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