
it down Like I don't want someone to feel like
down on themselves when we talk about the colors. But
because they're all really cool, like nice guys like you
know I had, you know, I I had no problem
with them. But it's just we don't agree with the reasons,
and some of them we're scratching our head a lot
in this show.
Speaker 8: I'll say that we both did an excellent job and
we shouldn't keep justin he's a man in demand.
Speaker 1: Well, apparently I'm supposed to be somewhere directly at eight o'clock,
which I was aware of, but I had a reminder
sent to me.
Speaker 2: I was like, oh, I guess I better go.
Speaker 3: No worries. Well, yeah, that's all. That's all good. We
were at the last caller we went on. We went
about an hour over. I think, so pretty Yeah, thanks
for doing pretty well.
Speaker 2: We had a good time.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was happy with it. It was that one time
I could like spend the time over, which was nice
and so well.
Speaker 2: Friends, thank you for joining us.
Speaker 1: We'll be here, same place, same time, four thirty pm
Central Standard time, and make sure if you are having
inquiries about volunteering for the ACA, go to volunteer at
Atheistcommunity dot org.
Speaker 2: Love to see you to get involved. Thank you so much, friends,
We love you.
Speaker 1: Alight.
Speaker 2: Way to start already, y'all stop listening the bullshit every.
Speaker 3: Around you, guys, day of y'all.
Speaker 9: Welcome back.
Speaker 5: Ellen Welthyn love y'all.
Speaker 11: Watch Talkie Than live Sundays at one pm Central. Visit
tiny dot c c slash y T t H and
call into the show at five one two nine nine
one nine two four two, or connect to the show
online at tiny dot c c slash call th
Speaker 2: H The Three