Speaker 1: All right. I apologize because as we were beginning to
end the discussion, the internet cut out and I did
not get to hear our druid guests arguments and position.
He thinks that I was silent, had nothing to say,
but it was my connection. So I wanted to reset
the conversation. And we're going to start a whole new
chat for Islam, Catholicism, evangelicalism, liberalism, atheism. We're going to
maybe move away from all the dismensationless stuff from earlier
and go ahead and state what you were saying earlier.
Can you hear me? Now? Can you you hear me? Good?
Speaker 2: You need to bring up a Catholic, a Muslim, and
a evangelical and a liberal and an atheist.
Speaker 1: For a real debate. Do you want to make your
druid arguments or not? So what's your question? I didn't
hear the stuff you said when the X space cut out?
So what do is your argument for druidism?
Speaker 2: This has no basis, So there's no argument on anything.
Speaker 1: What do you want me to say?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 1: What what are you trolling? You're the one that said
that you wanted to talk about druid stuff.
Speaker 2: No, I wanted to talk to other peoples and their religion.
Speaker 1: Now you're here to debate me or you're just wasting
everyone's time, okay, So ask me a question. Then why
should we believe Druidism? I'm not asking you to believe
in anything. Yeah, are you here to debate or not?
Why did you waste everybody's time? I made this space
to come back and have this chat with you, and
you're just wasting everybody's time. So what's the jew it?
From what you think? What is the jod the indigenous
religion of the British Isles British Isles, no, okay, Irish
Scottish Isles, hebrides yeah more so okay? So and is
that true or what? Yeah?
Speaker 2: They had their gods like the two Atadi Denan and
then there's the Norse, right, the pantheon of the Norse.
Speaker 1: So oh dan freya? Oh that? And you ascribe to
this as true or not? I do because it's my creator? Okay.
How do you know that that's your creator? Your creator's
plural or creator creators, So it's plural. And how do
you know that this religion is true?
Speaker 2: Because there are four winds? Right, there are four different
places surrounding our So you're.
Speaker 1: An insane person. You're wasting everyone's time. Thank you, good job.
So the religion is true because there's four winds. You
can't make this up. I've made this space because I
wanted to have a discussion with a quote druid and
he's literally just wasted everyone's time. Lamia. By the way,
he sounded drunk.
Speaker 4: So Lamia, Hey, this is his wife. Actually have a question. Okay,
So Matthew eleven one through eleven, does this openly admit?
John the Baptist had doubt and yeah, just questions.
Speaker 1: You read the specific passage. I'm in the bathtub, so
I don't have it in front of me.
Speaker 4: Oh God, on one second, one second?
Speaker 1: Are you talking about the passes where it says that
whether he is a messiah or not, he's not sure?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 4: Yeah. So after Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples,
he went on from there to teach and preach in
the towns of Galilee. When John, who wasn't in prison,
heard about the deeds of the Messigh, he sent his
disciples to ask him, are you the one who is
to come or should we expect someone else? Jesus replied,
go back and report to John what you hear and see.
The blind receives sight, the lame walk, those who have
leprosy are cleansed. The deaf here the dead arrays, and
the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Blesses anyone
who does not stumble on account of me. As John's
disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd
about John. What did you go out into the wilderness
to see a reed swayed by the wind? If not,
what did you go out to see a man dressed
in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are
king's palaces. In king's palaces, then what did you go
out to see a prophet? Yes, I tell you, and
more than a prophet, this is the one about whom
it is written, I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your wife before you.
Speaker 1: Right, So, most of the Apostles, many of the Jews,
and then people who first heard Christ's message when he
began to preach, they were not sure about the totality
of what his mission was. So many of them did
not know or they didn't understand, that he was going
to die and to resurrect if you read Luke twenty four,
Jesus then later explains all of these things to them
and says and he brings them to their remembrance. So
there is not that he doubted, It's just that they
weren't sure what the whole plan was.
Speaker 4: So for mind, like when I read it, I believe
that it would be doubt, But like, what do you
think that's meaning? Like in that message?
Speaker 1: Literally what I just said? Did you not hear what
I said? Luke twenty four and other passages explained the
context as to progressive revelation. So, for example, in Matthew sixteen,
when Jesus confesses that Peter is the son of God,
Jesus rewards him and says, blessed are you Simon Barjona
because you confess this right. The other disciples had not
yet figured out his divine status, although they might have
suspected it. So that doesn't equate to doubt. It equates
to the unsurety as to what exactly the Messiah was
going to do do Because even though many Jews believed
in a Messiah, they were not sure about the death
browne resurrection. That's why after Jesus dies, the apostles are
afraid and scared, and they don't understand it. Then after
the Resurrection in Luke twenty four, Jesus has a conversation
with the disciples and he says, all of these things, right,
I will explain to you from the prophets from the
Old Testament, and that he brought it all to their
remembrance and opened their eyes to understand the scriptures, it
says in Luke twenty four. So prior to that, although
they had a faith in him, they were unsure as
to the full mission. That makes sense.
Speaker 4: So it's your like saying doubt wouldn't be like the
answer at all? What was that I didn't catch that
doubt wouldn't be an answer at all, like an option
in that interpretation.
Speaker 1: Well, I think doubt constitutes a specific disbelief. And if
John's not sure, that's not necessarily the same thing as
disbelieving the Messiah, because he had baptized him, but he
wasn't sure about the full mission of the Messiah as
to what his job was.
Speaker 4: So is it not okay to have disbelief?
Speaker 1: I mean, are you not? I'm not trying to be rude,
but are you guys drunk over there? You don't understand
what I'm saying.
Speaker 4: Probably not, is that okay?
Speaker 1: I'm just questioning, Well, I mean, are you questioning to
troll me?
Speaker 4: Or is this are you No, I'm just questioning to
understand where you're coming from. And if you understand where
I'm coming from.
Speaker 1: So doubt would be disbelieved, not trusting God not the
same thing as being unclear about all the theology of
the scripture and redemtive history.
Speaker 4: Well, I'm saying, like, even if you were clear, can
you have a moment of disbelief?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Is that okay?
Speaker 1: Yes? People do have Yeah, sure, So.
Speaker 4: Do you think that was in that case? Or you
can't really tell?
Speaker 1: Again, I don't think that lack of clarity about the
Massiah's mission equates to the sin of not believing God.
Why because of all the things that I've been telling
you for the last five minutes.
Speaker 4: Well, but like there, do you think there's any way
it can equate based off of showing that you know,
we're not We're imperfect and we could have weakness with
disbelief if we, you know, have faith in that and
we could some have moments of disbelief.
Speaker 1: I think there's many other passages that do talk about
people struggling with faith and we're all sinners, as John says.
So yes, but I don't think think that this is
a specific period in redentive history where before the death
rone resurrection again, not everything was clear even to the disciples,
and Luke twenty four makes that very clear. So Peter,
can I give you an example of the actual doubt? Peter, So,
when Peter denies Christ, he doubts. I don't think this example,
John the Baptist constitutes doubt. I just think he doesn't
know exactly what the mission is.
Speaker 4: Well in those moments of doubts, like Jesus brought up
those messages from you know, the prophets and everything, like
you said, So it just brings you know, his voice
to be heard in those moments rather than just focusing
on John in that moment.
Speaker 1: I don't know what that means. I'm sorry, this is
like Gang Wien, I'm you. So I restarted an entire
space for the druid and his wife and they weren't coherent,
so it was a complete waste of time. But we're happy.
I'm happy to keep going. Gang Green, what's.
Speaker 5: Up, Hey, I listened to your debate with Ryan Dawson
a while back. Is this the wrong time to catch
up on that or ask the questions?
Speaker 6: No?
Speaker 7: I remember, yeah, yeah, I was watching it with some
friends and your point some of the like the people
in my group were just saying, like, your.
Speaker 5: Point of view is kind of like vague, Like could you, like,
since you said that you remember it vaguely, could you
describe your point of view?
Speaker 1: Like what was whose point of view is vague? He
was arguing the truth is relative from what I recall.
How is arguing for objective truth vague?
Speaker 5: But this had to do something with God, right, like
the existence of God?
Speaker 1: Yeah, and Ryan Dawson was an atheist skeptical relativist, which
means that truth is relative, right.
Speaker 5: But can you summarize it for a normy like you're like, like,
because I still don't understand like what you meant, right,
it's like a very like the way that you cornered him,
like and I and I understand what you're doing right, like,
but to enorm me, it's very hard to understand what
that means.
Speaker 1: Like, I mean, so claims are either relative or they're
objectively true. There's no middle ground there, So either something
is the case factually, objectively apart from my own personal
subjective feelings of my personal ideas about it. You know,
two plus two equals four. It doesn't matter how I
feel about that, or whether I want it to be five,
or whether the majority of society decides that two plus
two is four. It objectively is the case, regardless of
human perception or construable relative What does.
Speaker 5: The disconnect with you and Ryan Dawson, Like, whatever you're
saying right now is like like common sense, like base.
Speaker 1: Ryan Dawson believes that truth is relative and he's a
skeptical relativist. That was the debate, and I argued that
if you hold that position, you can't make any truth claims,
much less the claim that God doesn't exist.
Speaker 5: So what what is your argument that God exists?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 5: How if you had a couple of sentences to describe
that God exists, what would you say?
Speaker 1: It's an argument from the impossibility of the contrary that
without the ex existence of a specific type of Christian
God that we argue for, you could not have a
basis for knowledge. Claims for ethical claims or claims about
reality that could not be epistemically grounded are justified.
Speaker 5: So what would you say to someone that says, like,
the idea of God is a phenomenon that human nature
prescribes to because we have an ability to reason, right,
like for example, like an animal that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So those are all assertions and the ability to
do those things does not make it true, nor does
it prove that it's universally the case or true.
Speaker 5: Right, But like evolution is not only physiological right like
it could be.
Speaker 1: So now you're digging the hole even deeper because appealing
to a principle of change in nature does not in
any way prove the.
Speaker 5: First But why but why is digging a whole deeper
and bad thing? Why is that discrediting?
Speaker 1: Okay, you're trolling. You can't be a serious person. What's
something for him? If anybody wants to come on and
you would like to present an argument, ask a question,
give a challenge, you can. We seem to be getting
not serious people now. So maybe I made a mistake
in coming back here. I don't know. But any atheist,
any materialists, any Roman Catholics, any Muslims, and the evangelicals.
I've restarted this whole space for that druid guy, and
he was just waste. I can't believe wasted everybody's time.
Just try to have a good connection. Man, what's up?
Speaker 8: You heard me?
Speaker 9: Yeah, I promise this would be the last time I'll
call him today.
Speaker 1: But it's fine. It was just hard to hear you
last time.
Speaker 10: Yeah.
Speaker 9: No, I was working, man, and I I draw a
trug for living.
Speaker 11: So well that's yeah, that's what that was.
Speaker 9: This question pertains to, like, well, yeah, this is what
I was gonna say earlier, and it's sorry about that.
In regards to like the Protestant circles like on Twitter, uh,
I see Luisi and Rachel Lanny here, so maybe one
of them can call in like right after me and
speak to it, because I know Rachel interacts with these
people all the damn time, especially the women.
Speaker 12: Uh.
Speaker 9: And I've seen Luigi going back and forth with some
of them like the past couple of weeks or whatever.
Speaker 11: But have you heard of this, uh?
Speaker 9: That that ship that George Jenko does, the the orthor
not not the Christian Avengers. It's basically just him and
like him and a whole bunch of other Protestants. Uh,
that that city that like get together, Like I'm not
sure if they do, they get together whatever and they
I'm not exactly sure if it's just like reading like
quote minding quote minding the Bible or whatever, but I mean,
that's that's essimply what it's gonna amount to be.
Speaker 1: The way it's right.
Speaker 9: So like the the one that Andrew got into a
debate with quote the debate with a couple of months ago.
And this is why I wish Chase was still on
here early, because he he got on the the space
with auto correct, like right after this happened, and he
started like he started like really getting into it with her,
like he was questioning, you know her, he was I
guess you could say he was pre supping her and
like it. And he was like the spelling this notion
that Andrew couldn't be a Christian because he was mean
like this this ship that they always say that, you know,
if you're like, they discredit you being a Christian, if
you're what they considered to be mean.
Speaker 1: Or or whatever the hell that means.
Speaker 9: And I guess my question is like, if if if
any of us could point out these people to you,
is there any way you would you would like kind
of reach out to him to tell him to come
to the spaces.
Speaker 1: Because I just messedge the autor correct one right now,
So that's what you're talking about. I mean, I don't
think she'll come in here. Let me try again. You
notice what happened with that honey badger woman. It's weird
because the women all say that like they want a
debate on Twitter, but they want a debate about who's
debating me. They want to debate tone policing. They don't
want to ever actually talk about any issues, so, which
is really immature. I mean, it's like Bryson level stuff, Crusader.
It's like debating with children. Honestly, like Bryson as a child,
Debating with these women's like a child.
Speaker 13: Hey, Jake, can you me Yeah, well, if you get
any background noise, I'm outside walking. I think the druidic
four winds might be picking up or something.
Speaker 1: I must start using that argument next time somebody asks
for justification, I want to say, there's four wins, So
proved that transcen argument for four. Maybe he was breaking
Maybe he was breaking it for.
Speaker 13: Well, you know, four is bigger than three. So I
guess the Druidik for wins beat our trinity exactly.
Speaker 14: Quick question.
Speaker 13: I don't want to dredge up old topics. I know
you're looking to move away from the Christian Zionism discussion.
I just had a quick question about the tweet a
few days ago. You said there's no problem with the
Jewish state or anything like that. Do you think that
necessitates it being in the Holy Land or could that
be anywhere?
Speaker 1: No, it was originally going to be uh in Germany,
and then they were talking about Australia, so even the
Zionists did not conceive of it as literally the land
over in Palestine Israel. That was the decision of the
British Empire. You should listen to my talks on the
history of the British Empire in this regard.
Speaker 13: Absolutely, I will check those out well. Perfectly answered my question.
Speaker 15: Have a great day.
Speaker 1: Yep, all right, it's open for we have the actual
Antichrist with us. According to Chase earlier, I don't know
if he has heard, but he was once again arguing
that his brother is, as the Beacons say, the best
candidate for Antichrist. So I was hoping that Donnie Darkened
guy was going to come back in here, because apparently
he thinks Trump is Antichrist, and I wanted to get
Tristan to come on and debate him, because if Tristan's
the Antichrist, like this could easily undercut any argument Donnie
darkined has. So I thought that was I thought that
could be an interesting showdown, But maybe not. I don't know.
Do we have any other Druids or atheists, or Catholics
or muslim I can't believe I created a whole space
and the guy was just here to just joke around,
have drunk. I mean, but what do you What do
I expect from a Druid? Right? Dude was like, it's druid.
There's no word druid is. It's like, man, people have
no idea what having an actual debate is. It's it's
kind of comical and weird and just dystopian all at once.
Like people think that acting like an idiot is a debate,
which I can. I can act just as idiotic as
they can. It's open for me. If you have a
question upon about Druid's atheist, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, and evangelical's liberals.
If you had questions about the earlier topics, that's fine,
we can go back to that. If you know chases
with us. I think he can speak to the possibility
that his brother's Antichrist versus Donnie Darkin's challenge that Trump
is Antichrist. Maybe maybe not. I don't know who are
all the two hundred and who are the three hundred
people in here that don't ever request a speaker. I
want to talk like what the heck is going through
you guys's in mind? Uh, well, it looks like Chase
Haggards is chickened out. He has declined to actually confront
his brother as Antichrist. So Sean, what's up, dude, Hope.
Speaker 16: So I'm just wondering how you like consolidate those two things,
considering that would leave space open obviously for like a schism.
Speaker 1: Uh, you've seen in the past.
Speaker 16: I believe with them.
Speaker 1: You have to be trolling with me again. You literally
think that the papacy is what grounds objective reality. Actually,
I think that makes sense for you guys, because you
guys are actually kind of saying he's basically priced. I mean,
you can't be serious.
Speaker 16: Well no, it's actually if you're are you aware of
the pollen mess and Barlem controversy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've read all the texts, So there you go.
Speaker 16: How can you have objective reality when you have people
within your own orthodoxy that disagree with each other?
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, you can't be this stupid. You have
to be trolling. Well, that's not an answer. It's because
the question is so stupid or you have mental problems
that it's like hard for me.
Speaker 16: There's an objective truth, correct, of course. So oh so
you're just so like, explain your position at least?
Speaker 1: Then are you?
Speaker 12: Do you?
Speaker 1: Are you a mentally retarded person? No, I'm being serious.
I'm not being mean to you. I'm asking like, do
you have a mental challenge? No? Okay, how would the
papacy prove objective truth?
Speaker 17: No?
Speaker 16: No, I'm trying to get you to rationalize your belief
in objective reality while also saying.
Speaker 1: You said that that was connected to the pope, which
is one of the stupidest things I've ever Well.
Speaker 16: No, I think that if you were an objective person
like you believe in a universal truth, you would lean
more towards a papacy than towards orthodoxy, which has a
bunch of different you know where I'm coming at.
Speaker 1: No, I mean, I think you have no clue what
you're talking about. But you just learned some of the stuff,
and you think that it's a good argument.
Speaker 16: Okay, Well I have alread you heard any good arguments
from you either.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you want a good argument? How about this? The
papacy contradicts because in Dictatus Pope and in When I'm Sanctum,
it teaches that the temporal supremacy of the pope as
a world ruler an emperor is necessary for salvation, and
post Vatican to the Romanchelloy Church no longer teaches this.
Speaker 16: Right, So I kind of understand what you're saying, But
at the same time, I just don't know how you
can consolidate being a universalist and at the same time having.
Speaker 1: Multiple a universalists.
Speaker 16: What are you Well, you said you believe in an
objective truth, right, Like, so that.
Speaker 1: Means that's not what universalism is.
Speaker 16: Okay, then what is your universalism?
Speaker 1: Okay, that's that's universal salvation for all people. What does
that have to do with the question I asked you
about the papacy?
Speaker 16: Uh, Honestly, I'm I'm one of these the Catholic bros,
those who's kind.
Speaker 1: Of looking Okay, you're a person.
Speaker 12: This is a joke.
Speaker 1: This is a joke. Perennial pariah. It's funny when I
literally cannot tell if it's a person trolling me as
a Catholic or if they're actually that retarded that they
believe that. That's like Muslim teer, like I bet you
that guy couldn't restate a hypothetical. I mean, I just
perennial on you. Hey, Jay, can you hear me?
Speaker 18: Okay?
Speaker 19: I just want to say that I've recently been going
to Orthodox church here in Oklahoma City.
Speaker 12: Cool.
Speaker 19: You asked, who are these people who aren't speaking that
are just listening?
Speaker 8: Well, that's me.
Speaker 19: You know, I have a hard time following some of
your stuff because you're so intellectual, but you've actually led
me down this road over the past few years, and
I want to thank you.
Speaker 8: But as a libertarian.
Speaker 19: I'm not trying to I'm not trying to debate you,
but I'd like you to kind of clarify and defend
your position on why you can't be libertarian and Orthodox.
Speaker 1: Well, I think most of the time libertarianism comes with
a lot of the Enlightenment assumptions such as atomized individualism,
liberty of conscience, of total free speech, and freedom of
the press. And I think that most of the time
it's antithetical to the idea of the Byzantine symphonia model
of the state and an explicitly Christian state. There could
be some future possible formulation of a minimal state with
maximal liberty, perhaps it's not necessarily ideologically impossible, but most
of the Enlightenment presuppositions are bound up with anti Christian
Enlightenment philosophy, which at its root is not Orthodox.
Speaker 19: Sure, that's kind of how I see the Big L
Libertarian Party kind of moving to.
Speaker 3: And you think just the.
Speaker 19: Natural movement of the libertarian I think it had.
Speaker 1: To get specific, like about like you know, specifically what
elements of Enlightenment adamized liberalism, you know we're talking about
if we mean like John Locke's philosophy, Like none of
that fits with orthodox Christian theology. I just think usually
the negative liberty definition of the state is antithetical to
the notion of the Christian sacrament or almost sacrament of
coronation for a king or remember.
Speaker 19: Okay, so you're more on the lines of believing we
should have like an orthodox state or a.
Speaker 1: Moneg that's the tradition of the church. Every saint in
the history of the Church has been monarchists that we
know of. There are no saints that are democracy proponents
or republic proponents. I suppose it's possible there could be one,
but I think if the entire ethos of the church
has been all the way up until Saint John acron
Stat you know, who wrote some really good works defending monarchy,
there's really not any place for democracy or republic. That
does not mean that I favor, you know, I bloated
bureaucracy or something like that, but I do agree with
you know, free exchange, some sort of balance between a
minimal authoritative state and you know, free exchange of goods
and so forth. Services. You've got to have some kind
of tariffs too, So you know, I'm not exactly sure
what the answers are to all of that, but I
do think that you can't. I mean, libertarian Enlightenment philosophy
is basically, you know, we have no masters but ourselves,
and the tradition of the Church is that God institute
a church and state the Byzantine double headed eagle. Now,
within that model, you could argue for a minimal state,
which I think is convincing. That's a that's a pretty
solid argument. But that's as far as I guess I
could argue, because I don't have old I don't know.
I mean, these are all kind of in the realm
of theory, right, their theoretical arguments because they don't really
touch the real world, because you know, the real world
is what we have, So that's all pragmatic real politics.
Speaker 20: Yonkers, Get on, Hi, did you bring me up?
Speaker 3: Sorry?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's that's why I called her name.
Speaker 21: Sorry, there was a delay. Yeah, it must be the
app What I wanted to ask about is polemism or
hei sichasm, as far as I understand, which is the idea,
and I don't mean to be overly simplistic of you know,
through high schochastic prayer experiencing like the uncreated energies of God?
Speaker 22: Do I have that right day?
Speaker 20: Is that to just wrap the correctly?
Speaker 1: No, that's that's correct.
Speaker 21: Well, I guess the Catholic original critique is of it
being very subjective and that like salvation is mainly through
baptism and the Eucharist, and you know saints can have.
Speaker 1: Well hold on. So then the writings of Saint Gregory,
the prayer and the experience of those things is not
distinct or divided or separated from the liturgy of the Church,
and in fact, some of the New Theologian argues that
the sacraments make the hesochastic mystical experience available to all Christians.
In fact, he was actually kicked out of the monastery
over this point.
Speaker 21: Okay, this is something I was kind of confused about.
So it's not something that is because I think the
Catholic critique, and it sounds like this may be inaccurate,
is that there's almost like two layers. It creates two
layers where it's like one layers the people who are
baptized and receive confession and you receive the sacraments. Of course,
doing it in the right attitude, go ahead of what
we're gonna say.
Speaker 1: Now, you're right about that, because in fact, when Saint
Simon and you Theologian was arguing against this actual problem,
he got kicked out of the monastery for arguing that
they had fallen into a kind of messallionism. And then
when he's restored and vindicated, he's actually made a saying
precisely on this very point. So actually what you're bringing
up is a relevant topic. I would recommend reading his
mystical discourses. Yeah, because he actually treats, he actually discusses
this very subject.
Speaker 20: Yeah, I don't mean a hog up time.
Speaker 21: But if I'm not mistaken a vagarous, I don't think
a vagarous is even been canonized officially, if I'm not
mistaken by either the Eastern Orthodox or Catholics.
Speaker 1: Because I'm pretty sure he has some heterodox views. So
I don't think we could canonize that.
Speaker 21: Okay, I think of okay, never mind then, but yeah,
I mean the Vigrus is considered kind of like a
proto hysochist, and so it was marcarious.
Speaker 20: But anyway, I didn't.
Speaker 1: Well, it's true that so it with some of the
some of those guys were influenced by origin, and if
you look at uh, even the Cappadocians were influenced by origin.
But we would definitely not include uh Evagrius, if I
recall amongst amongst the saints. I don't know why that
guy was thumbing down. I was about to bring him up.
Oh so if you're if you're the dude that was
trying to come to bate, you can come back.
Speaker 20: No, he's just never mind him.
Speaker 21: He's just a guy.
Speaker 20: It did ignore him. He wasn't even go on with
your points.
Speaker 1: You know who that guy.
Speaker 21: Yeah, it's just stupid. It's it's not even related to
you or this discussion. It's just like a personal it's
just really it's silly for forget about him.
Speaker 1: But so he's somebody that trolls he yeah, like.
Speaker 21: It's it's a very complicated lore. But like I didn't
want to get into it. We're okay, though, he's cool,
but uh, just getting back to the main point of
this discussion.
Speaker 1: Sure, go ahead.
Speaker 3: Oh no, no, you were.
Speaker 21: Completing something about a vagarious I guess.
Speaker 1: But well, if I recall, he's an originist explicitly, and
he's not accepted in the Orthodox tradition precisely because of
his uh originist.
Speaker 21: Positions, right right, No, I well, I appreciate you clarifying this.
And for the record, I am a Roman Catholic, and
my understanding of Pola Mos was that, you know, it
was condemned because it was who's so close to masculinism,
So I'm interested.
Speaker 23: I mean, I thought, yeah, but it's not Missianism because
precisely because of the controversies of Saint Simeon, the New
theologian who's a very important person Orthodox Church.
Speaker 21: Anyway, thank you for clarifying that. I'll read more about
Saint Simeon.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he has a Vladimir's snic for us Prince his
I think it's a four volume a little easy four
volume set, and I don't remember at the top of
my head. I've got it in the in the library,
but I don't remember which volume deals with the energies.
But one of the volumes specifically does banana teine Emperor? What'soe?
Speaker 12: Dude?
Speaker 1: Can you hear me?
Speaker 15: There's a serious lag on spaces today. Yeah, okay, yeah,
talking about that Catholic a couple of minutes ago with
the whole objective true thing. Same people who won't acknowledge
that they make like arbitrary standards for uh, you know
what category defines truth, whether that be religious practice or
what the Pope said where he's sitting. So, but I
did have a question about synods in the Orthodox Church,
and there's a constant thing I say.
Speaker 1: I'm not an expert on synods, but I will comment
to my olgure.
Speaker 15: Yeah, it's just actually about a speaking of Catholic talking points.
They make a consistent talking point that we've never had
an ecumenical council, But I feel like when I look
it up, I kind of get mixed answers as to
the difference in practicality of like what was.
Speaker 1: So the term ecumenical council only applies when there was
an Orthodox oiticumene or imperium. So when the Byzantine Empire fell,
it doesn't make sense there would be quote ecumenical councils anymore.
There's no emperor. That's what the emperor called all the councils.
Even Roman Catholics are forced to admit that some of
the some of the characteristics of quote ecumenical councils include,
by the time of Gregor the Great, the pentarchy. Even
Roman Catholics submit this. So if Rome skives them against
all the other four patriarchis, which is what happened, then
by Rome's definition, there's no pentarchical ecumenical council anymore. And
so even in their listing and accounting, they're inconsistent because
they don't count latter than six forty nine as an
ecumenical council when it should count as one. So by default,
their rejection of six forty nine and accepting the six
Seconmenical Council proves our position that our position was the
norm at that time, because if the Pope confirmed the
condemnation of the Monothelites in six forty nine, there would
not have been a need for the six Ecumenical Council
to solve the Monothelite issue.
Speaker 12: Okay, got it?
Speaker 15: Yeah, because I feel like there's.
Speaker 1: And then beyond that, if the Orthodox Church throughout the
entire world accepts the Palomite Synods and the Phocian Synon,
those are eight and nine.
Speaker 15: Yes, So in practicality, those are what semantically, I guess
the Catholics would describe as quotes. I don't know the
same level as what an ecumenical.
Speaker 1: They're literally called an Orthodox Church. They're called pan Orthodox
because they've been accepted by and received by the Orthodoxy.
Speaker 15: Yeah, so I'm familiar with that. But there's this weird thing.
Have you noticed this thing that apologists do where they say,
we haven't been able to hold a sit on or sorry,
not ecumenical councils since the schism, as if it's like
presupposing that it has to be ecumenical in order for
it to be like binding, like just because of the word.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, that's exactly. They assume that for the Church
to be governed or to be guided, there has to
be quote ecumenical councils. But all all you have to
do is ask them, how did a Christian in the
year three hundred know what the teaching of the church was?
Who wasn't in the vicinity of Rome.
Speaker 15: Yeah, that makes sense, that's a good rebuttal so.
Speaker 1: There's no ecamenical councils. They don't have access to Rome,
so nobody knows what Christianity is throughout the Roman Empire
unless they literally walked up to Rome and ask them
what the faith is. That's stupid.
Speaker 15: Yeah, I mean it'd be like saying, like, you know,
you're you're a druid because you made Rejuvenation Druid and
World Warcraft in two thousand and eight and then got
out of space to make an entire space for somebody.
Speaker 12: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Anyways, thanks, Yeah. I mean I think that there are
other documents too that are pretty much universally accepted, like
the Letter of the Patriarchs to the Pope, for example.
I mean, we wouldn't say, oh, it's infallible, but I
don't know of anybody in the Orthodox world that rejects,
you know, the encyclicals of the patriarch. Patriarch it's slang Durino.
Speaker 24: Hey, Jay, I've been having some discussions with some artheists friends,
and I've been getting the arguments quite often that the
things that you talk about in tag that are pretty existing,
you know, like the laws of logic, are basically man made.
And I was hoping for one hit ko to that, like,
if you can flesh out why these things are already
exist and we didn't create them, that's a question and
text in advance.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry if somebody messaged me, could you repeat the question?
Speaker 12: Yeah?
Speaker 24: Sure. So in fact, you've been saying that some things,
like the metaphysical concepts like numbers, like loads of logics,
et cetera, are basically pre existing and not man made.
And I've been getting the argument from some athets fans
that these things have been used by people because we
made them for our.
Speaker 1: Right, So if they are social constructs, then they can
be otherwise.
Speaker 24: Yeah, that's what I've been saying that. I was hoping for.
Speaker 1: Laws of logic to say that they could be otherwise
it would mean that there's not actually any fixed governing
rules of thought or critical thinking or logic. So, I mean,
this is the stupidest thinking that if we all just
come together and say two plus two populus five, then
it becomes five. I mean, it's that stupid. But even
if that were the case, then we really couldn't know
anything because what makes it true the consensus. Well, if
it's the consensus, then anytime there's a new consensus, then
there's a new truth. But we would not be able
to know at any given time what the actual consensus was,
and so it would ultimately be self refuting even if
you admitted that quote truth is determined by the consensus. Furthermore,
how do we know that truth is concerned by the
determined by the consensus? And that proposition itself would also
be subject to revision if the consensus reject did to
the proposition that truth is determined by consensus. So it's
a completely stupid self defeating It's so dumb it makes
uh sentences impossible, Like you can't even make a sentence
if you actually believe that, because you couldn't even assure
anyone that the meaning of the sentence that you just
gave is the same meaning two seconds later. I mean,
it's just complete, it's totally destructive to the possibility of
knowledge at all. Now I've asked all these Protestant people
and women to they won't, they won't debate. These these
people are so just arrogant, Like this woman says, the
throne of Jesus defends itself. It doesn't need my defense
because I was super pious. So now they want to
fuss all day, but they can't. They can't. Actually, if anything, hm,
anybody else, it's open for him for any topics, Protestant, Atheists, Catholic, Muslim, Evangelical, Calvinist, liberal, uh.
Speaker 8: Whatever else. For now, can I speak to you? Can
you hear me?
Speaker 19: I have it?
Speaker 12: Yeah.
Speaker 19: Well, I have a a friend who is going to
preacher school and he's going into Pentecostal and it's it's
kind of a wild ride because I knew him before
all this, and now he's kind of, you know, turned
into kind of a different animal. But I asked him,
I sent him your video that I thought was epic
with misfit Patriot, and asked him about Christian Zionism, which I.
Speaker 20: Know he's against, but he has this new.
Speaker 19: Take on it, and this is what he told me.
He says, what I know about Christian Zionism is it's
not the same now as it was when the colonial
the colonists arrived, and he said, the original there.
Speaker 1: Is no such thing as Christian Zionism before.
Speaker 20: That's what I'm thinking.
Speaker 19: And then he said, the original premise was to create
a nation of Christians, by Christians, for Christians. Then somewhere
along the way it twisted into what we have now,
which is some.
Speaker 1: What none of that is that has nothing to do
with with Zionism, That's what I thought.
Speaker 19: So I just wondered how you would respond to that.
Speaker 3: I mean, he's going to school.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, it's so stupid. It's like hard to
even reply to slang arena anybody else. So this is
really weird. We got some like wildly low tier stuff,
and I honestly can't even tell people are joking or
being serious, Like it doesn't it's it's really hard to tell.
And if they're troubling, it's actually pretty funny. I have
to admit that coming on and saying that the Pope
proves objective reality, that's actually pretty awesome because it's like
a summation of every critique of the papacy ever in
one weird, delusional argument. But I cannot tell that guys
being serious or not. I mean, it was just like, wow.
Speaker 25: Ian, go ahead, Hey, I just had a quick question.
Speaker 14: Are you familiar with the Philip Colia of Origin?
Speaker 1: Origin didn't write to Philip Colia. It's a mystical text.
You're talking about the text of the church. It's like
four volumes is translated.
Speaker 26: By No, it's the Philiclia of Origin. It's a compilation. Okay,
well if that kind of defeats the point of the question,
but it's a compilation of writings of Origin compiled by
Saint Gregory Nonzianzis and Saint Basil the great really interesting text.
But my question was specifically about a chapter in that
in that text, So.
Speaker 1: No, I did not, I don't, we don't. I don't
follow Origin at all. So I mean, I understand he
was influential on the Capit oceans.
Speaker 26: But yeah, no, I just thought it was an interesting text,
and one of the chapters included was something that sounded
very contrary to what else Saint Basil, and it was
weird that it.
Speaker 14: Was included in there.
Speaker 26: But what was included, I believe it's chapter seventeen, and
they include an argument that.
Speaker 14: Origin makes about.
Speaker 26: Basically, Origin goes through and makes you an argument that
it would almost be sinful to translate the name of
God out of the original language because that name God
is specifically tied to the God of Christianity basically, and
it just seems contrary.
Speaker 14: Two arguments that.
Speaker 1: The way the Jews view the touch of grammar.
Speaker 14: Yes, yep, pretty much.
Speaker 26: Yeah, it was an interesting chapter, but it seems contrary
to what I understand. At least it's like Saint Gregory
Nissa argues against you know me, it's at points that
language is a social construct and the name of God
doesn't have any value just because of the letters of it.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's it. Yeah, that's a good question. I mean,
I don't know that. This is kind of the basis
for like, you know, the Hebrew roots type people that like, oh,
if you say you know yahweh and yes you are,
this is not more powerful than if you say Jesus. Right.
But no, it's a good question. I don't know about that.
I've not read it. I've read some of the Origins
on the First Principles against Celsus, and that's about it.
I've not spent a whole lot of time in origin. Now,
let's see, I've reached out to several more of these
weirdos that have been talking smack, and none of them
will come. So I can't get the Mormon girl to
come in here, and I can't get the reformed veteran
to come in here. Those are always the best, and
I can't get autocorrect to come in here. These are
just like loons, dude. And it's weird because I'll come
in here and say the craziest stuff and then they
act like I can't handle them, and I'm scared to
debate because they just say, crazy shit, what's that? Shistani?
Thanks for having me on man.
Speaker 27: So I was looking at the Islamic de Leva recently
and I'm trying to, like, I don't know on board.
I'm trying to think of a way that they can
possibly harmonize it or fix it. And one thing that
they seem to mention is that when we bring up
five forty seven, they'll say that it's only referencing the
law or like the moral teachings, that somehow we're not
supposed to judge by the entire thing. I don't know,
what do you think about that?
Speaker 1: Well, but it's not just five forty seven. There's like
fifteen or twenty versus in the Quran. So if you
pile all those up about prior revelation, it's I think
i'm more damning thing.
Speaker 27: Yeah, because I think they're being kind of inferential if
they're saying that confirming means only confirming in a general
sense or in a like agrees with.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, it really doesn't confirm anything if it just
means to reinterpret to the choral exactly.
Speaker 27: But could they also say that, because there's some verses
that talk about distortion or concealment or some Jews writing
a false book, that we're also being inferential if we
say that we're confirming that it confirms wholesale all of
the texts, that we're also being influential in the same right.
Speaker 1: Well, I think the point is that when you ask
them how you know which ones are confirmed to which
ones aren't, it just again ends up being one of
the Quran says, So to say that I'm also the
text that doesn't say that the Jews corrupted the text.
It says they twisted it with the tongues and illiterately.
Speaker 14: Yeah, I agree, I agree.
Speaker 27: I don't think it assumes like wholesale corruption either, because
it's only a party of them and it's only a
part right.
Speaker 1: But even if you say it's partial corruption, there's no
epistemic guide has to know what is and isn't corrupt.
For example, they'll say that the Bible predicts Mohammed, and
it's like, but you said the Bible's corrupt, Oh, but
not there. Yeah, exactly right, So all you have to
do it's just a media double standards exact same thing. Mare.
Speaker 27: I also see that like in five forty eight, for example,
when they say that it supersedes the prior scripture, that
only kind of reinforces the circle that they have because
they're just going to look through it through the Koran itself.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but they're not understanding that that's not answering or
solving the question of what is the epistemic criterion to
know the truth from the false? And it's just a circle.
Like I said to.
Speaker 28: Daniel, I don't think I did a video that's like
twenty eight ish minutes where I covered all of the korntexts,
and by the way, in that video, I think I
missed one or two.
Speaker 1: So if you list all those out, I think it's
even more devastating.
Speaker 27: Do you know what the Yeah, yeah, I saw it actually,
and I looked at all the persons, actually myself, but
it was like some Muslim Like I saw his response
and he was like, well, we confirm the early Muslims.
He said that they believe that they are confirmed in
the sense that they are scriptures of God, even though
some of it is not necessarily completely true or false
or what. I don't know what the hell he said,
but it's just so strange. It's like they have this
weird kind of filtered that they used through I don't know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that filter is called spiritual blindness and low IQ,
which is why in that six hour video, not one
of them could restate what a hypothetical was, no matter
how many times and explanations and examples I gave so
and I don't think Bryson could restate hypothetical either. I
think a lot of these evangelicals, by the way, are
too stupid to actually restated hypothetical. This Mormon girl says
she's gonna come on, she's the one arguing with me
earlier that Albert Pike is not a bad guy. Freemasonry
is just a fraternity. Who cares if it's where Joseph
Smith got the temple rituals from? And she never addressed
the question about Joseph Smith adding versus. So here she is.
You can have the floor and say whatever you'd like. Well,
adding eleven verses to Genesis fifty to predict yourself as
a classic conment tactic.
Speaker 17: Give me more con men who have altered the Bible,
in your opinion, altered the Bible.
Speaker 1: What would me giving more con men have to do
with whether that action itself is fraudulent?
Speaker 17: Validity to context?
Speaker 1: Validity to context? I mean, it's a fact in your
JTS translation that he added those verses. It doesn't exist
in any manuscript prior Joseph Smith.
Speaker 17: Again, give me examples of other con men who have
done something similar.
Speaker 1: There's tons of religious sex cults that have created and
copied and paste of their own texts together.
Speaker 17: Like Mohammed, but none of them have far reaching dominance,
like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterite Saints. So
what's the law?
Speaker 1: Islam is far bigger than the LDS.
Speaker 17: I disagree with that.
Speaker 1: Now there's a million or a billion Muslims in.
Speaker 17: The world, all devout practicing or just like claiming when
there's a war ensuing, there are.
Speaker 1: One billion professing Muslims in the world. To what degree
that's quote practice has doesn't even come close to the
number of Latter day Saints in the world.
Speaker 17: It's a preposterous and you keep track of this number daily.
Speaker 1: You could look at any Pew Research poll. There's literally
no comparison between the LDS and the existence of Muslims
in the world. It's a laughable claim.
Speaker 17: You're the one. You're the one that is aggressive about it.
Speaker 1: Now, now it's a tone fully and you're a victim.
Speaker 17: It's oh did I say it was a victim. I'm
just calling you out on the fact that you pander.
You can't actually debate, you can't call me and without
using the words stupid, you can't go without you because.
Speaker 1: It's a fallacy to say that. Because there's a lot
of believers, it's therefore true.
Speaker 14: You say it.
Speaker 29: You're the one language an appeal.
Speaker 1: To maths fallacy. It's an appeal to the math's fallacy.
Speaker 17: Okay, so you're an orthodox apologist Eastern Is that what
I'm getting.
Speaker 1: That's a that's a two two quot white fallacy.
Speaker 17: But answer me, what is your religious preference? Because it
says that you are an Eastern Orthodox apologist? Okay, what
does that mean? Where did that even come.
Speaker 1: From the church that Jesus set up In the first
proof you can read the church fathers from the first, second, third, fourth, fifth,
sixth century. Okay, they teach, They teach what the Orthodox
Church teaches. If you go read the post Apostolic fathers
like Ignacious Clement, Cyprian Irenaeus.
Speaker 17: It just feels ambiguous. Why are you claiming to be
the one true church?
Speaker 1: If there's I gave you specific people and their writings.
Speaker 17: And I'm giving you specific people in their writings, But
it's still what are you standing for? What are you
that you're standing for?
Speaker 1: You haven't even covered the fact.
Speaker 17: Standing for Jesus Christ. You're saying ambiguously that your religion
is the one truth I.
Speaker 1: Gave you The first, second, third, fourth the Bible comes
from the Orthodox Church. Those church fathers can be read today.
I listed multiple of them to you specifically by name.
Do you want their writings?
Speaker 30: I would love that.
Speaker 17: I would also love to know why there is such
indifference about the origin of the Bible, translation of the Bible.
Why are.
Speaker 19: People are.
Speaker 1: Why do you keep interrupting me when you don't have
any clue what you're talking about tonight? You don't even
know what a genetic fallacy is or what a what
a vox popular appeal to masses fallacy is. You're literally
just spitting out fallacies, non stuff. You don't even know
what do you.
Speaker 17: Even know what the word fallacy means? Because you throw
this crap out there, and I don't think you have your.
Speaker 1: I listed the ones that you're using.
Speaker 14: Well, I like.
Speaker 17: Claim to the fact that you're not Orthodoxy anything. You're
practicing priestcraft. You rebrand everybody in accordance to your sophistication.
Speaker 1: And your your own your own cult believes in a
priest class. What are you talking about?
Speaker 17: Class? We believe in the ironic milchistic priesto. They are
Biblical references.
Speaker 1: Yeah right, No, the ironic PRIs.
Speaker 17: Is in your Bible.
Speaker 1: Read your Brew seven says the priesthood of Aaron ended
when the milk is the decade was set up with Christ.
Christ does the milk is Adecian priesthood?
Speaker 17: You're a judaizing you literally just each just told me
what is the truth and ambiguous?
Speaker 1: Hebrew seven? Correct? I told you the truth Hebrew seven, right.
Speaker 17: No, you're just ambiguous and you're not a debater.
Speaker 1: And Hebrew seven is ambiguous. I saw it literally, the
actual fallacies, the actual writings, the actual chapters and texts.
And you're calling me in.
Speaker 17: No, I'm calling you a panderer. Huge difference.
Speaker 1: So now it's that homonym. So you just have another fallacy.
Speaker 17: And again, this isn't a debate, This isn't even an
intellectual debate.
Speaker 1: It is you What what does it say at the
top of this stream?
Speaker 17: I thought you called me in for a debate. I
don't care what it says on top of your I
don't care what you are branding this. You brand everything.
Speaker 1: You've read everything. What is debate governed by It's governed
by the rules of thought. Those are called the laws
of logic, and when you violate them, they're called fallacies.
And I listed four fallacies already that you've committed.
Speaker 17: No, you rebranded me in accordance with your religion, which
is everything you say is as far as fallacy. Everything
you hate about the Mormon religion is everything that your
religion really claims to with the exception of the law
of chastity, which every.
Speaker 1: Orthodox do you know what a to do? You know
what a too quo is?
Speaker 17: Continue?
Speaker 24: What?
Speaker 17: What? What is it? Tell me your definition.
Speaker 1: Of a fallacy where when I make an argument and
you ask a question back to me, you say, well,
what about you? That's a fallacy?
Speaker 17: I mean, is it wrong to do when you are
so accusatory?
Speaker 1: So now you're tone policing and playing victory. I'm not playing.
Speaker 17: I'm not offended by you. I'm annoyed by you because
you can't debate. You pander and it's annoying. And like
I said, your birthday that I need to be focusing on.
I shouldn't have even jumped in here with you until
it was a proper debate. You said one on one
debate about.
Speaker 1: A proper debate is where you abide by the laws
of logic and don't commit That is, if you.
Speaker 17: Don't debate, you pander. You're just trying to impress these people.
Speaker 1: You don't even know what a debate is. You literally
just committed multiple fallows. Su irish on you.
Speaker 31: Hello, hello, yeah man, hi jay, I just wanted to
ask hold on I need a cough.
Speaker 32: I hope you guys understand now why I get frustrated
when people say, Rachel, why won't you debate the smart women.
You need to debate the smart women. And I'm like,
find them, show me where they are, because every time
a woman comes to debate, that's what you get. They
have no idea what they're talking about.
Speaker 1: They don't have that that's going to be a great club.
I mean it's kind of funny, like it was. Every
every phrase coming out of her mouth was a cell phone.
Speaker 32: Yes, but generally, and I don't even fault women for
it because I understand, I'm I'm weird, I'm very abnormal
in this way, and that for most women it's like
they they don't Yeah, they don't even know how to
like behave in in that way. They don't know how
to do anything besides, you know, filter everything through emotions.
Speaker 1: They argue like Bryce their bryceon level debaters.
Speaker 32: Yeah, And I mean that's fine. That's why I usually
end up if I do debates, I end up debating
a lot of men. And but then people will get
upset with me and they'll say, oh, you just you
pick the lowest hanging for you just debate stupid women.
You just debate you know, only fans chicks. And I'm like, listen,
first of all, I've debated multiple women with degrees like
masters and PhD level degrees, and they're not much better.
And it's just not how, it's not how. Most women
they don't even know how to act in a debate.
They don't even know how to function because they get
upset and they do what that lady just did.
Speaker 1: So yep, yeah, And that's why typically I don't debate
women unless they want to come in here and debates. Yeah,
what's up, jolly, you're coming down? What's your problem? I'm mute, jolly, jolly,
go ahead, Irish, go ahead, Okay, cool, just to practice.
Speaker 33: I'm an Irish Catholic and I heard you on a
space It was probably like a week ago where you
tell me if I'm misrepresenting you or whatever. But you
were discouraging Orthodox from praying the Rosary because you said
a lot of the people who are who pray the
Rosary use how would you say, like ignation, imaginative.
Speaker 1: Prayer, imaginative prayer.
Speaker 33: Yeah, personally, I'm friends with an Orthodox monk who praise
the Rosary. I don't know, but yeah, yeah, it is
the norm. It's just it's outside of your tradition as well.
But I was wondering, so, like in my personal experience,
the majority of the people I know who pray the
Rosary do it with a sort of lazio divina instead
of imagination. Personally, I don't touch imagination. I don't see
it as very fruitful.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, so I think the thing is the other
thing about the Rosary is that it implicitly implies that
Mary really did give that to Dominic. Right, So the
lore of the Rosary in the Western Church is that
Mary appears to Saint Dominic the Dominicans, and to pray
the Rosary suggests that that is the case. And I
don't believe that that's the case. So a good question.
I'm not trying to be rude, jolly, what's up?
Speaker 12: You know?
Speaker 11: I'm here to represent either the atheists or the tradcats, whatever,
whatever side needs bolstering. L I'll argue, well, what are you?
Speaker 1: Why would you not represent the.
Speaker 11: Position that you Actually I'm kind of both.
Speaker 1: How could you beat both?
Speaker 11: Yeah, it's a it's a good question. I don't know.
And when I when I figured that out. I'll let
you know.
Speaker 34: Well, are you traskay? Go ahead, I'm just saying, are
you trashed? You just in.
Speaker 1: Between s la what do you want to say?
Speaker 34: Oh no, I'm not gonna lie.
Speaker 35: I just came up here to tell you to kick
the woman from before because.
Speaker 14: I don't.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I mean it was funny. So it's funny
though that you can't like when people are like super emotional,
you can't reason with them, like they get into these
tizzies and then they kind of have a meltdown and
they spiral and you can't like they've already kind of
lost the ability to have self control and reasoning. So
you'll notice every time I pointed out a fallacy, she
was just like that, it's not a fallacy. There's no
who cares. Fallacies don't matter. What's a fallacy. It's like
not thinking about just like machine guns spiraling and the
reason for that. And I don't blame her too, because
if Joseph Smith added versus to the Bible, which he did,
you can go to look on the Mormon website, said
Genesis fifty, the Joseph Smith translation, then that means he's
a con man. And if he's a con man, then
her paradigm collapses. So when you notice and when you
see these kinds of like crazy reactions from people like
that or this sort of spiraling, a lot of times
it's also not just because of emotions or because they're
a female, or I mean, because a lot of dudes
and spurgs do it too. Is because of the fear
that the paradigm might be be wrong, or the fear
that they might look bad in the debate or whatever.
So there's a lot of things going to be going
on in a person's mind that causes them to kind
of lash out in that way. Anybody else open forum, Atheism, Druidism, Catholicism, Islam, evangelicalism, liberalism,
it's open for them if you want to hop on.
I might call it an evening. We got a couple
singers out of all that. Look for people who I
guess we'll go to you man. But I don't really
tend to like to debate people that are debating in
bad faith. It's just kind of saying feels fake, Well,
how would it be in good for well?
Speaker 25: How is it?
Speaker 11: What do you mean?
Speaker 3: How is it?
Speaker 11: I was an atheist for twenty five years and then
I and then I understood, uh, the Catholic Church. So
I can I can argue from both positions because I
argued as an atheist for twenty five years.
Speaker 1: It's not in good faith if you no longer believe atheism?
Speaker 11: What do you we can debate? What good FAI means?
I can? I can still present every argument I ever presented.
What does it have to do? What does it have
to do with the debate? That's not what debates. Okay, No,
you're not a serious person. You're a faggot. You're a loser.
You're afraid. You're afraid of the debate. Well, come on,
have at it. Let's go show me how I'm wrong.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, you choose the positions.
Speaker 11: I'll choose atheism.
Speaker 1: Okay, why is atheism drew because you have no evidence?
What is the basis for believing in evidence? What does
that mean the base?
Speaker 11: Well, evidence is how we come to understand truth.
Speaker 1: And how do you know that from an epistemic standpoint?
Speaker 11: Well, it's just it's natural to a human person to
be exposed to information, and you process the information and
you say, well I don't know, and then you repeat
the process and you come to learn so I would
argue from I guess we'll call it a empirical basis
of understanding knowledge.
Speaker 1: Okay, do you have universal empirical experience?
Speaker 11: Universal, which is to say that I have the experience
of all life?
Speaker 13: No.
Speaker 1: In logic, universal claims are anything that's preceded by what's
called a quantifier, which would be all every et cetera.
So if all knowledge comes from sense data, is that
proposition itself found in sense data? Yeah, the proposition itself
is found in sensitive Where do you find the truth
of a proposition in sense.
Speaker 11: Data within itself?
Speaker 1: So that's a circle.
Speaker 11: Well, that's what that's what thinking. Thinking is a circle.
I think Therefore, am you know you just kind of
loop it around? I mean, you can't if if there
was a way to understanding you know.
Speaker 1: So you can commit fallacies in logic and debate circular arguments.
Speaker 11: I try not to, but I'm certainly fallible.
Speaker 1: Well you just made a circular argument, So can I
commit those as well?
Speaker 25: Or not?
Speaker 20: Sure?
Speaker 1: Okay, So you can commit fallacies.
Speaker 11: And no you shouldn't, you know. I'm just saying that
you can if you want to try to do that,
and if I want to try to pick at it
and try to pry it apart and show you where
I'm wrong. That's what the fun of a debate is.
But you know, this belief that oh I got the
right way of knowing things, Well you don't because I
don't even know.
Speaker 1: You have no clue. You don't even know what you're
arguing or what the debate is like. That debate already
happened and you already missed.
Speaker 11: Is that what.
Speaker 1: You argued? That fallacies can be done?
Speaker 11: And that's not what I said. All you're twisting my words.
You you said, meaning you like, would I allow you
to do? And I said, yes, you're permitted.
Speaker 1: I mean, can you is it? Does it? Can youolate
the laws of logic? Is what I'm asking? Because the
circular argument.
Speaker 11: Doesn't know you cannot violate the laws of logic.
Speaker 1: Okay, then why did you make a circular argument that
knowledge just is what it is, meaning just is what
it is.
Speaker 11: That's not a flaw.
Speaker 1: It's a circular argument. You already said it was a circle.
That is all law. It's a fallacy called circular argumentation.
How come this is why you're not a good?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 12: No.
Speaker 11: The reality is that nobody can have a complete and
total understanding of absolutely.
Speaker 1: That's not what the claim is. I didn't ask you
about completely understanding.
Speaker 11: I'm making is that you have to you have to
approach all knowledge. Did you make aular argument posture right limited?
Speaker 1: Did you make a circular argument? You said it was
a circle, you said it was self referencing earlier, you
said descartes right. Yeah, Okay, so you made a circular argument,
and that is.
Speaker 11: Nonsense. You're not You're not You're not actually debating anything.
You're debating the nature of debate.
Speaker 1: I'm pointing out the fallacy of where you lost.
Speaker 11: You want you want to sit there and jerk off
over terms because you went to school and you learn
to what all these words mean, but that that has
nothing to do with the truth or knowledge and understanding
the debate.
Speaker 1: So yeah, so you already lost the debate.
Speaker 11: Okay, well that's what you say, Like, let's see some hands.
Does anybody I think that it's over?
Speaker 1: Nobody? And you're going to be laughed at the entire chat.
Speaker 11: Let them laugh at me.
Speaker 1: Good, keep going, because you said that fallacies don't matter.
Speaker 11: So you know what I said again, You know.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter what terms and what fancy works because fallacies.
Speaker 11: You are a bad faith debater because you take something
I said is.
Speaker 1: What a liar? Literally, everybody tell me that guy down?
What a complete clown? H Yeah? An era.
Speaker 22: So are we still discussing existence of God or not?
Speaker 12: Sure?
Speaker 8: So?
Speaker 36: Well?
Speaker 22: Uh so, because you do not have the whole experience
of universe, how can you even make a claim that
because you couldn't find the evidence, then there is no
evidence because you are made Yeah, while you are making
your laziness a burden on you.
Speaker 1: Don't even understand the argument. Are you referring to what
I said to the previous guy?
Speaker 22: Yeah, sort of, because that's from where I joined the debate.
Would you like to explain it further?
Speaker 1: Right? So, he made a universal claim that all knowledge
comes from sense data, and I'm saying that there's two ways,
two levels to refute that. One is that the proposition
itself is not found in sense data. And also, as
an empiricist, he doesn't have access to universal knowledge, which
the word all quantifies. So it's a self refuting statement
on two levels.
Speaker 22: So okay, So what is your stin on God? Because
you cannot find the empirical evidence of it, you believe
it doesn't exist.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you don't believe in empirical evidence for truth
or the claims either, Based on what I just argued
to you about empirical clues right truth claims themselves? Can
you show me the empirical evidence for the past, for
the self, for time, for meaning, for mathematics, for universal propositions,
categories logic? Can you show me that? Please? Where are
those under the microscope?
Speaker 11: Oh?
Speaker 22: Well, you wanted under the microscope?
Speaker 19: What is empirical?
Speaker 3: Wait?
Speaker 22: Wait what if it is not material, then how would
you find it empirically?
Speaker 1: I guess see you don't even understand or.
Speaker 22: You don't understand.
Speaker 1: Just I reiterated this for you. Okay, let's do this.
Can you restate what my argument is? Restay the hypothetical?
Can you resay the hypothetic?
Speaker 34: No?
Speaker 22: I cannot because it is a word salid. It's a
word salad.
Speaker 1: Basic terms in logic like quantifier and empirical claims.
Speaker 22: Are asking question. You are you're not quantified as material?
How would you quantify it? How many can you of?
What do you want?
Speaker 1: You think epistemological is a word solid because you're an
un you're an uneducated maybe.
Speaker 22: But so because you are educated, explain me.
Speaker 1: So can you restate a hypothetical that I made? What's
the hypothetical I'm saying.
Speaker 22: I'm asking a simple question that what if it is
not material?
Speaker 34: What?
Speaker 1: I answered your question by pointing out that you yourself
believe in multiple things that are not material, and so
therefore everything that we but we believe in or that
we know is therefore not reducible to materialism. There's no
it disproves reductionism. But you don't even understand the argument.
Speaker 22: No, No, you are just you know, uh, assassinating me
rather than.
Speaker 1: This conversation. You don't even know what's happening. Like this
is crazy level stuff. It's like talking to a child.
In all these cases, it's pretty wild, and you think
I'm being mean, and it's like, you know, I've restated
it politely for that guy about four times, and you
understand atheists and these arrogant people, they need to have
their position destroyed. Okay, it's not mean to call out
these people's foolishness and show that it's foolish. And when
I restate it, what does he say? Word salad, basic terms,
our word solid?
Speaker 37: Go ahead, Hello, I have a question about Yeah, what's up?
I have a question about like versions and compilations of
the Quran. I don't really have like an argument to make.
Speaker 1: I'm not super knowledgeable in the history of the Koran.
So you might want to look up like Jay Jay
Smith or whatever that guy's name is, or probably even
Sam Schimun knows more about that than me. Feminism, feminism,
feminism is evil. I'm mute. If you want to.
Speaker 10: Talk, Yes, hi, Jay, I was wonder if it be
all right if I read something about the law of identity. Okay.
This is from the seventh chapter the second part of
Otto Weininger's book Sex and Character from nineteen oh three.
So what he writes is in logic. It is a
matter of the true meaning of the principle of identity
and of contradiction. The many controversies regarding their precedence over
each other and the most correct form of their statement
is less an issue here. The proposition A equals A
is immediately certain and evident. It is additionally the original
template of truth for all other propositions. If someone were
to contradict it somewhere, as so often, in a special
judgment of the predicate concept something we're asserted of the subject,
which would contradict the concept of the same, we would
consider it to be wrong, and in the end, if
we reflect, this proposition would emerge before us as the
law of our verticality. It is a principle of right
and wrong, and he who deems it a tautology which
would state nothing and would not promote our thinking. As
this has so often happened with Hegel and later with
most all empiricists, this is not the only point of
contact between apparently so irreconcilable opposites. He is completely correct,
but has understood the nature of the proposition poorly. A
equals a. The principle of all truth cannot itself be
a special truth. Whoever finds a proposition of identity or
of contradiction void of content, has only himself to blame.
He presumed to find special thoughts in them, which he
hoped was an enrichment of his stock of positive knowledge.
But those propositions are not themselves realizations special acts of thinking,
but rather the gauge which has laid to all acts
of thinking. This cannot itself be an active thinking, which
somehow would allow itself to be compared with the others,
the norm of thinking cannot itself be situated in thought.
The proposition of identity adds nothing to our knowledge. It
does not increase an abundance, which it much more utterly
founds in the first place. The proposition of identity is
either nothing or it is everything.
Speaker 14: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't really hear anything there I would disagree with.
Did you have a reason.
Speaker 14: For the quote?
Speaker 10: I thought maybe it could shed some light on recent.
Speaker 1: Discussions and what in particular.
Speaker 10: Maybe saying that a circular argument isn't valid because all
arguments reduced to a restatement of the proposition of identity
in the end, do they not?
Speaker 1: Oh you mean the guy, yes, yes, Oh yeah, I
think it would. But I don't think that guy is
interested in actually learning what the problem is with that.
But you're absolutely right that it definitely sheds light on it.
But I think that I think somebody people are staying
in the chat that guys just troubles He just goes
around and pretends to be positions. So I'm trying to
get this other got to come to debate. I don't
know what you want anybody else. It's open for him
for atheist Muslims, Catholics, druids, liberals, Evangelicals, Calvinists, Protestants. It's
been a while when we already got another four hundred
people in here again, so we're back to where we were.
I recreated this room for those that left, so Jimbob
and FDA. So when I was closing out the other room,
this druid came on and he wanted the debate druidism
and the space cut out. And so then when I
came back and did it, he wasn't even a serious person.
So William Tober was up. He was like a drunk druid.
So hello, go ahead, Yeah.
Speaker 38: Yeah, I just wanted to say I respect there was
that you do, and I'm very glad to be part
of this group. So that's all I wanted to do.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Anything on your mind, any comments, questions, topics,
debates me.
Speaker 38: No, I have my own religious battles that have to
deal with my church, but I'm not really trying to
put it out there in public, you know, So okay, sure,
just wanted to stop by and say I respect you.
Speaker 1: Well, it's actually I'm appreciate the kind of words astute.
Speaker 12: I mean.
Speaker 39: Hey, So I came into the discussion a little bit
late to I think three people ago, where the guy
was arguing in bad faith. I just wanted to hear
about that conversation because I don't I didn't really understand
what his point was. That there's empirical data that proves
that everything exists or that God exists. Is that what
he was saying and what was.
Speaker 1: Your No, he was arguing in bad faith as an atheist,
that all that we know is sense data. So he
was just arguing not eve empiricism. And I made two
arguments to show that that's self refuting. One that the
claim all knowledge comes from sense data is not found
in sense data, and so it's self refuting. Second argument,
the claim that all knowledge comes from sense data is
a universal claim, which an empiricist by definition cannot have
because you would have to have empirical sense data of
all reality.
Speaker 39: So can you have empirical sense data that like something
maybe not as profound as God existing, but like I
think you had mentioned, like mathematics or history existing, or
that we've had his or you know, yesterday has existed,
the past has existed at some point.
Speaker 1: No, none of those things are in empirical sense data.
That's why I specifically listed non empirical, immaterial, abstract invariant categories,
and things that are not empirical, such as the past,
the self meaning time. Okay, so universal's logic.
Speaker 39: And again I'm very novice. So empirical data. You said
you can't make the claim that history exists based off
of empirical data. Is that what you were.
Speaker 1: Saying the past is not a present empirical sense data
reality you do not sense through smell to and there's
a there's a giant list of all kinds of things
that nobody empirically the senses, and yet we believe.
Speaker 39: Can you make the argument that archaeological like fossils are
a form.
Speaker 1: Of those are not the past. Those are physical objects
that existed in the past, but they do not prove
the existence of the past.
Speaker 39: I see, So you can't visit I guess in a
Layman sterns you cannot like physically touch, feel, or see
the past.
Speaker 1: Or time. That's why time, for example, of con says
time is a transcendental category. I would agree with that
time is one of those transcenental categories that's necessary for
human knowledge. That it is not a direct, directly perceived
object of immediate sense.
Speaker 39: Data, So then that that means memory can't be an
example of that either, correct.
Speaker 1: Now, memory is another example that's talk in you.
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 39: And then my final question, So I'm not an atheist,
but I have a lot of atheist friends. So what
would you say, And you've probably answered this like hundreds
of times, what would you say is the argument for
God to God's existence? You don't have to like break
it down, but maybe some references that I can read.
Speaker 1: So yeah, well, any of the arguments and videos that
we've done debating the atheists stuff on mall and you,
the Matt Della Hunty, Alex Malpass, any of those debates,
would you would find me making this argument that knowledge
in any sense, any claim to knowledge, or any possibility
of knowledge, requires the preconditions of knowledge, which are some
of those categories that I listed, such as meaning such
as identity, over time, the external world, universal universals, logic, language.
None of these things are reducible to sense data, and
yet we believe in them as preconditions for the possibility
of knowledge whatsoever. So then the question is where are those,
how are those and what's the justification for those? For us?
A divine, omniscient being with an omniscient mind, with personhood
with intentionality, and a universe made with purpose or tilos.
All of those things are grounded in God, and God
is the only type of being that could ground those things.
So the possibility of knowledge presupposes God.
Speaker 12: Okay, And.
Speaker 39: Does that argument work? Like even I guess even asking
about the existence of God presupposes that God exists.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would. I would argue that it would lead
to yeah, that's all I have.
Speaker 39: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, No, those are good questions. I appreciate your civil attitude.
We've not had a lot of civil people tonight.
Speaker 3: Justinian, Hey, orthodox Christian.
Speaker 40: I actually became an Orthodox Christian because largely in part
of your content. But I actually have a friend who
is conquiring into Orthodox Christianity, and he had an interesting
question then I actually I couldn't immediately answer in the moment.
I wanted to maybe shoot it at you get your
thoughts on it. So essentially his his question is like,
assuming there was another church council that happened. I know
that the typical method is obviously through the emperors, and
that there is no emperor, but just assuming for the
case that one happened, and it declared something that is
obviously heretical true like homosexuality or I don't know, something
along those lines, And obviously there would be like a
split of sorts. How would someone who is like an
observer of that determine with one hundred percent accuracy that
essentially that the people who are splitting off who one
side is calling schismatic? How how would they determine that
that's the correct side?
Speaker 1: Well, it would be obvious that one of the parties
is consistent with all the prior teaching and councils and
one of the parties is not nice.
Speaker 40: I see, yeah, because I essentially because the issue here
would be a matter of like if the councils are
truly infallible?
Speaker 3: Is essentially this is this is what he's bring up.
Speaker 40: If the councils truly are infallible, Like, how do you
determine their infallibility?
Speaker 3: How does how does an outsider? Essentially?
Speaker 40: But because before I was kind of questioning, is it
like a numbers game? Well you know actually that no.
Speaker 1: So so we would disagree with the Roman Catholic type
of position that there's any kind of uh necessary, clear,
absolute juridical proof of what makes it quote infallible because
you could conceivably have many bishops at large councils that
are false councils. And we've actually seen, you know, there's
the Robber centered to Ephesus, there's the Iconic Class, the
Council of her Era. I mean, so there's plenty of
false councils, and really there's no there's no silver bullet
like Roman Catholics offer with the papacy, because the papacy
doesn't even give you that. So literally, it just has
to be what's kind of consistent with the prior Orthodox
tradition that's been handed down. And I think, as you
gave in your example, like if some council said we
are pro schedules now, I mean it would that would
be really obvious. Jeff, what's up? Hey, Jay?
Speaker 34: How's it going.
Speaker 30: So I want to say, first of all, thank you
listening to your content a while ago.
Speaker 34: I've been going to an Orthodox.
Speaker 30: Church for a couple of months now, but I was
I was really curious on your perspective of if I,
you know, talk to people about the tag debate, and
I feel like a lot of men, whether they're atheists
or they do believe, they're very interested in it, and
it looks very logical and like they want to engage
with it. But I've noticed even your audience, a lot
of the orthosphere, it's very men.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, I think men gravitate towards analytical rational you know,
left brain thinking, are you there? What about it? If
you're there, you've dropped out. We can't hear you. Maybe
come out, come back. Make lying wrong, I mean, make
lying wrong. You want to know?
Speaker 41: Hi?
Speaker 42: Hey, hey, thanks you can you hear me? Okay, okay,
thank you. I'm not well trained in philosophy, so please
go easy on me. But I my question was, all right,
from your perspective, is really religion or Christianity or whatever
your faith is. Is it something that can be purely
arrived ad based on evidence and reason, or do you
think that it requires an act of faith?
Speaker 1: I would say that we're not feediists. So what you're
describing is called fideism, the idea that you just sort
of make this leap and maybe there's some things that
suggests that God's existence or maybe the Bible might be inspired,
but you just got to make that leap. That's typically
a post Protestant, post Enlightenment idea. Again, it'st called fedism,
and neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the history of
the Orthodox Church supports fideism. It's more so something that
you see in Protestant evangelical circles. So we believe that
reasoning is a faculty that does point towards the existence
of God. Evidential arguments definitely point towards the existence of God.
But I don't set a divide between reasoning and faith.
The transcendental argument actually argues that you could not even
have the possibility of reason or reasoning if God didn't exist.
So it's a much stronger claim.
Speaker 42: And do you think that other people who use faith
properly always get the right answer or is it possible
for lots of different religions and sex or religion to
be attempting to use faith and to arrive at different conclusions.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm not sure what you mean when you say
using faiths or Arabic conclusions. I mean, like, for example,
for us, sometimes the word faith refers to an act
that an individual does. In terms of like what we're saying.
The Greek word is piecedus, that is, to believe and
to have sort of certitude about a position. Sometimes quote,
faith refers to the entire body of beliefs of a religion,
such as divine revelation or the Nicene creed or something
like that. So kind of really just depends on what
you mean by the word faith there. But I think
we would say that we determine knowledge on in different
ways because different things are known in different ways. And
you know, for example, God is known not just through reason,
but through his own self disclosure or what we call
divine revelation. So scripture and the tradition of the church
are quote the vine revelation that for us is the faith.
And then when a person believes that they're exercising their faith,
But I conceive of it more in a philosophical sense
as a paradigm, and I think that's what you're asking.
Speaker 42: Yeah, I guess I'm trying to understand. Like in a
scientific disagreement, you can oftentimes pinpoint the source of the
disagreement and what will be required to persuade the other person.
Like if an ancient person believe that, you know, a
fertilized human was like a tiny human and then grew up,
we can say, ah, well, they didn't have microscopes, they
didn't have moder embryology, and you could show them an
ultrasound and so on and say, see it's not a
tiny human, it's actually a fetus, and so on. With religion,
my question is how do you pinpoint the difference, Like,
if someone has a revelation from God and they believe
in something based on faith, may be supported by reason
and evidence, but you know, certainly driven by faith.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but again what you're calling phase there is something
that is assuming the dichotomy that I was talking about earlier,
where I don't actually believe that there's a dichotomy between quote,
believing something on faith versus believing something on the basis
of evidence and reason, because I believe that evidence and
reasoning are themselves things that presuppose God's existence. So I
have it the other way around. I believe that everybody
has faith commitments, including atheists and scientists. They just don't
admit that. And when you really drill into it, when
you talk about belief in the scientific method, the rationality, logicality,
and meaning behind the scientific method, none of those things
are proven or known by the scientific method. They're actually
just assumed. And then I can further flesh that out
by getting into things like the categories of knowledge or
the preconditions of knowledge. None of those things are known,
are proven by the scientific method or empirical sense data.
So thus those would all be quote faith or faith
beliefs or faith propositions according to the way that you're
flushing it out. So I don't actually see that big
of a difference between a skeptical atheist and a Christian believer.
Speaker 42: So do you think that there's not a distinction between
like a scientific evidence based approach to understanding a problem
versus prayer, revelation or looking at a holy scripture. It's
all a form of reason.
Speaker 1: I just think it's more nuanced than that that the
faculty of reasoning is used in both revelation. Divine revelation
is a different type of thing than the type of
knowledge or the information that you gain from sense data.
I definitely believe that people use the scientific method to
study and master the natural world. You couldn't have engineering
or science without it. But I don't think that it's
equated to divine revelation. But I think that the two
categories necessitate and interrelate with one another. Because we're bodily beings,
we have since five senses we have, you know, spatial
location that we move around in and God made us
that way, but he also made us to not just
be beings that operate on since data, but also on
higher faculties.
Speaker 42: I guess what I'm trying to understand is and sorry,
you can move on to that speaker if I'm if
I'm trespassing on now as from from my perspective, and
you can maybe you disagree with this. There is a
critical difference between someone who's using the scientific method to
arrive at conclusions, Like if we do a controlled study
about whether or not palm reading works, that's different from
someone who says I just anecdotally see that it works
and I'm convinced, right. Those are two different things. Or
if someone says I'm going to look at drug trials
and see if this one cures cancer or not, another
person says I'm just going to pray. Those are definitely
two different ways of coming to conclusions. And I feel
like what I'm asking is, if you use the non
scientific way, why do they delete a different conclusions.
Speaker 1: I understand what you're saying, but you're missing the point
that I'm making about what I mean when I say
divine revelation or faith. For example, when I talked about
the scientific method itself, I'm saying on a higher level
that it's a raising the bar, so to speak. Or
I'm asking a more fundamental question that for you to
do science presupposed as things that are not under the
purview of science, like logic, for example, And science doesn't
and can't prove logic empirically. So science is a faith
based enterprise. The only difference is that you have a
faith in a finite temporal enterprise, and my faith is
actually something that would ground the very possibility of you
doing science. Do you see the difference in those claims.
I'm making a paradigm level claim.
Speaker 11: I think so.
Speaker 42: I'm going back to the comment you made earlier about
the Mormon who you said you could pinpoint where Joseph Smith,
you know, inserted some text, and I feel like in
that case you can pinpoint the the the error in
his or her reasoning or awareness of the facts right,
and you can you could potentially persuade them that they're
wrong if they really properly understood the facts and use reason.
Speaker 1: And I think I think argument, which is what I'm proposing,
has the ability to do that with an atheist I
or a materialist.
Speaker 42: Or or a position or a Wiccan or a druid
or anyone like. Your view is that whatever people believe
about the supernatural, that the same method would work if
they only knew the facts and used reason, they would
come to your conclusions. Yes, ultimately, okay, got it, thank you.
Speaker 1: Now it might take some leg work and it might
be a little round about because there's what I'm getting
at is that there's a difference between kind of arguing
about mundane empirical things, which is what the domain of
science is, versus how you go about arguing for preconditions
of knowledge or world viewser paradigms as a whole. So
it's a different type of argument, and different types of
things are proven in different ways. So, for example, how
do I know that logic works? Well, that's a metalogical question.
It goes outside of the balance of the normal questions
of you know, regular logical questions. How do I know
that we have knowledge? Right, that's a pistemological question, but
it's a pistological question that raises the bar one level.
So it's a meta epistemological question. Right, what is knowledge?
How do we know that we have knowledge? Can we
have knowledge? Right? So when you start to ask those
types of questions, it raises the bar and it takes
the type of proof out of the domain of the
empirical sense data. So we're actually now arguing about a
higher level of abstraction than does water boil it hundred degrees?
Can I study, you know, flies in the congo, et cetera.
Speaker 42: Yeah, I think that, And again, just interrupt me or
throw me away with if you want to get to
anic speaker. I don't want to hug the mic. But
the difference, it seems to me is, or I may
be struggle to understand your point, is that in science
when you use that method or what I consider be
that method, although you would say it's the same as faith,
but what I think of as science causes convergence, you know,
like like Galilean relative.
Speaker 1: Now, I think, but you're missing the point about what
I'm talking about by raising the bar or asking more
fundamental questions about science itself. So what I'm arguing is
not whether your conclusions within the earthworm studies are tru
or false. I don't doubt that you can come to
various consensuses and dispute with the other colleagues in the
lab about the earthworm. What I'm saying is that science
itself presupposes things that science can't prove, and that means
that you're resting on things that you haven't thought about
or don't And I'm not saying you personally, but I'm
saying that the people who do science, typically, for example,
have not studied philosophy of science. So what I'm talking
about is what you'll if you take a philosophy of
science class, they'll start you'll start asking all these kinds
of questions, and you'll read a bunch of essays by
people who've asked, what is science, how do we do science?
What does science presupposed? How is the method of science reliable?
How do we know it's reliable? These are all philosophy
of science. Cyah, But those are very important.
Speaker 42: But the proof is in the pudding, right like those
presuppositions must.
Speaker 1: Know this is why that doesn't work. That's that's a
false argument for justification. So to argue that because something
works doesn't tell me that it's justified in doing it,
or that that that doesn't count as episodic justification because
I can conceivably make anything quote work depending upon what
I'm getting trying to get it to do. Right, So
just because something quote works is missing the point about well,
how do you know that the science itself is true
or that scientific the specific method it is true because
the method is never under the purview of the microscope
or science itself.
Speaker 42: Yeah, but like nuclear reactors will always work even if
they're based off.
Speaker 1: You're missing the point. You can't make that claim logically.
Speaker 42: I can't claim that nuclear reactors work.
Speaker 1: You said always, which is a universal claim. So in
logic that's called universal quantifier. Anytime you say that, if
you're an empirical science based person, you've shot yourself in
the foot because it's an unjustified claim. You can't demonstrate
empirically that this event will always in the future operate
that way. It's an assumption, and I think it's a
good assumption, but it cannot logically be demonstrated. So you
see right there, science is resting on logical assumptions that
it can't justify.
Speaker 42: Yeah, but if you abandon logical assumptions, you end up
with religion, right, your proliferation of different beliefs that not
reconized you're missing.
Speaker 1: That's so I say. My argument is that it's not
abandoning logic for religion. Revelation is the foundation for logic.
Speaker 42: But why does it lead to log Why does revelation
lead to different outcomes for different people in different countries
and different historical periods, is what I'm asking.
Speaker 1: Well, that would just be a fallacy. The fact that
people have varying religious beliefs doesn't mean that the religion is.
Speaker 42: That has nothing to do with whether religon you're saying
they're doing it.
Speaker 1: Well, when you say the same thing about a person
in science it came to.
Speaker 42: False conclusions, Yeah, I would, so that has.
Speaker 1: Nothing to do with whether their position is true false.
Speaker 42: What I'm saying is why does revelation lead to different conclusions?
And it's a good faith question, like in terms of
are you saying that they're doing it the wrong way
or is it the wrong revelation or do they listen
to the wrong guy.
Speaker 1: I could ask you the same question as to why
the scientific method would lead people to.
Speaker 42: Different conclusions because the evidence reason.
Speaker 1: Or people learning wrong they're doing that, there's a lot
or people are not good scientists, or they don't follow
the method or they're paid off or they're getting grant money,
and they just want to fudge the evage.
Speaker 42: You're saying people don't follow the religious or faith slash
reason method correctly.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that should be obvious to you that because
there's differentiation in religious claims has nothing to do with
which position is true or false. It's a foul.
Speaker 42: Do you think a person can have a genuine, sincere
faith that is incorrect?
Speaker 1: Yeah, people can sincerely believe wrong things.
Speaker 42: Sure, okay, got it, thank you.
Speaker 1: I thought we could keep going. But whatever, Josh father deacon,
would you like to comment on that as a person
from the domain of the philosophy of science? Yeah, dang one,
it was.
Speaker 43: I cannot happen. I just happened to come across the
talk and I and the that guy earlier make lying
wrong again or something like that that guy earlier, but
I think he kind of missed.
Speaker 37: A few minutes.
Speaker 44: I'm going into play bluegrass.
Speaker 1: But yeah, is it any comments on the philosophy of
science in regard to what made lying wrong? With saying?
Speaker 44: Well, no, yeah, I shut this guy up for a second. So,
because I only have a few minutes, forgive me for
being rude but impatient. But yeah, what I would say
too is that you got a lot of good points there. Again,
science isn't a worse shape than that, Like you'd pointed out,
he was saying, well, this works, and you know this,
that the proofs in the pudding, and I think you
alluded to this that. Yeah, but we can have multiple
theories and multiple conclusions they all work, so they can't
all be true.
Speaker 14: That's one of the things.
Speaker 44: And then you know, the problem with like the kind
of assumption that you're that you were addressing and bringing up, is.
Speaker 1: You talk about the underdetermination.
Speaker 44: Of data, understanda of data.
Speaker 14: Yeah, this was brought up.
Speaker 44: A student came to me and was asking me, like,
why don't you believe what about the fossils? And I'm like,
I could reinterpret all of that theoretically into a paradigm
and just redate everything. Like so it's kind of a
failure to understand exactly these kinds, like you said, these
philosophical questions about science, the philosophy science, but science itself
never even gets to knowledge because of those kinds of
problems and the problem of induction and stuff like that.
That that's visuously circular. So even to say it will
work is a fallacy of induction because it assumes that
the future will be like the past. So the science
can't even get to that point. Now again, right, I
like that you pointed out it's reasonable in one sense
if we qualify what that means, because again, what science
is doing is something entirely different. But as human pointed out,
but if we mean by reasonable, logical or epistemic, no,
like it can't actually get to that.
Speaker 1: Exactly.
Speaker 14: Yeah.
Speaker 44: So anyways, that's all I wanted to add. I'm gonna
go and play some music. Forgive me for interrupting the
gentleman there.
Speaker 12: But I have.
Speaker 1: That's all good. Yeah, so make wine. If you wanted
to respond to that, you can.
Speaker 11: Yeah.
Speaker 42: I left because I didn't want to hog the mic,
and again you can always mute me. I think from
a scientific person, afective, I agree with you that you
you assume that the past is like the future, But
I think that that's being a little bit like not
charitable enough just leaving it there, because you don't just assume.
You you take an educated guess and then you go test.
So if the future wasn't like the past, your experiment
wouldn't work. And then if your experiment does work, it's
evidence that your guess Interrectah.
Speaker 1: We're not calling into question whether the future will be
like the past. We're pointing out that from an empirical standpoint,
you can't epistemically or logically justify that the future will
be like the past.
Speaker 42: That's the point, okay, But but you don't think that
there's good evidence that the future is like the past.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter like that because the evidence will still
be based on empirical sense data.
Speaker 42: And so we'll beg the question, are you suggesting that
we do something like should you pray about it? Or
should you like get a revelation?
Speaker 1: I'm suggesting that. I'm suggesting that there have to be
assumed preconditions or categories for the possibility of knowledge, like
logic that are not sense data dependent, that are not
found in sense data, that are not reducible to matter,
and therefore empiricism and materialism as worldviews are self defeating.
Let me give you another example to say all knowledge
comes from sense data, as most modern science y minded
people say that itself is a self refuting claim because
you can't show in sense data that that proposition is true.
Speaker 42: It's an assumption, okay, but I don't think you have to.
I don't think like the worldview that you come to
through science depends on your assumption. I think it depends
on the universe we live in, because if you didn't
live in a universe.
Speaker 1: You're just assuming the thing in question. How do you
know that? How do you know that empiricism is true?
Speaker 42: Well, in science, I don't think you can know something
for one hundred percent certainty. But if it wasn't true,
You're experiments wouldn't work. But you can fail to You
can test something, it can fail to be falsified, is
what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: So what you should look into is what it means
to have epistemic justification because you keep appealing to the
thing in question. The question that we're raising is prior
to the doing of science and prior to empirical sense data.
So every time you appeal to something from sense data,
like doing more science or just assuming that the world
works that way, it's begging the question about the philosophical
question that's being asked.
Speaker 42: So you're saying, before you do science, if you come
to any conclusions, you're begging the question.
Speaker 11: Again, because I would agree.
Speaker 3: With You're not.
Speaker 1: You're not justifying or giving an account for the things
that you use to do science which are not found
in empirical sense data and cannot be justified or found
in empirical sense data. Let me give you an example again.
The claim all knowledge comes from sense data is self
refuting as a claim because number one, it makes a
universal quantifier claim all knowledge comes from sense data. If
you're an empiricist, you can't know that because you don't
have access to all experience. Secondly, the proposition it self
is self refuting because the truth value of that proposition
is not found in sense data, so itself does not
constitute a knowledge proposition, and so it's self refuting. Do
you understand?
Speaker 42: Yeah, don't. I don't dispute that science can't answer all
possible philosophical questions to everybody's satisfaction.
Speaker 1: My question is that you're avoiding the challenge that I pose,
which is that a naive empiricist worldview is itself self refuting.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I get that.
Speaker 42: The claim is I.
Speaker 1: Understand that, No, it's self refuting. It's not even.
Speaker 42: Circular, said sorry, which claim is self refuting? I'm sorry
I lost you.
Speaker 1: If you were to say all knowledge comes from sense data,
that is not a circular argument. That's a contradiction, very different.
Speaker 42: Okay, And you're saying there's another source of data where
knowledge comes from.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm partly saying that, but I'm giving an example
of preconditions of knowledge that are not found in sense data.
And I listed multiple examples of this. The past, the self,
the mind, logic, universals, time, memory, on and on and on.
None of those things are found in sense data, but
they are presupposed in any act of knowledge. An act
of knowledge presupposes a knower, logic, sense give me sentences,
the writing, science papers presupposes meaning. None of those things
can be found in sense data. So those are categories,
transcendental categories, or something's sometimes called preconditions for the possibility
of knowledge. Okay, And none of those things are found
in sense data. And all of those things are assumed
by any doing of science. That's why it's a trends scendent.
Speaker 42: And if we were if you had a planet with imperfect,
you know, finite beings, would you expect them to know
things without any assumptions or presuppositions about anything like is
that what you would expect if they were just grew
up in the universe and trying.
Speaker 1: To understand that. It seems like a fallacy of irrelevance.
I don't understand how that's relevant.
Speaker 42: Why would you? I guess my question is what is
the better source of data that's not sense data that
everybody has access to and gets you reliable conclusions.
Speaker 1: You're missing the point. I'm not saying that we don't
learn things from sense data. I'm saying that sense data
is a lower form of knowledge that assumes abstract, universal,
non physical categories that have to be there to have
knowledge at all. Again, it's a argument from the preconditions
of knowledge. You cannot point to any molecules that make
up the preconditions, but to talk at all assumes the preconditions.
So it's a stronger argument from a logical standpoint.
Speaker 42: Okay, well I'll step aside let others speak. Thank you, sure, Alex.
Speaker 1: I'm you unmute dude. Why are you raising your hands?
For the life of you cannot understand why people can't
work this thing.
Speaker 45: When I got invited in, it was behind the live stream,
so I couldn't hear what you said, yeah, so I
feel like there's a slight misinterpretation when people make scientific claims,
when a person says something is scientifically proven to be true,
because it's framed with the scientific method and science in
general in that philosophical sense that no matter how true
somebody says something is scientifically, it's all framed within the
It could be wrong, whether the certainty levels ninety nine
point nine whatever percent or whatever, it's never one hundred
percent because just inherently it has to possibly be wrong,
so that way it could be also testable. And you know,
you have two people, let's say they have them Usua.
They wake up on an island, two separate but identical islands.
One is very religious minded you the one is more
scientifically minded. And the person is like, well, they're trying
to figure out how the world works. And you see
that they're testing things without even realizing it. You know,
I think this animal went behind this bush. Oh wait,
they're not behind that bush. That means I could be wrong.
That means like maybe I could be wrong about anything.
And versus the person who goes and says, hey, the
animal went behind the bush and they're not there anymore,
and I heard a voice in my head, and therefore
you know that that might be some other being that
I can't access other than through my own head may exist,
and it may have controlled where the animal was. And
it just seems as though there's more jump to conclusions
with the religious minded person versus the more tightly knit
set of assumptions that are based on this more intellectually
humble I could be wrong at all times because I'm
always based, I'm always using evidence that could possibly be wrong.
Speaker 1: But what you're saying is missing the point about the
things that I was orguing for in terms of preconditions
or transcenital categories. The reason that the reason that those
things can't be wrong in any sense is because if
they're wrong, knowledge is impossible, and scientism but just another
form of knowledge that is based on a jump to
conclusion because of everything they argued to that guy. What
I'm arguing is that revelation is the ground for the
transcendental categories, which are the ground form period.
Speaker 45: Which so it starts from a jumped to conclusion.
Speaker 1: No, it's not a jump. It's arguing that if you
make a sentence, you're assuming transcenal categories and God is
the only type of being that could ground transnal category.
Speaker 45: But let's say you hear a voice in your head
and you believe it's God. There's a jump to conclusion.
There's other possibilities I'm argue that I'm arguing for.
Speaker 1: I'm not arguing for hearing voicism, arguing for a specific
historic religion, Orthodox Christianity. And it's the version of theism,
which is not just one guy hearing a voice. It's
an entire metal.
Speaker 45: Take any religion, and the entire thing is going to
be based on. Yeah, sure, maybe historical accounts with whatever
level of accuracy there is, but in every one of
those counts, just like in the scientific method, there are
many other plausible, you know, possibilities, not necessarily within the
whole framework of that belief system, but just anyone something
that might have another explanation that we just don't know.
Speaker 1: That's why we're going to philosophy and to the things
that are preconditions for all knowledge or any possible knowledge.
That's why we're going to that to exclude what you're
saying right.
Speaker 45: Here, which is, you know, both people on the island,
they are starting at the same place, but what do
they start how what is the base and core of
how they're framing everything else.
Speaker 1: I don't I'm not trying to be rude. I don't
think you're understanding. I'm making a specific transcendental argument. The
argument itself addresses and bypasses the challenge that you're giving
because it's not understanding what the argument is. The argument
is prior to empirical sense data claims. So can you
give me an example, like between you know the two? Right?
So other categories that are necessary for any possible knowledge
would again be things like the external world, the self,
the mind, logic, universals, mathematics, time, et cetera. None of
those things are in sense data. They're preconditions for the
possibility of knowledge, and so they're prior to empirical claims.
Speaker 45: Well, I mean like when you first start off on
that island, the hypothetical island, it's already the case that yeah,
of course you have to set up some kind of framework,
like and if you're starting from one that says, yeah,
I'm going to create this framework, but it's fallible, then
that's the new difference.
Speaker 1: You don't understand. This is not understand You're not understanding.
I'm trying to I'm trying to explain it, but you're
not getting it, and.
Speaker 46: Uh, we got disconnected less then, and no, I was
just asking about the first of all. Listen today's tag
arguments and it's so funny they keep talking about the
island and then they jumped to pre supposing metaphysics.
Speaker 30: By the way, it's just very funny to hear. Uh,
they're just talking about like women and.
Speaker 1: He's talking about he's talking about Oh.
Speaker 20: Okay, okay, I'm just.
Speaker 30: Uh, just getting back to the women's thing and hold on,
hold on baby, Uh, just getting back to the women
thing and it clicking. What would you recommend? Because from
my perspective, women are very religiously spiritually spiritually minded and uh,
you know, listening to Except from Rose, he said that
if you're looking for truth, you shouldn't be looking for
a spiritual experience. And it feels like women really want
a spiritual experience.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think that's a danger for women and the
feminine men is to seek out these kinds of experiences
and then they fall into delusion. But we're all susceptible
to Maybe the women are more susceptible to those kinds
of spiritual experiences.
Speaker 47: Sid hi Ja, I just wanted to say, I don't
understand why people can't get the tag argument.
Speaker 34: Like the last two.
Speaker 47: Guys, it's not that hard to understand. Like, I don't know,
I feel like people just miss the point every single time.
And there's supposed to be smart, you know, and you
can like look at their Twitter, but like they just
can't get a simple argument.
Speaker 48: You know.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people when they hear the
terms that I mentioned, and I try to use not
a lot of terminological, baggage laden terms. If I can't,
sometimes it's unavoidable. But I think a lot of times
when people hear those terms or words, they don't think
they have any reference or they don't know what that is.
Speaker 18: You know.
Speaker 1: A lot of times they say word solid when it's
just like common philosophical terms. So you know, in those cases,
you're just talking about people that are just simply uneducated.
But most of the time, if people want a debate,
you know, there's a lot of arrogance and people think
they know what they're talking about. So yeah, at a
lot of factors here arrogance, ignorance, pride, et cetera.
Speaker 49: Mars chalk and the chat hah fueling this whole debate
for like forty hours. Yeah, it's been great question on
the clothing of Adam and Eves. What's the significance for
the Orthodox Is? I know, back in my Protestant days,
I used to point the PSA well as as a
proof for PSA, the whole murdering or killing the animal
Adam and Eve out of the garden. I never heard
a take from Orthodox.
Speaker 12: On that.
Speaker 49: I don't know if you ever heard of or or
have one.
Speaker 1: I don't know why it would prove ps A. I mean,
it's essentially the skins are there's there's a sacrificial element there.
But I don't know how that would prove p s
A because PSA teaches that the Father damns the sun.
So I don't know what that I have to do
with God clothing us in the flesh biological bodies that
we have. Yeah, no, all right, that's cool. Well, how
does it connect to ps A? I don't understand that leap. Well.
Speaker 49: I always remembered the the idea that Christ for them.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no I have.
Speaker 49: I haven't thought about this in a while from a
Protestant perspective. I always remember bringing it up.
Speaker 1: That's all right, I mean I think that. I mean
the skins there are a reference to our bodies, to
our flesh. Right. Oh, I know what you're thinking. You're
thinking that the animal. I know what you're thinking. I
remember now because I remember thinking this as a Protestant too.
Now it's been a long time, but so yeah, So
the Protestant thinks that God clothed them with the skin.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: And the Orthodox interpretation, like if you read pinotas Nellsi's
book Gification in Christ, it's not like a leather coat,
it's the actual skins that we have. So it's linking
us to the animal. It's our animal nature, our biological
animal nature that's being referenced in that text. Is not
a leather coat.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 1: But yes, I understand now, I forgot that. Yeah. Protestants
use that as an example of like ps a like
Adam and Eve or naked. They're in sin, and so
God kills an animal and then closes them with the
leather straps and bikinis so that they can be righteous
in God's sight. But the Orthodox interpretation is that the
skins that God made for them is our actual skin.
So we were stricually naked. God clothed us with flesh
bodies because they were now mortald. They'd been banished from paradise.
They're now mortal because you notice they had bodies prior
to that, right, But now we are given these, as
Paul says, lowly bodies in anticipation of the resurrected, glorified body.
Anybody else we got still three hundred dollars for under
people in here? Any other questions, comments, disagreements, debates, topics.
We actually got a lot more high quality people towards
the end here, Crusade. Where'd you go?
Speaker 20: Man?
Speaker 1: You dropped off Crusade? You want to come back?
Speaker 12: Hey?
Speaker 1: Jay, can you hear me? Go ahead?
Speaker 50: Hey, I was just listening to Alex and the Make
Line guy, And what do you think about them? Listening
to the Bons and Stein debate. It seems like in
about two hours he uh summarizes your arguments just in
a phenomenal way and ask them to account for the
laws of logic in a materialistic worldview.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely everybody should listen to the Box and Stein debate.
And but who are you talking about? Alex who? Alex
Jones or no, Alex the guy the.
Speaker 50: He just came on just after the make Lion Guy
and the Island.
Speaker 1: I don't know if he's still in there. I think
he left anyway it but yeah, everybody can check out
the Box and Stein debate. I also did a talk
on the Box and Stein debate. If people are interested,
if they want to go hear that anybody else. If not,
we'll call it call it an evening. I guess last
chances Gypsy got sorry about that?
Speaker 10: Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Hey, it's a quick question.
Speaker 51: I was reading a story regarding Saint Athanasius and that
his teacher may have been Alexander of Alexandria had chastised
him as a young boy and his friends for playing
pretend baptisms, and he said the reason why was that
those baptisms were truly valid.
Speaker 1: Is that something of the Orthodox Church accepts. I've never
heard this story, but no, I don't think anybody would
accept the pretend baptisms are well.
Speaker 51: The reason I'm asking is not because of that particular instance,
but like the idea that you know, a Protestant or
a Catholic or any other kind of heterodox Christian could
perform a valid baptism. And why I'm asking is we
wouldn't accept heterodox any other heterodox sacrament, but we do
accept baptisms as long as the trinitarian So I wonder
why that is.
Speaker 1: Well, sometimes but not always. So there's a lot of
canonical strictures and precedents and procedures for when it's supposed
to be accepted or not accepted. So, for example, there's
canons in the sixth Council to talk about not accepting
you know, mean baptism even if it's done with the
right names. So it really is supposed to ultimately be
kind of a case by case basis. So that's what
I would say. Okay, well that's all I got, thanks man.
Speaker 29: Well, and I just joined it real quick. Something on
that that I noticed people don't understand is that grace
is not one thing like you go and you buy
you buy a tie, and it's like, okay, buy this
one tie. God's uncreated grace is not just one thing.
There's all types of grace that is that are offered
in different ways.
Speaker 20: So there's a lot of.
Speaker 29: Nuance there, you know. But it's not it's not just oh,
we accept baptisms so they are the church.
Speaker 12: It's like, well, there's a whole lot.
Speaker 29: Of nuance there with how what grace is in different
types of grace?
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, and also if I mean even sant Augustine
pointed out that even though the baptisms outside the church
might be valid, if the person persists in heresy, the
grace doesn't. There's an impediment to the grace. So the
impediment is not removed until they profess Orthodoxy. So, uh,
dick or sith, what's up?
Speaker 20: Hello?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 52: Hey, So I'm an inquirer, but I was watching a
debate recently between god logic. I think his name is
a Orthodox Muslim, but basically Orthodox Muslim was like pressing
him on John twenty, verse seventeen, and the god Logic's
response was that, like, because Jesus became flesh, that then
he can have a God. But like, isn't that like
an historian like way to think about it.
Speaker 1: No, Jesus is the second person of the Godhead and
always refers to the Father as his God and our God,
your Father and my Father. This is why the Orthodox
Church teaches what's called monarchical trinitarianism, that the one God
is the person of the Father.
Speaker 35: So Jesus.
Speaker 52: So the Father isn't Jesus's God outside of the incarnation or.
Speaker 1: No, he's eternally the God of Christ from all e
t because the Christ is the son of the Father.
Speaker 34: Okay.
Speaker 52: But like when he's saying that, like okay, well, like
my Father and your Father, my God and your God,
Like that's still accurate in the sense that like like
that is from eternity.
Speaker 12: He's his God, right or like.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, yeah, it's an eternal generating of the Son, So
he's eternally.
Speaker 52: Yeah, But the reasoning that, like he's only his God
in the sense of just becoming flesh, like that's not correct, right.
Speaker 1: No, that's not true because again monarchical trinitarianism, as is
confessed in the Creed and in the Book of James
and in Paul's letters for us, there is one God,
the Father Almighty. All good gifts come down from the
Father of lights. So it is from all eternity that
the one God is the person of the Father.
Speaker 11: I see.
Speaker 1: It's called monarchical Trinitarians.
Speaker 52: That kind of leads into like my second just kind
of question just like regarding like just you know, the Trinity.
Speaker 3: Uh so if.
Speaker 34: How do I say this?
Speaker 52: Okay, so if Christ, like you know, he pre exists,
like creation and a creation exilo and like like let's say,
like I accept the deity of Christ, right, Like where
like where does that logically follow from that that they
are that the Son and the Father are like the
same being?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 52: Because I know in an article trinity, like you know
the Father, like you make the analogy between a king
and the prince. But the king and the prince like
they have the same nature, but they're still different beings,
like they're.
Speaker 1: You know what I mean? Well, the difference is that, right?
So the difference is that amongst humans who are created,
we are distinct, discrete beings, and God is and the
Father and the Son are not discreet. They endwell one
another in terms of peracusis, and they share the same nature.
So there's a mystical unity amongst the members of the Trinity,
which human beings don't possess except in the Church. And
that's why in the High Priestly of Christ and John
fourteen fifteen, sixteen seventeen, he says, you will be one
as I and the Father are one. So that and
that goes beyond just a moral joining with Christ. It's
also intending to signify a shared energy or glory that
we partake of, So it has to be not just
a unity of nature, but also it refers to the
paraphoresis or the divine in dwelling.
Speaker 52: Okay, so I get that, but like, like what is
there any scripture or anything like that could help me understand,
Like why would Jesus just not be Like why could
I not just think of Jesus like a second God,
Like not that he doesn't have the same nature, but
like if I assume, like, okay, the Father and the
Son they have the same nature, but because there's that distinction,
like why wouldn't they just be like to God, Like
why wouldn't there just be two gods or three gods?
Speaker 3: With the poor spirit?
Speaker 1: Well, because the word God can pick out different things,
and it's usually been used to pick out the person
of the Father. So if you're referring to the whole trinity,
then God is the trinity. If you're referring to the
divine nature, there is one divine nature, right, and that's
the divinity expressed in in God, the Father and the Trinity.
If you're referring to one God because of the in dwelling,
there's one God because they all through the persons and
dwell one another perfectly. So the word God can also
pick out the divine energies. So the mistake is I
think in thinking that God has a single reference, and
that's usually the way, like Mormons are Muslims argue.
Speaker 52: Okay, so you would so you would say it doesn't
violate the laws laws of identity because based pretty much
like the main like the like the main person of
God is the Father, like the Son and the Spirit
like they're because they come from the Father, like, it's
still one God.
Speaker 1: Basically, that's what you're trying to say, correct, And they
recapitulate in the Father, as the Cappadocians say. So the
movement in the trinity of the energies also shows the
unity of God because every movement is from the Father,
through the Sun and in the Spirit, and so it's
a never ending circle. As Basil says, So there's one
God because there's one energy and one action, and that
one energy one action is also multiple at the same
thought at the same time. So for a lot of
Orthodoxiology it's a both and but if you look off
the word monotheism and I actually put this on my
wall today because uh croc believe or not actually got
it right. And the word monotheism is actually a sixteen
sixties era term. It doesn't even exist until the sixteen sixties.
And so when the Capadocians are when anybody in the
scripture is right, we believe in one God, the Father Almighty.
So like the Creed says, right, I believe one God,
the Father. And then it says God from God, Light
from Light. Well, in the Creed that's just picking out
the word God. There is picking out the hypostasis, right,
So God from God means hypostasis from hypostasis, it's not
referring to different natures or two different divine natures.
Speaker 52: Okay, yeah, I guess that's all for now, Thanks bro.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but if you read John fourteen to seventeen, I mean,
that would probably be one of the best places to
see this, the nature of this union and distinction within maternity. Dick,
what's up?
Speaker 12: Hey, what's up? Can you hear me?
Speaker 36: Yes, sir, hey, this kind of ties into the Catholic thing,
But and it ties into the the Ira thing that
we were talking about, or you were talking about a
couple of days ago. But I was reading recently The
Perfect Holocaust and who kept it perfect?
Speaker 12: By Chris Fogerty. And have you heard of that book.
Speaker 1: I've not heard of it.
Speaker 12: Okay, well it's essentially.
Speaker 36: The the leading up to the Potato Family, which is
really an attempt at Holocaust. But yeah, yeah, But anyway,
it was interesting because, uh, he doesn't put the dots together,
but he kind of talks about how, you know, the
William the Conquer, will was it William the Conquer, William
the bastard, the Norman who took over England, and then
of course, you know, the Normans tried to take over
Ireland afterwards, and you know, maybe two hundred years afterwards,
and then the first and I think the only British pope,
Pope Adrian, was the one that sent the Normans in
the English into Ireland to from our perspective, which I
think is obviously the right perspective forcibly convert or make
the Irish submit to the pope. But anyway, he gives
in the first like in the first chapter, it's about
sixty eight pages. I think like that like probably at
least six instances of where the Catholic Church going all
the way up to the pope excommunicates groups of Irish
that rise up against the.
Speaker 1: English too, that are wow, I don't know this.
Speaker 36: Yeah, so they they excommunicate the Irish that rise up
against the English that are well first they rise up.
He doesn't state this explicitly, I kind of it's implied
if you kind of know the history between the East
and West that you know, Ox to Catholic and then
you know, you're talking about how the northern uh, northern
Ireland right now, even back in you know, as early
as the sixteen hundreds were Protestant, and of course they
the English used Protestantism too as a geopolitical tool to
subject the Irish well in the same way they use
Catholicism to subject.
Speaker 12: The Irish under the pope.
Speaker 36: And it's interesting, well I read it because I'm Irish,
you know, part Irish, and it's interesting because they use
the same tactics to convert them to Catholic, the Roman
Catholic the way.
Speaker 1: So this is this is great. So prior to the Reformation,
the English have been conquered by the Normans. We're using
papal fourth to enslave the Irish to the papacy. And
then when the Protestant Reformation happens, when England becomes Protestant
they use the exact same divide and conquer model by
Northern Ireland being very very similar.
Speaker 36: And as a matter of fact, they used forced tithing
on the Irish for the Protestant Church, so they would
have to tie first to the Protestant Church and then
and then to the Catholic Church. And on top of that,
the Catholic Church would excommunicate rebellions, people rebelling against the
against the English crown trying to subject them. But that's
all in the first sixty sixty pages. It's worth a read.
And then you know, of course, the main focus of
the book is on the Irish Holocaust, which, yeah, the
potato famine, which in what's that it's called the perfect
Holocaust and who kept it perfect? And it's by Chris Fogerty,
and most of it, like i'd say about half of
it is primary sources.
Speaker 12: And like how.
Speaker 36: The English would during this is specifically during the Holocaust,
they had you know, the Irish, you know, the main
means line history, I guess, is that all the Irish
were just you know, rubes and they only grew potatoes,
which is absurd, you know, which is kind of absurd
because you know, it's the Emerald Isle and they've always
been known to have the best you know, dairy and
and stuff in butter, and you know that's like where
carry gold butter is like world you know, renown and butter.
Speaker 12: And stuff like that.
Speaker 36: But yeah, yeah, and it's you know, it's great. And
but they talk about how they had legitimate like food
stores all over Ireland and they wouldn't give it to
the Irish people who were growing it, and they were
using for exportation, you know, because of you know, the
English imperium.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I remember Tim Kelly used to talk about them.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 36: But anyway, like I said, it's not explicit in there.
He doesn't say it explicitly, but if you look at
it from an East West like Orthodox Catholic perspective and
the Great Schism, it's pretty obvious what was happening before
even the the Reformation.
Speaker 1: How many people It's hard to.
Speaker 12: Say, but his estimates go anywhere.
Speaker 36: So the total population of Ireland before the Holocaust or famine,
whatever you want to call it, was about twelve million,
and then.
Speaker 12: After it was about five to six million. And that's not.
Speaker 36: All that's not all death, you know, because there was
a huge amount of displacement. You know, obviously there's a
huge migration to America. And also they would not just
kill people, but they would enslave them and you know,
send them to the to the Caribbean islands, where they
would essentially die because they're in Ireland and there's no
sun in Ireland. Then they go to Caribbean and they die.
But yeah, so it's the the records from his book,
are they vary, but it's it was about half the
population of the entire.
Speaker 12: Island.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the British or.
Speaker 36: Yeah, and you know, of course there's Goes, who's the
his name's escaping me right now. But one of the
main he conspired to assassinate the king in the sixteen
or seventeen.
Speaker 1: Hundreds killed the butcher.
Speaker 12: I can't remember. No, he was in he was in England.
Speaker 1: He's a no.
Speaker 36: I can't remember his name. I want to say Cornwalls,
but that's not it. I can't remember his name. He's
a huge I can't remember his name. He wasn't the
only one, but there were other characters that took Jewish
money to continue the the persecution of the of the Irish.
Speaker 12: Anyway, I just thought you might find that interesting.
Speaker 36: Yeah, but get that book I got, and I think
he's still alive. And he actually autographed my book with
the book when I ordered it from him, so it's
pretty cool.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 12: Anyway, thanks ma'am.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thanks Sick. Those are great points, Crusade.
Speaker 35: What's up, g Yeah, first of all, I want to
say sorry first if my English is bad, so I
will kind of watch your debate about Jainism. So my
question is, uh, do you think Christians will support Israel
on the war in Gaza?
Speaker 1: What I didn't understanding that.
Speaker 35: Do you think Christians support Israel in the war between.
Speaker 1: Christian I think a Christian would probably support the minority
Orthodox in the Palestinian era, they wouldn't support necessarily either one.
We don't like a Moss and we wouldn't like uh
anti Christian Judaism. Pastor Kevin, Pastor Kevin, you get unmute.
Speaker 49: I can feel it.
Speaker 29: I can feel he's going to uh, he's gonna lay
something down for us now. I can feel my my
my knees are shaking in anticipation of the great words.
Speaker 1: He will fail. Pastor Kevin, your seven day Adventist. Unmute?
Speaker 53: All right, he's knocking on mute my choice guy, Ma Troyce.
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 22: Good evening, Jay, can you hear me?
Speaker 12: Hey?
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, good, good to speak to speak to you again.
We've met in person before, but yeah, I just wanted
to ask you, uh what, how how should Christians view
uh political uh the political world from a theological perspective,
because you know, something like Byzantine symphonia is not it's
not really uh realistic.
Speaker 1: Uh well, I mean that's up to you what your
gifts and calling are or whether you want to be
involved in local politics. And you know, I think one
of the elders or saints recently said, do you support
the candidates that are the best possible for Christianity? Mo?
Speaker 48: And I'm just a Puerto Rican young man. I gotta
question it. So like, so you're you're Christian. I just
got a question like, so, like how like how should
I feel if I'm like Lukewarm? Because I know Hebrews
that talks about you know, you know the truth, you
know what's up in the spirit, you know how everything's
go down, like you know, spiritual warfare, you know this
and that, and but you still choose to any way
rebel and you know, I know the Bible talk about
rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft or something like
you around more or less of that, and so I
just be I feel like I'm too guilty to.
Speaker 20: Turn back.
Speaker 48: It's like, dang, God, like you're looking at me and
I'm just a pig play in the mud, and I'm
just I know what I'm doing is wrong, but I'm
still doing it. And I just feel like disc like disgusting,
like filthy, like, well, what we.
Speaker 1: All feel that way? So I would say, look, you
know we're all gonna feel that way. That's actually a
good thing. So I would say, begin to look in
the Orthodox Christianity. David, what's up? David? Da v'd with
an E. I don't understand why all these people come
on here and they don't unmute. What's what? Why are
they doing it? What's the point? Kyoma? I'm you Chioma?
Are you do you want a Hey?
Speaker 18: It's morning over here, so good morning?
Speaker 1: Mean, hey, what's on your mind?
Speaker 18: I'm not sure what the topic is. You guys are
just saying random stuffs. Guys talking about war and what
what what you're talking about?
Speaker 1: Uh, it's a debate topic. So anything that related to
atheism Catholicism is long liberalism, all the things listed up there.
Speaker 18: Oh, well, question, can I ask the question?
Speaker 1: Uh? Huh?
Speaker 18: Are you are you a Christian.
Speaker 1: Orthodox? Yes?
Speaker 24: Wow, that's.
Speaker 18: I kind of thought you an atheist?
Speaker 1: Okay, well, uh, maybe I need to do better than
x DMA. What's up?
Speaker 34: Can you hear me? I have an opinion. I think
all the religions it's kind of bullshit. It's made to
make people like, it's made for controlling people, and like,
I think it's bad. You know, it's like a cult,
all the religions, And I think people should be good people.
And it's not a religion that makes you good, it's you.
Speaker 1: Okay, how do we know? How do we know what
the good is?
Speaker 34: Well, don't hurt others, like every.
Speaker 1: Why is that the good? Why is that the good?
How do we know that?
Speaker 34: Because you don't want it to happen to you? Do
you want to get hurt?
Speaker 1: Well, but that doesn't that doesn't mean that it's the
good because I don't want that. There's a lot of
things that I don't want, But that doesn't make it
the case. So how do we know that that is
the case?
Speaker 34: How does that make sense that? Like obviously it's not good.
Speaker 1: Well, just saying that it's obvious doesn't show me that
that's the case. That's just sort of restating what you said.
But I want to know how you know.
Speaker 34: That, Like how I know getting hurt is bad? Like
what do you mean? Of course it's bad, like nobody
wants to do.
Speaker 1: Now, you said to be good to people, which that
doesn't even tell us how we are good to people
or what the content of that is. And I'm asking
you what is the good?
Speaker 34: Well, help people in need?
Speaker 1: Okay, how do you know that that's what the good is?
Is it universal?
Speaker 12: Yeah?
Speaker 34: Everybody needs help from everybody. We're social beings.
Speaker 1: Right, Okay, but you're a limited, finite being. How do
you know something that's universally the case?
Speaker 34: Because that's in our nature?
Speaker 1: How do you know that? I mean, you're just asserting.
Speaker 34: All these like scientifically proven like people there's.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you think it's scientifically pre even that the good
is in our nature? That doesn't make sense.
Speaker 34: No, but it's in our nature to be social beings.
Speaker 1: And okay, but a lot of social beings are quote bad,
So how does that tell me.
Speaker 12: What the good is?
Speaker 34: What social beings are?
Speaker 1: Bad? People? Engaged in warfare, rape, murder, theft.
Speaker 34: So that's pretty that's obviously bad. Why Well, because it's
like all the things that happened to other people, Like
those things that happened to other people, the other people
had negative feelings or anerthings.
Speaker 1: So that's begging the question, why is it. Maybe I
get a lot of pleasure out of hurting people, So
why is it wrong to do that?
Speaker 34: It's wrong for the other person? Why because it's hurting them.
Speaker 1: That's a circle. So now you're back to the first claim.
So circular arguments are good.
Speaker 34: No, it's just makes sense like why would why would you?
Speaker 12: Even?
Speaker 1: So that's another saying. Okay, so so you understanding of
the debate. If you come to debate and you can
just assert things and they can be circles, I can
do that too, So god just is yeah, I mean,
so that's why, that's why what you're arguing is not
a good argument. Slow, Slow, I'm still sick of saying
on you a J.
Speaker 12: A J on M.
Speaker 1: You can't connect Dick again, Dick, you got on here?
Speaker 12: Dick?
Speaker 1: Do you want to talk to get it on? You
can y'all not hear me or something?
Speaker 29: I I can hear you? I don't know if you
can hear me.
Speaker 12: I can hear you?
Speaker 29: Oh yeah, your dreams.
Speaker 12: I didn't request to speak.
Speaker 1: That was just a fate speaker.
Speaker 34: So here's the second thing that I wanted to say. So, yeah,
so I don't know. I'm not good at the base.
Speaker 29: Can I ask you a question?
Speaker 34: Real quick?
Speaker 12: No? Wait?
Speaker 1: Manswer?
Speaker 29: Can I ask you a question?
Speaker 6: Uh?
Speaker 1: Never mind, I'm bringing it back. I'm bringing it back.
Speaker 29: Can I ask you a question?
Speaker 11: Xde answered?
Speaker 34: Can I can I like talk?
Speaker 2: I don't.
Speaker 34: I don't get what I'm like getting to be a
listener speaker.
Speaker 12: Okay.
Speaker 34: What I wanted to ask is what do you believe
religion is? Like God or whatever? That's real?
Speaker 1: Because it just is. So I'm gonna use the same
arguments you did, okay, I mean.
Speaker 34: Sure, what okay?
Speaker 29: Because without without God, you're not going to be able
to justify your ability to make a sentence and a
truth claim like you're trying to do right now.
Speaker 34: But do you believe that's not nature?
Speaker 29: What is nature? There's there's a what's a what is
this human nature you appealed to before?
Speaker 12: Is it?
Speaker 45: No?
Speaker 34: No?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 34: I mean nature in general, like the laws of physics,
trees grow, weat food, the circle.
Speaker 29: All those imags things, those immaterial not physical laws.
Speaker 1: No, no, you're you're wrong, You're wrong, Chase. The circle
of life is mentioned in the Lion King.
Speaker 29: If you said, oh, this is the logical principle of
a savena right?
Speaker 34: So wait's okay, so you everything that you're saying, like
the lan King, it's all books written by other people. Everything,
all the religion things, all the books are written by
other people, not by God. So how do how, how
do how does anybody know what God is if they've
never seen it?
Speaker 1: You mean, like all the science papers.
Speaker 29: That are I mean, your whole are your whole assertion?
I heard it from you, and you're just another person.
Yeah yeah, so why should.
Speaker 1: I listen to you?
Speaker 29: You're just another person?
Speaker 14: Bro?
Speaker 34: What do you mean?
Speaker 29: Well, okay, you're saying, so here's you keep presenting these
principles like oh, the laws of physics and stuff like this,
and nature and something called nature which is a universal
which is a big claim. And then you're appealing to
or sorry, trying to critique that the Bible and everything
was transmitted through other people. But you're another person trying
to proposit a truth claim. You don't see that that's contradictory.
Speaker 3: He does not.
Speaker 12: Okay, that's pretty based.
Speaker 41: Yes, I have questions for mister Chase Haggard. Your brother
Tristan is Antichrist?
Speaker 14: No he's not.
Speaker 29: That's a vicious rumor. That's a vicious rumor started by Beyonce.
Speaker 12: Man.
Speaker 41: It was I want to say, this has been a
very very good night, Jay. I have never heard you
this polite before. Oh really, Yeah, I just want to
get some feedback. I just it was so hilarious. No,
the woman, the Mormon woman who said that there's more
Mormons than their Muslims.
Speaker 1: Yeah, ridiculous. That so funny. I can't wait to clip
what she was saying.
Speaker 41: Where do you find these psychotic people who come in
with such like extreme confidence and just spelled the most insane.
Speaker 1: That they're all? They all comment on Twitter.
Speaker 29: I actually I'm a I'm a federal agent that gets
a lot of us AID funding and so I just
pay them to come in.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 41: Well, well, and you know me, I'm always coming in
talking about Islam, And I just wanted to first ask
a question, you know how, like I don't know if
you know this but like Sonny, Islam holds to both
predestination and free will, and that has to be a contradiction, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, especially if you're an occasionalist.
Speaker 32: Yeah.
Speaker 41: Yeah, it's like it's like, you know, you, as a
philosopher and a logician, that is a hard contradiction, right,
There is no way you can reconcile that, right.
Speaker 12: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think again, the main problem would be that as
most of the sunies are occasional was then if God
is the direct cause of every single event at every
single second, and he's you know, starting the world over
at every second, then when you say that you have
free will, that really means absolutely nothing if occasionalism is true,
because occasionalism has to mean excuse, mean, free will has
to mean that you have causal agency, that you can
be a secondary cause. But the whole point of occasionalism
is to not have secondary causes, and so free will
would just really mean nothing. Yeah.
Speaker 34: Absolutely, And.
Speaker 1: Also I mean if Allah is the greatest of deceivers too.
But there was a really good philosophy paper that was
written a while back, and the paper was arguing that
if you admit this, then you couldn't actually know that
Allah isn't deceiving you into believing.
Speaker 41: As Yeah, so it's kind of like the Calvinist evanescent grace,
so the college, right, yeah, because like what the whole
thing was, like the Muslim predestination.
Speaker 36: The nation.
Speaker 41: There's talk about like predestination in Calvinism and in Christianity,
but it really means something else than in Islam, because
like in Islam, it's like a total fatalism, referring to
every single action and decision you make. Exactly what I think,
like Christian predestination is just like the whole thing with
like faith and salvation and refers to just to the
like Selvathic moment, right.
Speaker 1: And and the and divine foreknowledge. Yes, did you want
to come back make line?
Speaker 42: My first question is in the comment someone was saying
that you're in the bathtub.
Speaker 11: Is that true?
Speaker 1: It is correct? You hear that. That's really funny.
Speaker 42: My other question was do you do you think is
it your view that God intervenes and and manipulates matter
every now and then when he or she you know,
causes a miracle to happen, or does God leave things
to occur according to the laws of physics?
Speaker 1: I mean, I would say that the laws of physics
and you know, the celestial planets and spheres or whatever like,
all of that is the logical structure that God has
put into place in the cosmos. But that God is
not a deistic deity as if he's removed. He's we
believe in the divine imminence as well as divine transcendence,
so he is present in the world, and also that
he transcends the world. And we would not say God
is a she. God is who's revealed in the Orthodox
Christian Church as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Speaker 42: Okay, so are there is there such a thing as
a miracle in your view? Or is it more like, well,
if you could learn enough, you would discover the natural explanation.
But that explanation itself.
Speaker 1: Was I think Jesus. Jesus turned water to paine, and
that was a different way of doing the normal logical
structures that he had put into place in the natural world. He,
in that instance, Than's demonstrating his superiority over the laws
of nature, did a murder.
Speaker 42: And when God, if God does something like converts water
into wine or something like that, does the energy required
or the change of momentum required to do that is
that subtracted from God? Or is God like an infinite
reservoir of energy and momentum and mass and so on.
Speaker 1: God does not have mass because God is uncreated. In
mass would apply to anything that is created or in
time and space or spatially extended. And since God is
an immaterial, non spatial, perfect spiritual being, he doesn't have
bodily extension or space from all eternity.
Speaker 42: So is there is it a suspension of the laws
of chemistry and physics when when someone of that happens,
or is.
Speaker 1: It just a it's God doing something different than the
way that he allowed the normal laws to go. So
in other words, we would say God is the basis
for or the patterns of providence in nature already, and
so that's just him doing it a different way.
Speaker 42: So if there's if the laws of physics are like traffic,
God is like a traffic cop that can just kind
of stop it when he wants and then let it continue.
Speaker 1: The conversation from before is the same misunderstanding the conversation. Now,
the laws of physics are themselves divine laws grounded in
the divine mind, which make nature and regularity in nature
possible and so when God does a miracle, technically speaking,
you could say it's him doing something in a different
way than he did before.
Speaker 42: Okay, got it, Thank you.
Speaker 1: Anybody else, I don't see any other comments, discussions, topics, questions, issues.
Looks like we're winding down a lot of long's a
lot of fun discussions today. It's a lot of fun.
Speaker 14: If you.
Speaker 1: Want to check out the earlier chat, it was it
was pretty wild. Otherwise, everybody, have a good night, and
thank you for tuning in and for having fun. Check
out chalk dot com. Use it from a code J
forty to get forty percent off j Y forare zero
at c h o Q chalk dot com.