Speaker 1: One zero.
Speaker 2: Dire wave.
Speaker 3: So anyway, so it's against.
Speaker 1: The scientific method, cannot justify the scientific that's it.
Speaker 2: Therefore it is itself. It is a dogmatical as.
Speaker 1: Subposition, a scientific men justified the science.
Speaker 2: Therefore it is itself. It is a dogmatical assigned justified
therefore itself. What's up?
Speaker 4: Welcome, Welcome everybody, special guests today, mister Jimbob. As you
all know, it's gonna be a little bit, a little
bit different, little weird because.
Speaker 2: Jimbob is wanting to livestream on his instagris am grinks
the grinks the ground, and so he's over there and.
Speaker 4: He's gonna be talking to us through the ethers to
the ether spear. But I gotta join his little thing,
you know, only.
Speaker 5: Some sort of control self defense. They'd be like, what, like,
how do you know that book?
Speaker 3: Like m.
Speaker 4: He's rambling, I don't know what he's talking about. I
gotta enable my microphone, damn it. You know, I'd be like,
you know, I'm sorry, baby, that many times in a row.
I'm sorry, baby, I'm so sorry.
Speaker 5: I'm here a.
Speaker 2: Jimba waiting for je connection. Yo, Hey, I'm here. I'm sorry.
Speaker 6: It's all right, welcome, Welcome, jay I I introduced you before,
author of h what is it a cult?
Speaker 5: Cult? Symbolism in Hollywood one and two.
Speaker 2: That's so terry Hollywood.
Speaker 5: That's so terror Sorry, that's so terry Hollywood one and two.
Speaker 6: Uh, philosopher, legicitional, logician, master, Uh anything else you want
to just tap your shoulder about? No, okay, well I
only have an hour.
Speaker 5: Or so I want to get right to it.
Speaker 6: We talked about, Uh, we've been texting about monism and uh,
trying to get a handled myself and a lot of
my followers on the refutations of these things and how
a lot of uh you said, how a lot of
world views ultimately get reduced to dualism or monism, and
and it's silly.
Speaker 5: So we're gonna get into that and some natural law.
A lot a lot of.
Speaker 6: People in my comments are coming out of the woodworks claiming, uh,
Mark pas Pacio has solved the problem of morality and no, no,
no transcendental source needed.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 6: You just go right to what is and that will
give us what ought to be. But first, let's look
at this one comment today.
Speaker 5: Let me see what this person said.
Speaker 6: She said, the universe is representative of all consciousness is
energy blah blah blah from the person you know, like
she'sasically saying the universe because it's she's saying, the universe
is is the ultimate, it is is the God. The
universe is the God. And then in my my response
to that, and we'll go to your response to that
that notion. My response is if if the universe a
material you know and object basically is the source of
all intelligence and absolute truth, wouldn't it wouldn't wouldn't it
have to wouldn't we have to find uh, let's say,
laws of logic and other absolute immaterial truths in physically
in the universe. Wouldn't they have to? Wouldn't it have
to provide.
Speaker 5: That to us somehow?
Speaker 2: Yes? Uh, there's a lot of ways you could critique
this mistake.
Speaker 4: It's it's a version of pantheism, and pantheism is critiquable
in many different ways. You could point out the kind
of the now naturalism critique dangle that you're going there,
that if the universe is quote God, then what do
we mean when we talk about invariant immaterial types of
things like numbers or laws of logic or any of
those kinds of things because by their very nature they
don't seem to be identical with matter. They can't be
located in any single place in time, they can't be
identified with any object. They're not found under a microscope,
they're not found under a rock, so they're different, a
different type of object. There's other arguments that you can make.
Leibniz has an argument about this where he talks about
the eternality of truth, which is basically that if you
just think about the truthfulness of any proposition, right, say,
Caesar crosses a rubicon, even though it's a historical event,
even after it's occurred, it's always the case that it occurred, right,
It will never be the case that Caesar didn't cross
the rubicon. So the actual physical event has come and gone.
So we can't equate the truthfulness of that proposition with
the physical event because it's not equated to any physical
state of matter that presently exists. So, of necessity, any proposition,
any of them. If the proposition is going to be
meaningful and coherent, it has to have some value that
goes beyond identification with the material. So although that refutes
materialism primarily, it's also applicable to any proposition about the universe,
because if you were to say the universe is God,
you kind of need access to what we call a
universal or a universal state of affairs, or the ability
to know that that universally is the case. But most
of the time that people that make these kinds of statements,
they don't really have a basis for how they say
these things. It's just kind of something that they read
like a you know, on a meme or something like
they're just repeating something very generic and meaningless.
Speaker 6: Yeah, Russell Brand or something, you know. And so that
that overlaps with monism if if it brecks me, if
I'm wrong. But that's basically like there's no distinction between
God and everything we see in material and they're both
equal one to one, which means we're we're essentially God too, right,
That's what that implies. And I say we're God and
you disagree with me, which, how do you have a
battle of the gods? We need to make a video
game so that God's battle and then one of us wins.
Isn't that one of the easiest ways to just like
that can't be true, because if I'm God and you're God,
and we disagree.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean our buttholes God too, I mean, buttholes
are part of the universe. Is a butthole God. I mean,
it's just absurd because, as you said, any monistic position,
which is a position that says that all of reality
is fundamentally one or one type of thing, that all
collapses into impossibility and it precludes knowing anything, because if
you want to predicate knowledge, you have to be able
to pick out particulars. You have to say that dog
is a badass, you have to say that Bill Cosby
is a player. Right, You can't make sentences without being
able to pick out particular objects. But this philosophy says
that there are no particular objects. That's illusory. Everything is
ultimately one type of thing. And so if there's no
real distinctions in the world, then you can't make sentences,
you can't know things. It's a self defeating what even
Steffan calls a self detonating kind of position.
Speaker 6: Right, and even the starting point, I remember I was
on your stream, we use the phrase reality is illusion, right,
But similarly, all the truth statements start from a fundamental
assumption that something is already true or else we can't
even go forward. We have to assume language is true.
We're accepting it as it is in a circular way.
We're accepting the form of a statement, and that means
something we're accepting meaning. So it's like, well, even when
you say like I mean in that, in that that
was probably the best example of reality is illusion. That
really debunks the whole like everything's vague, man, because uh,
you know, as you said in your your diagram, if
you start with reality itself, you've already established a non illusion,
so you'd have to reality itself would have to be
not an illusion. For you to say reality is an illusion,
you'd have to you're already you're already going against what
you're saying.
Speaker 2: In a way, right, Yeah.
Speaker 4: I mean the word reality itself is a very loaded
kind of metaphysical concept in philosophy.
Speaker 2: So to be able to say that is.
Speaker 4: Already kind of assuming a lot in terms of you
having knowledge of the external world and existence and what
that is. I mean, there's a lot of assumptions that
go into just that very ambiguous philosophical term reality. And
to be able to say that, the easiest way, let
me just rewind, because the easiest way to refute this
kind of a statement is to say that if all
of reality is illusion, and if I'm coming to the
knowledge of this proposition or this truth within reality, that's
part of reality, right, is the fact that I've come
to this discovery supposedly this truth, then there's the discovery
that all of reality is illusion is also part of
the illusion.
Speaker 2: Right, And so it's easily self refuting.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 6: And similarly to the monistic view, like every all is one?
Who are you to declare it? Are you temporarily standing
outside the bar called one looking in like are you allowed?
Like are you just you hit the eject button and
you're just you know, you're temporarily in time out like
in you know, like in the penalty box, and you're like, oh,
all is one.
Speaker 5: You have to believe even though I'm part of one.
That doesn't make sense either, Right.
Speaker 2: Well, let's just think about let's make it really stupid.
Speaker 4: Also, at the level of numbers, right, to say all
is one is to assume numerical unity. The number one, right,
You're predicating oneness is the number two, the number one right?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 2: I mean, so if you're going to cancel out all
numbers by this and all numbers.
Speaker 4: Are identical to one, then you can't have numbers because
you can't have the number one without all the other.
Speaker 6: Numbers, right, Yeah, and then maybe someone who's arguing that
one is you know, if you ask someone is one
equal to two, they'd have to say yes, yes, and
then it would just be this endless tripling and quadrupling
into affinity trying to like, I mean, it breaks down
all of math and everything everything we use in logic
and mathematics to apprehend or discern any kind of truth itself.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but if a person is so two says to
say that one, uh is literally the same thing as too.
I mean, that's just, on the face of it absurd.
And if that's the case, then you also couldn't know
the difference between one or two, and therefore you could
you couldn't say that that all things are one.
Speaker 6: Right, great, well, I mean if people don't understand that
at the fundamental level, I mean, I'm sorry, but it's
just bizarre to me that people keep doubling down on stuff.
But it's almost like they resist the simplest way of
being refuted because it's too simple, and they're like, you
can't be that simple but let's go into natural law
in this whole concept.
Speaker 7: At natural law, if you've listened to Mark Passio, If
you've listened to Mark Passio, then you.
Speaker 2: Know what the fuck law is, and you know what
the fuck natural law is, and you know you shouldn't
be eating animals. You son up a bitch piece of crap.
Speaker 6: I know, I go, well, he the thing is, well,
let's go to like someone sent me, like a quote,
I sent it to you. If it's essentially a paraphrase,
it's iron rand And.
Speaker 8: She's just like well as f as the the as
far as the aught is distinction if if the highest
violent value, uh, the highest the possible value is existence
and life because all out of values come from that what.
Speaker 6: She's doing, And people don't realize if you are who
are actually using these these kind of statements of hers,
She's just making an assumption that life itself is a value.
She's equating life with value, but just without a basis right,
So she's starting from an actual assumption. But it's but
it sneaks by people because you got she she skips
to basically an if, but she leaves out the word if.
So she says, uh, the highest possible value is being alive,
because all other values are impossible without being alive. But
she's missing the if, right because someone could That means
Jeffrey Dahmer and what he valued is equal. It's just
as high up there, right, his existence and what he pursued.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 4: Yeah, there's a lot of different ways you get critique
this system as well. I mean, let me before we
get to the easier critiques. There's a really foundational it's
a little obscure. But so Anne Rand is Aristotelian, so
she's going to follow pretty loosely in the Aristotelian tradition.
She's going to believe in the basic reliability of sense impressions,
sense data. She's an empiricist, just like Aristotle, and just
like the whole what's called the parapatetic tradition. So Aristotle
has an axiom, it's called the peripatetic axiom, and it
says there's nothing in the intellect that's not first.
Speaker 2: In the senses or in sense data.
Speaker 4: The problem with this is that as you can imagine,
and when we get into the natural law issue this
will become even clearer. Is that all of the people
from this tradition of Aristotla the parapateetic axiom. This ranges
from atheists to an Rand, to Mark Pasio, to Thomas
Aquinas to natural.
Speaker 2: Law proponents today like the guy who wrote Alistair McIntyre,
who wrote Race on virtue ethics. I mean, the point
is that.
Speaker 4: When we start with the axiom that there's nothing in
the intellect that's not first in the senses, and that
this is the beginning point of all of the people
in that philosophical tradition. There's all of these debates and
problems at a very fundamental level about the fact that
number one, the peripatetic axiom itself is not in the senses,
and since it's not in the senses, then it falls
prey to its own proposition that it's also not in
the intellect. So you can't know the parapateetic axiom if
you start with the parapateetic axiom that all knowledge is
first in the senses. So that actually undercuts everybody from
Aquinas up to and Rand and Mark Passio.
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter who. So this is going to be
the root of my critique of natural law. But to
your point, you're correct.
Speaker 4: You could also critique any of the other aspects within
ann Rand's system, such as her assumptions as to what
a flourishing, vital life is, that everybody needs to have
the right to a flourishing life within some sort of
social virtue that's agreed upon. Why why should I not,
as John Galt, just stamp out everyone else? Why should
I not buy off the state?
Speaker 2: I remember when I had a kind of a and
Ran phase.
Speaker 4: I was reading her works and I was thinking, you know,
this is pretty pretty convincing to a degree. But then
I thought to myself, well, if I'm John Galt, there's
not actually any objective ethical thing that should prohibit me
from buying off the state to serve my needs. And
that's fundamentally right, like against her an RAN's WL system,
right right. I mean, the state itself is a kind
of a violation of our freedom, and it's this entity
that's always ripping everyone off, and it had had it
shouldn't exist because the real power and motivation whenin society
comes from the genius individuals, and the state is always
kind of sapping off of them. That narrative is kind
of true at times, but the but it misses the
fact that you can't build societies or or create a
social order on the basis of something that's completely materialistic
and atheistic.
Speaker 6: So I mean, on a separate, slight tangent, But about
Iron Ran and many others, do you think they made
their way through life?
Speaker 5: They were they propped up?
Speaker 6: Is there a reason these philosophies don't get adequately publicly
challenged in a way like and I see it today
still like all.
Speaker 5: The fancy pants people, all the nuile.
Speaker 6: Tyson Negrassis, they all kind of aside from maybe sam
Arish would at least put a got into the den,
you know, with his assertions, a lot of them kind of.
Speaker 5: Escape large scale spotlights of being challenged. Yes, is that purposeful?
Speaker 2: It is? In fact, there's quite a bit of evidence.
Speaker 4: If you look at the Rockefeller's biography, you can find
instances where they funded certain philosophical schools and traditions. You
could look at Quigley's works where he talks about liberal
philosophy like Karl Popper. I mean, what is the George
Soros Society is called the Open Society Institute after the
philosopher Karl Popper, the liberal You could look at the
fact that Quigley talks about liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin. His
philosophy was propped up by the British elite, because they
have always had this preference, especially the Anglo elite, for
what's called Anglo impure pragmatism.
Speaker 2: Right, so that tradition is adopted by the Rockviller.
Speaker 4: Family for an example, the West as a whole pretty
much adopts the liberal pragmatic empiricist tradition from the Enlightenment on.
And it's really it's got all the money behind it.
It's connected to Darwinism. Obviously, those two systems work together,
and you're absolutely right that they will not allow anyone
to really offer any challenge to these kinds of ideologies
because they're very flimsy.
Speaker 2: They're more like I don't even view them as philosophies.
Speaker 4: I view them more like like like philosophical propaganda tools.
It's almost literally like a version of it's more like
propping up a cult or advertising trying to keep like
a monopoly on the exchange of ideas. And I can
say that from being in the academic you know system,
that that's how it.
Speaker 5: We're right, Was there a specific moment you knew to
leave that that world, that.
Speaker 4: Farm I had doubts about some of the stuff when
I was reading David Rockefeller's memoirs, because he talks about
studying under von Jjek. And then I read von Jjek
Wrote to Serfdom, and I noticed at the end of
Von Hajek that he talks about the need for world
government and how in order to have the free market system,
there's got to be global governance. And so then it
occurred to me that really the free market system is
just one of the tools that's the opposite dialectic of
the socialist Marxist system. Because my Marxist professors in college
were from the Frankfurt School, so I was getting trained
by guys who had had frank for school training. I mean,
he wasn't directly from it, but he had studied under
guy who studied under Harbermass. So I just noticed an undergrad,
probably about age twenty one or two, that that there
was a dialectic between the libertarians and the collectives Marxists
because it's all based on materialism and uh sort of
versions of process philosophy.
Speaker 5: Gotcha, I asked you.
Speaker 6: This before, and I haven't not to put you on
the spot if you haven't fully gone into it. But
someone most of the religious philosophies and texts and world views,
like you said, reduced toism or dualism or something, and
then they end up not having a real coherent, full
accumulative view that all connects all of these things, right,
And then somewhat specific to morality, they presented Seakhism, you know, like.
Speaker 5: Sikhismism, Yeah, Sakhis, and.
Speaker 6: They they have a similar, if not not identical, but
similar basis for reality that that, you know, God's the basis,
and an act against God is an act against or yeah,
an act that's what that's what makes it moral, which
were immoral, and and in that regard, it's coherent on
its face, but I didn't fully get into it on
what else might be missing from that whole the holistic.
Speaker 5: Model that they have.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: One of the problems with a what you might call
a singular conception of persons in God or just just
a soul one in terms of monotheism, is that the
primary example of this in terms of philosophy has been Aristotle.
So I know that there are people who had maybe
monetistic conceptions before the time of Aristotle, but when we
look at philosophical argumentation about a pure quote unquote monotheism.
What happens is that he's used. This deity is usually
understood to be something like a purely actual actualizer. That's
how Ariosol defines him. You might call him god or
a god, the father, or a lord or whatever. But
the problem is that when you have those attributes that
he has this kind of a god. If he's eternally
the monotheistic creator, and he's eternally the Father or eternally
the Lord, or eternally God, or an eternally pure actual,
unactualized actualizer to use Aristotle or the unmoved first mover,
it seems to suggest that he needs something to move
to be lord over, to actualize, to cause, to generate, to.
Speaker 2: Be lord of.
Speaker 4: Because it doesn't really make sense to say that he
has all these attributes or even the tribute creator right,
because a lot of these religious of well, he is
our creator in some sense, because if he's eternally a creator,
then creation takes on a divine attribute. Now now creation
or the order of objects or things other than him.
According to Aersol for example, Aerosol's argument is that yes,
the first.
Speaker 2: Being needs.
Speaker 4: Be some object other than himself to always move, and
so he says there's an eternal matter, prime matter that's
always existed for this singular moment mono being to be God.
But as Basil says in Hexameron two, he critiques this
and says that this is absurd because the whole goal
of this pure monotheism was to guard that deity from
other deities or.
Speaker 2: Other objects being worshiped.
Speaker 4: But now you have an object other than itself, namely
prime matter, or an eternal creation or whatever that's other
than God that now has one of his attributes, namely
it's eternal.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 4: So this is a problem for the strict monotheistic religions
because typically they fall into what's called divine absolute, divine simplicity,
in that they don't want to admit any distinctions because
they think that's the way to guard the unity and
to avoid idolatry.
Speaker 2: Like Islam is very big on this.
Speaker 4: And Islam has this problem that I always bring up
to the Muslim apologists, which is, then if God is
eternal and he's always and he's also eternally a creator,
then now you need an eternal creation for him.
Speaker 2: To be eternally creating.
Speaker 4: And Muslims don't believe that because they believe that God
freely willed creation at a beginning point in time.
Speaker 2: So I would say that Sikhism would probably fall under that.
Speaker 4: I've not had any like apologetic interactions with Sikhs, so
I don't exactly know their system beyond the fact that
it's a kind of a monotheism that's far Eastern or something.
I'm not opposed to debating a Sikh, but they just
never come around much. But that would be the route
of critique I would take with a Sikh, is that
the strict monotheistic position actually ironically ends up when we
look at the names of this deity requiring a duality
once again, namely an eternal creation or matter that's opposite
of this deity. So ironically, the desire to protect the
strict monotheism has now led to another form of dualism.
This is why, this is why the Trinity avoids this.
Speaker 6: By the way, Okay, so I was gonna ask, this
is that connected to the problem of the one.
Speaker 5: And the many?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 2: It is in a way, yes, yeah.
Speaker 6: Could you give viewers a quick overview of the problem
of the one and the many in so far as
generally but also applied to I guess Christianity.
Speaker 4: So we like what we talked about earlier, when we
were talking about names and predication and making sentences and
this kind of stuff. Any attempt to predicate. If you
go back to I think it's the Fayeto. Plato has
this really interesting argument where he talks about to be
able to say that an object is one thing and
also other things at the same time requires the ability
to make statements that rely on the one in the mini. Right,
So there's got to be a if you say the
tree is green and you say the grass is green,
you've got two objects that share a property between them, right.
But there are two particular distinct objects, but at the
same time, there's something that they share in common greenness,
Plato argued, And so in some sense there's a unity
in the midst of these many objects. And Plato's argument
was I'm just using Plato as an example of how
this question came to be. Plato's argument is that there's
a kind of a one end mini going on here
in any object that we talk about. Similarly, if you
remember the debate with Stepan, you could make the same
point about numbers. Plato makes this argument, I think about
the number seven, or numbers in general. He says, you know,
if I've got seven coca nuts, and I've got seven dollars,
and I write the number seven on a chalkboard, none
of those things is identical to the number seven. Their
instances are. They are particulars of a universal right seven.
And we know that because anytime that I don't think
about the number seven, or if I erase the number seven,
or if I eat all the cocon nuts, or if
I spend my seven dollars, we don't believe or think
that seven no longer exists.
Speaker 2: Right, it doesn't go out of existence.
Speaker 4: So there's something about again, universals and these kinds of
names that suggests a kind of immateriality and invariance that's
not dependent on any individual mind or state of matter
or anything like that.
Speaker 2: So Plato basically says there's some kind of one and
many thing going on here.
Speaker 4: Now Plato doesn't have an adequate answer to that, but
later Christian philosophers do take up this question, namely the Kappadocians,
Gregory of Nazi and Zeus Basil, Grave of Nissa, and
then later Saint Maximus, and they'd go into a lot
of depth about the one and the many problem, and
they say that, you know, Christianity is unique in the
sense that we actually attribute an equal ultimacy to unity
in God as well as to particularity or the many
in God.
Speaker 2: And so the many also relates to the logi.
Speaker 4: I don't want to get too obscure here, but the
logi are just basically the Christian version of the forms
or the essences of things. So we don't identify created
essences with God. But I'm just saying it's loosely what
Plato's talking about when he talks about forms or universals.
Speaker 2: For us, they kind of.
Speaker 4: They're created things, but they correspond to patterns in the
divine mind. So ultimately, for us, the one in the
many problem is resolved in the triune God.
Speaker 5: Gotcha any questions you guys?
Speaker 6: I mean, I've read the comments, but any any formal
questions through the question app that ig has made for us?
Speaker 2: What about natural law? You know?
Speaker 7: You know, I hear these people going around on Instagram
talking about natural law and they have absolutely no knowledge
of what they're talking. You know, he almost sounds like
a like a Jersey mom, like like.
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, he's like one of the he's like one
of the angry nine to eleven moms.
Speaker 7: Uh, you know, I can't talk right now, and I'm
getting the clem because the natural law caused nine to eleven.
Speaker 6: Someone asks, what do you think quantum language, parse syntax,
grammar will have on loget.
Speaker 2: I don't know that. I don't know what that means
me either.
Speaker 5: I want Jay to debate sam Aris. That would just
be over.
Speaker 6: I mean if sam Arass really h I'm almost like
encouraging Jay to somehow.
Speaker 5: Go even higher than sam Harris because it just starts
from nonsense.
Speaker 6: That's the thing is like I mean, William Lane Craig
really demolished him and really exposed how he operates, which
is and I said this in another stream, is that
what sam Aras does, like Peterson does, is they just
redefine words so that they could make new claims based
on the new definition and then hope someone doesn't just
go do the simplest thing and go, wait, no, that's
not the definition of a word. That's not it, like
you can't just skip past. But they get sold on
it because they make us a good sounding definition. You know,
it'd be like, you know, what's a chaos, you know, Jordan,
and he'll be like, well, it's a cold wind blowing
down the icy banks and it causes you know, like
he'll just go and then people are swept away by
the hypnotic poetry, right, and then you're lost and then
you can't.
Speaker 5: I always say, I don't know what your take on this.
Speaker 6: Is, but when I look at when I look at
logic and truth claims and argumentation, the importance that words
hold meaning strictly is as important as you said the
number one. Maintaining the number one so you can say
that one plus two equals three.
Speaker 9: Uh.
Speaker 6: Similarly in a in a phrasing, you want the word
to be held as it is circular and it means
what it means, so that you then can actually string
together statements and premises so that they can be adequately
accepted or refute it.
Speaker 5: And and when people I think that to me is
the the the almost like the.
Speaker 6: Starting point of Charlatanism is that you you redefine things, right, Like,
that's what allows that to occur.
Speaker 4: I think, yeah, I mean, playing slippery with words is
a very well known kind of rhetorical trick. But anybody
who's you know, really good at debate or really good
at noticing and knowing tricks can really just bypass all
that and cut to the.
Speaker 2: Heart of the issue.
Speaker 4: So that really only works kind of with like a
mass audience that doesn't really know, you know, the laws
of logic and the rules of debate. And you know,
I've listened to multiple different instances of Sam Harris debating.
I don't I think Sam Harris is in the category
of the guys that you were mentioning before, like people
who would never be put up.
Speaker 2: Against any serious challenge.
Speaker 4: You know, there's quite a few people who are prominent
in you know, alternative media or the dark web or
the internet what do they called the dark intellectual dark
web or who would never they would never be put
in any real position of challenge. I at least give
Stefan credit for stepping up and being willing to be,
you know, challenged, But I don't think any of the
really big names of those kind of guys would ever
really do it. There's they don't stand anything to gain
and have everything to lose, and I think that I
think that.
Speaker 2: Sam Harris would. His his philosophy is pretty easy to critique.
Speaker 4: I mean, he's got some really strict determinist views that
I'm sure William Lane Craig adequately critiqued, but I would
I would bring in other kind of presuppositional critiques. I mean,
I don't think he would stand up very well to
a transcendent argument.
Speaker 5: Do you think there's a time and a place in
a debate to call someone a retart?
Speaker 4: Yes, I mean, debate has never avoided insults. It's not always,
it's part of rhetoric is part of a debate. I
mean it's gonna it's gonna be part of you kind
of showing your rhetorical, your skills and your wit. So
the idea that like when Inspiring Philosophy and Cameron Batuzzi
set up a debate and they made me they agreed
to the debate, and then they backtracked and said, you
can never make any jokes or make any fun of
your opponent, and I said, I'm not gonna agree.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to agree to that, and then.
Speaker 4: They backed out and they said, well, then you're a jerk.
I was like, have you ever have you ever watched
a famous debate?
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's funny, because I've been trying to get you.
I've been trying to reach out and be like, why
why did you guys have this guy on?
Speaker 5: What are you doing?
Speaker 6: Like this is clearly you need a guy who's who's
like Jay, who can do cultural references and impressions and
actually make your debate, your debates more fun actually, because
they're they are lacking in the in the arena of entertainment,
I would say, but that's.
Speaker 4: If you go if you go watch like if you
go to the Oxford's Debate channel and you watch Peter
Hitchens or any of the people who kind of do
the classic Oxford style debates, and you'll notice they're full
of kind of witty jabs riposts.
Speaker 5: Oh yeah.
Speaker 4: I mean the idea that you can never make an
insulting joke about your opponent is just ludicrous and it's
just pussing out. I mean, it's amazing to me that
these people are this weak will that somebody makes one
joke about them or implies that there's that their argument
is to. Like you'll say, you'll say that's retarded or that's.
Speaker 2: Silly, and they'll be like, how dare you call somebody
It's I'm talking about his joke, right, I'm saying his argument,
his argument was bad. Right, it's not a it's just
it's just childishness.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean I would if I were ever debate Dawkins,
I would just be like, come on, you're a baby eater,
and then just you go.
Speaker 5: Someone has a question.
Speaker 6: Uh, Jay said that Islam has a problem because there's
no eternal creation. Eternal creation is an oxymoron? Can Jay
go further into that argument?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 5: It is?
Speaker 4: I mean that's why, for example, Aristotle denied that there
is a creation. So I'm not saying that there is
such a thing as eternal creation because it doesn't It
doesn't make any sense. But if you say that that
God is the equivalent of creator, and that God is
also the equivalent of eternal, right, what are the names
of God? He's eternal, he's omnipotent, he's creator, right, these
these kinds of names. If you believe that, say the
ISLAMI position, then the problem you have is how is
he eternally a creator?
Speaker 2: Because he's not.
Speaker 4: Right, he takes on the attributor property of creating when
he creates. Prior to that, he was not known as creator.
It's the only way to avoid this dilemma. So, uh,
that's why aerosol for example, says, Yeah, the eternal matter
that the first mover eternally moves was never created.
Speaker 2: It's eternal, just like the first mover is eternal. So
there's a diad, a dualism.
Speaker 5: A diet.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and is there a do you know a title
of a video? Sam who just asked that, could do
you know one off the top of your head what
you called it.
Speaker 5: On your channel?
Speaker 6: Anyway you could search the words, right, you try to
search the words and find maybe in your debate with
with the the Muslim guy that you did you think
it's in there? Anyway you could search that. Maybe Jay
will post about it in a story or something.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the one you just made.
Speaker 5: But more.
Speaker 2: That's in the video that I just did on arguments.
Speaker 6: Okay, yeah, so just look up that video. Josh Meng says,
Peter Hitchins is the boy.
Speaker 5: No, he's not the boy.
Speaker 6: Peter Itchins was very uh charismatic, quick witted, well spoken.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 6: He definitely had that lower range British thing going on,
where you're just like I will definitely help you in
the brit in the in the garden today, like you
just get swept away. But he had so many uh
self refuting stances so many, as you said, self detonated positions.
He would him and Dawkins, Uh, just like perpetually made
moral claims. You know, the even the idea the well
would be much better off if if if, if.
Speaker 5: There was no no religion. No, and then you know,
of course Dildo Dawkins, he's right behind him. What hates that? Oh? Yes,
what he said? No, goodaddy, thank you daddy. Uh.
Speaker 6: But yeah, I could see how people similar to uh,
you know, Harris and all the other guys who I
think are really just I always make the distinction that
what resonates isn't necessarily what's true, even if it sounds
good and the cadence is right.
Speaker 5: Because you know, just look at uh read Julliers.
Speaker 6: You know, you're like, oh, yeah, I love this song,
and then you read and you're like, what literally it's
just gibberish, like you're not nothing's being said. But uh
any uh any commentary about the late Christopher agents specific.
Speaker 2: And I'm getting Peter and Christopher mixed up.
Speaker 5: Who's the one that one in the thing one and
one is two?
Speaker 2: Who is the who's the one that's still alive?
Speaker 5: Peter, that's still talkings that that's.
Speaker 2: No which Hitchens is still alive.
Speaker 5: His brother I forgot his name, Peter or Christopher Peter.
Peter is alive. Christopher is dead.
Speaker 2: Yes, Peter is the one who you can go look
at his debates. He's still alive.
Speaker 4: You can go watch his debates on YouTube, and he
makes the jokes and kind of rases people and makes
one of his opponents and stuff. Anyway, Uh, yeah, No,
I don't think any of the new atheists have anything defensible.
I mean, the positions are I will grant them this, though,
I will say this about them. So basically, most of
the landscape of today's theist versus atheist forum of debate
is just a repeat of the debates from the Enlightenment.
That it's almost like these people don't think or haven't
realized any advanced in the argumentation from the time of
the Enlightenment until now. So, whether it's the Roman Catholics
and the evidentialist apologists the of the Tomas who are
arguing against the atheist, or whether it's the atheist argument
against the Roman Catholics, they're both groups are arguing on
the same basis of empiricism.
Speaker 2: It's so kind of ludicrous to me that that that
this debate has not progressed at all.
Speaker 4: And that's why none of these groups really understand transcendental arguments.
If you if you look at you know, Dila Hunty
trying to deal with it. He never even grasp what
the argument was. He thought that you can't that translill
arguments aren't arguments. And even though I've given the form
many times from Stanford Encyclopedia that shows what the form
of the argument is. You may disagree with me making
the argument for God, but the form of the argument
itself is a valid form of argument.
Speaker 6: Right, Yeah, No, you'd have to reject logic, which in
your debate with him, that's what he did. I mean, eventually,
that's what happens is you have to actually assume logic
to make your materialist of you. And then when you
get to the paradgmatic level, and and for the people
following correct me if I'm wrong. There's the let's say,
the correspondential model, the classical foundational model, which is like
what what the what? All the modern theists are arguing
with William Lane Craig is arguing and the anti theists together,
they they must they they argue from the same model.
But the bigger question is how do we even justify
debating at all?
Speaker 5: How do we even start with the assumptions? And then
the dell Honeys will say at hoc they'll just say, uh,
it is. Logic is. And that's if you accept logic,
because you accept empiricism and you rely on logic to
ask how logic exists and why and how do you
justify it?
Speaker 6: To say, to simply give logic the middle finger and say,
you know, I'll just use a fallacy now and just
say at hawk.
Speaker 5: But but then they'll say, no, God is at Hawk.
Speaker 6: Now what would you respond to if someone's saying, no,
I presuppose logic and I don't need to justify it,
and you're just taking it a step further and presupposing
God to justify logic.
Speaker 2: Well, from there, I'm holding them to their own principles.
Speaker 4: For example, Dilla Hunty said in pre the two or
three debates before our debate, he said, you shouldn't believe.
Speaker 2: In anything that you can't empirically demonstrate. So all I
had to do was turn around and point out that
he's believing in all these things that by his own
admission he can't empirically demonstrate and so therefore he shouldn't
believe in it. And he said, well, I just do.
I'm sorry, but that's not giving an account of why
you believe or how you believe in something on his
own grounds, like that was his criteria.
Speaker 4: Right now, Look, let's we can cut through all of
these people, whether it's the Tomas, or whether it's the
Roman Catholics, or whether it's the natural law natural law proponents,
or whether it's the Hitchens and all these people.
Speaker 5: Okay, let the Dawkins respond.
Speaker 6: To respond to this, Nate says, debating needs to be
backed by empiricism, or there's no point of debating.
Speaker 5: Evidence is the best thing we have for discovering truth.
Can you prove that? Isn't that an example?
Speaker 4: Again, already I've already disproven this by the fact that
the parapatetic axiom cannot be demonstrated to be true. Right,
So what's the parapatetic axiom. There's nothing in the intellect
that's not first in the senses. The parapatetic axiom itself
admittedly is not an object of sense data, and so therefore,
on its own grounds, the parapatetic axiom cannot be known,
so it's self refuting. So this what this objection ignores,
by the way, is not just that critique, which is devastating,
but there's a whole bunch of other critiques that modern
empiricism has kind of boxed itself into, such as ideas
of like, you don't know you can't prove induction, you
don't know that objects in the external world.
Speaker 2: Actually match up to the ideas that you have of them.
There's the myth of the given.
Speaker 4: These are all very well known problems in epistemology that
anyone committed to naive empiricism cannot explain or answer by
the nature of the pre commitments of empiricism.
Speaker 5: Right, yeah, so Nate, fine seven to one six.
Speaker 6: Your claim itself can't be proven by the thing you're
saying needs to happen, first of all, so you can't
use empiricism to prove what you just said to be true. Second,
empiricism starts from the assumption of things that empiricism can't
prove to exist. So you just have to assume all
these things. You have to assume there's a truth. I mean,
people take the morality approach and that's a fun argument.
But really the truth itself as a concept, the fact
that we all buy into it basically, you know blindly.
Speaker 5: We don't buy blindly into material, material truth.
Speaker 6: But the concept of truth itself seems to escape people
that they're actually assuming it, that it's there, that there's
something there to abide by or to pursue it to
begin with.
Speaker 5: And see, you.
Speaker 6: You can't get you can't get some empirical truth without
doing a completely opposite of what you just said we
ought to do.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if you go to the stepf on debate.
Speaker 4: At the top my top comment, I list four or
five of the kind of irre impossible dilemmas for anybody
who's an empiricist. I list the myth of the given,
which is the idea that if you're going to start
with empiricism. Another problem with this view is that you
don't actually know which sense data point to start with,
as if the sense data point that you start with
is somehow a brute fact. For example, let's say I'm going, oh,
I'm going to start with my sense data facts about
studying the lifespan of the earthworm in the lab to
prove evolution. Well, the problem is that the sense data
fact of any at any point when you go and
study the earth worm or whatever you're studying. It's impossible
to have that as a privileged what's called an epistemically
privileged starting point outside of the rest of your beliefs.
So you can't divorce that impression of an earthworm from
the rest of your life and your experiences and your
lexicon or web of beliefs. It's impossible to do that.
And so inherent within the whole history of empiricism and
the classical project as a whole, has always been this
assumption that there's some neutral place that you could pick something,
and that the object, the earthworm or whatever it is,
is just sort of like by osmosis, you get the
proper interpretation and meaning of the object as if it
isn't part of your whole history of experiencing earthworms and
everything that you learned as a as a kid in
grade school.
Speaker 2: You know, So it's part of a lexicon, and that's
called the myth of the given.
Speaker 4: This isn't one of the many really destructive problems to empiricism.
Other problems would be the problem of induction or the
immateriality of universals and abstract objects.
Speaker 5: Nate said.
Speaker 6: The guy who just gave you that previous objection, he said,
but we use math and science to do that. I
am assume he's saying, we use math and science to
prove math and science exact.
Speaker 4: What using something is not a justification for why you
believe in the coherence and rationality of that thing.
Speaker 2: So this person needs to go read.
Speaker 4: David Hume and realize that nobody has answered or solved
all the problems that David Hume has raised. In fact,
the most prominent twentieth century Humian wvo Quine, the famous logician,
he basically just reiterated David Hume and said that, look,
we can't do epistemology anymore. It's just psychology. We're going
to have to give up on justifying our beliefs. So
the modern day descendants of the empiricist school don't even
do this anymore. They say, there's no such is justifying
your beliefs. It's not even possible.
Speaker 2: And yet Hitchens, Dilla, Hunty, Dawkins, Harris, they're all still
living and acting like it's the year seventeen hundred or something,
and they're David Hume debating Bishop Butler or Thomas Aquinas.
Speaker 6: Right, the guy says, so what do you sup propose
for finding truth? Do you have an alternative way of
finding truth?
Speaker 4: Yes, Transcendental arguments are arguments concerned with higher order questions.
Speaker 2: Right. So if you look at logic, there's different orders.
There's lower order, higher order, second order logic. So propositions
that would.
Speaker 4: Be in the empirical domain, those are like lower order logic, right,
Like things like X is y or X is not
why or all X are y. Those are kinds of
those are logical forms of simple sentences, simple predication.
Speaker 2: And when we do logic, we have what's called higher
order logic or a meta level, where we move it
a step up and we say, well, what has to
be the case for anything like that? And when we
do that we move into transcendental argumentation.
Speaker 4: That's where we start to look at the preconditions for
the possibility of logic, knowledge, ethics, et cetera. So that's
where I would if you want to quote starting point,
I don't have any I don't have a problem with
saying there is a starting point. Sure, but just because
we start an argument somewhere doesn't mean that that necessarily
is more true or more certain than anything else, because
in philosophy there's a distinction called when you distinguish the
logical order from the metaphysical order or the epistemic order.
So in other words, I might I might make an
argument for God on the basis of pencils. I could
start my argument from predication about pencils and knowledge of pencils,
But that doesn't mean that I think pencils are somehow
ahead of God. Right, So there's a difference between the
logical order and the metaphysical or epistemical order.
Speaker 6: Right, And Nate, you're probably so someone who thinks you
know science empiricism, that's the only way to obtain knowledge
and truth, right. I mean, if someone makes that claim,
the very common a common claim, more common that I
than I expect, but it's still common. The simple way
to critique that is that that claim all knowledge comes
from science is not a claim you can use science
to prove. So you know from there that not all
knowledge comes from science. What other kinds of knowledge are
there and why are they important? If you're if you're
saying truth is important, then metaphysical truth is important. Coherency
is as important as correspondence, and you can't even do
correspondence work without coherency. And so if you're really interested
in discovering truth and getting to the core of it,
there's no other way to go than up the order.
Otherwise you're just going to be a dill on you
and be like, no, logic just is no the unity
between the mind, immaterial absolutes, and the physical world is
just happened, like it just is.
Speaker 5: Guys that you have no there's no place to go.
Speaker 6: You can't even continue philosophy, you can't ground anything else
that comes your way in so far as knowledge. It's
just always going to be trapped in materialism. Yeah, anything
to add to that Jay before we wrap up.
Speaker 2: No, no, No, I think that's a good point.
Speaker 4: One thing I did want to touch on before we
left was just that you'll notice, by the way that
the argument you gave that's a variation on the argument
from earlier about the parapaateetic axiom.
Speaker 2: Right, what was the parapetic axiom? Nothing is in the
end like that, that's not first in the senses or
in sense data.
Speaker 4: And you can just apply that to scientism because scientism
is just naive empiricism, par excellence. Right, we only know
what we can study and proved through scientific testing and whatnot,
But that doesn't really prove anything, and it's operating on
all these assumptions and presuppositions that cannot be empirically demonstrated.
This is just a really simple, devastating critique of those systems.
But people aren't used to thinking in a systemic way,
and that's part of the reason that they that they
are slow to grasp this, these beautiful slow boys that
can't seem to grasp this. The last thing I would
say is we did want to touch on natural law,
and you know, I would make the point that you know,
when we look at it, whether it's.
Speaker 2: You know, Dawkins who conceives of natural.
Speaker 4: Law as a purely sort of irrational, determined process of
a giant machine called quote nature, or whether it's Thomas
Aquinas who conceives of natural law to be this generic
theism principle, like there's this this this generic supreme principle
that's kind of governing all things, or whether it's Mark
Pasio who somehow believes that natural law equates to you
have to be.
Speaker 2: Vegan or else you're a serial killer.
Speaker 4: What we see is that this whole position of natural
law was built on it supposedly being self evident and
very clear and obvious. But it's not that obvious. It's
all over the place. It's everybody, from theists to atheists,
to all different kinds of religions.
Speaker 2: To vegan cults.
Speaker 4: So natural law is just based on presuppositions about what
one thinks is nature. And in fact, there's one of
the fallacies, it's called the naturalist fallacy, right where you
just say, well, that's nature, that's natural, when this is
a disputed, very ambiguous term in the history philosophy, just
like terms like reality or existence or reason. These are
very ambiguous, disputed terms. So to commit the naturalist fallacy,
which is what the natural law argument is based on,
is also pretty devastating to that position, because when I
look out at.
Speaker 2: Nature, I see predator and prey. So I don't see
how that doesn't like vindicate some sort of radical Nietzscheanism.
Speaker 6: Yeah, exactly, And under natural law, how could you say
it's wrong for give them to just have to pick
a pot a.
Speaker 5: Little baby and it dip is his arms and fies arms,
and it is and it is it's the bone marrow.
Speaker 6: You couldn't actually say that's wrong under natural under that law,
because it's seen in nature.
Speaker 5: You could you could, you know, I mean you could.
It's just law, it's just cause and effect.
Speaker 6: It's just he's just following what he's valuing to stay alive,
to feed his appetite.
Speaker 5: And you can't really argue there's in other words, there's there's.
Speaker 6: Zero basis to claim anything's immoral or wrong under under the.
Speaker 2: Sen I've seen a dog, you know, humping a corpse,
like a corpse of a dead animal. Is that Is
that natural? It's like, okay, so natural?
Speaker 10: Right.
Speaker 6: The guy who said he's having trouble following, do you
have an author that will plug the gaps he's missing
in the art in the difference between you know what
you just said, the assumptions of uh, you know of
immaterial absolutes.
Speaker 5: That are often not justified by empiricism.
Speaker 6: Uh, there's someone you know, because I mean in including
yourself obviously if there's video.
Speaker 5: But the person who made the objection is now asking
for further.
Speaker 4: I mean they've been there have been a host of
philosophers in the German continental tradition. Everybody from like Hegel
Frega HUSSERL. There have been countless philosophers who've critiqued naturalism
and psychologism to be just completely absurd. I mean, and
the irony is that these philosophers come from all over
the all over the spectrum in terms of their views,
and they're just critiquing it on its own grounds. But
I mean, really, the best philosopher to read again, it's
just David Hume, because I mean, Hume is just a
consistent empiricist. He's he's the one who basically just says, look, guys,
if we're going to really be empiricists, then we have
to admit we can't justify all of these things that
we base empiricism on.
Speaker 5: Right, Yeah, read David Hume. Is there a specific book
or essay?
Speaker 2: Uh, what do they call the discourse? It's been ten
years since I read Hume's.
Speaker 5: Yeah, just look up cum and all that stuff.
Speaker 6: Read them, yeah, and then you'll you'll get an honest
approach because it's not from a theist or.
Speaker 2: Treat us of Treatise of Human Nature I think was
the one where he talks about this. Cool.
Speaker 5: All right, I got to wrap this up. Thank you,
Jay and everybody who showed up. Jay, you said you
might have been able to document this in audio or
half video half audio.
Speaker 2: You've been live streaming on my channel this whole time.
Speaker 6: Okay, great, cool, So that's up on We'll be up
on Jay's channel and I'll figure out how to share
that as well.
Speaker 2: Awesome, dude, thank you for having me on your live stream.
I appreciate it.
Speaker 4: And I'll have links to Jimbob for everybody in the chat.
You can go follow his Instagram.
Speaker 5: Awesome. Thanks, have a good day, you guys.
Speaker 2: All right, we've got a few super chats. That was
fun for those who were wondering what was going on.
Speaker 4: So Jimbob wanted to stream on his Instagram, so he
does a lot of IG streams, and he wanted that
to be recorded, and I don't think he nor I
have figured out like how to archive Instagram stuff, so.
Speaker 2: He we didn't want to waste a whole hour of chat.
Speaker 4: To the infinite gulog of Instagram deletion, so we did
it on my channel. But he also wanted to live
screen to do the instcause he has a big Instagram.
He's got I don't know, sixty seventy thousand Instagram followers,
So he wanted to utilize the audience. So that's why
we did it boomer style. If you're wondering it wasn't,
it wasn't because we don't know this tech. Where is
Primo edge health. I'm gonna call that dude out.
Speaker 5: You know, you know.
Speaker 11: Mark Passio when I was, when I was, when I
used to be a serial killer.
Speaker 4: Now see I keep falling into the verklemped jersey mom.
I'm mixing up pozsio with like carmelo soprano. So Tristan
was playing some hilarious passio clips and Tristan has I
have to say, Tristan has a awesome passio.
Speaker 2: Impression. I mean his was pretty based. I'm gonna have
to try to perfect mine because now I got to
compete with little aides. So let's go to that one
that Tristan was playing where Mark Pezzi was like screaming,
like sounding like a a rereadom Man, if.
Speaker 10: You haven't listened to all of the material, If you
haven't listened, think you do, but you don't ego tripping person,
you don't person. Okay, war here and let me tell
you something the best amount of information and let.
Speaker 11: Me tell you something. Tristan natural war can disprove all
of Christianity.
Speaker 9: I've covered here is absolutely nothing taken in what I know.
What I know what I've studied, my personal archive here
in this building.
Speaker 11: Christopher, you don't know.
Speaker 9: No, okay, I think you know any on your part.
Assume that you know it, all right, you don't know.
Speaker 2: You don't know.
Speaker 9: I can tell when somebody hasn't been through the material.
I can tell, right, I can.
Speaker 11: Tell right now that you don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 5: Mark.
Speaker 10: Someone starts spouting something, spouting something talked about almost endlessly.
You know what.
Speaker 4: He reminds me of the SNL when remember the I'm
getting the klemped did coffee talk?
Speaker 2: The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman? Discuss
amongst yourselves.
Speaker 4: Remember that Saturn skit. That's what he sounds like. And man,
this dude's screams. I mean, I can when I hear
Jones screaming, it doesn't bother me. But Mark Pasios screaming,
it's like it's it's erky, you know what I mean.
It's like, dude, what are you screaming about?
Speaker 2: Animals? The great work and animals the Great work natural lore.
I want to say, first of all, to Tristan.
Speaker 11: Tristan, if you want to come on my talk show,
Coffee Talk, Coffee Talk with Mark Pasio, I'm gonna make
you crawl before me on your feet for all of
that serial killing that you've done, because I'm getting the
clymp right now, talk amongst yourself, Talk amongst yourself. And
I'm gonna hire Tony Soprano and the rest of the
boys the fly down the Ecuador and they're gonna exercise
some natural law on you, your freaking boomer child. You
are an unnatural law Tristan Primal Cringe Health Starring starring
Tristan Haggard, rri p Okay, you haven't been through the material.
Speaker 4: I'm gonna make you part of my great work. Oh
my gosh, doing Mark Pasio is destroying my voice.
Speaker 6: I'm glad.
Speaker 2: I gotta stop. I won't be able to do any
live streams if I continue doing it. I can't read
what this is.
Speaker 4: All right, We got a few super chats from today's
Bays show. By the way, uh, I gotta go do
another show. If you want to hop on over to
Matt Chats. Remember Matt Chats that Bay's young fellow who
is a fast boy. He's not a slow boy, he's
a based young fast boy, and he's doing a live
stream to talk about I don't know what. I don't
remember what our topics were. But you can go over
to Matt Chats directly after this and we will be
talking about stuff. So he's had Milo, he's had Goavon,
mckayas whoever Govon mckainas is and Milo. If you've heard
of these figures, you can hop on over there, and
in twenty minutes I will be joining mister Matt Chats.
But for the meantime, we will look at these super chats.
Philip Edenhorn for ten bucks, He says, I just want
to thank you for bringing me closer to orthodoxy, to Christ.
You have the best channel on YouTube. Wow, thank you.
Speaker 2: I don't know if I had the best channel.
Speaker 4: There's a lot of good ones out there, and I
always feel like mine is subpar, you know what I mean.
Speaker 2: I can never get Mike good grief, this freaking table, dude.
It's like it's like it sounds like Beyonce so crazy
and love.
Speaker 4: I did that last night. Nobody knew what I was
talking about. You never heard Crazy in Love? You ever
heard of jay Z and Beyonce? Ooh, you just got burnt?
Where you been?
Speaker 2: What were we talking about? Tristan? Trist you boy, Tristan.
Tristan's got a great channel.
Speaker 5: We know that.
Speaker 4: Shout out to Tristan. Everybody, go follow prim Edge Health.
A lot of great channels, a lot of great channels.
Speaker 2: But thank you for that.
Speaker 4: Beautiful fast boy comment. Philip Edenhorn is not a slow boy.
He is a beautiful fast boy. Family Planned five dollars.
Samuel Harris is the quasi intellectual for the masses, but
considerably less charming than Richard Tolkiens. Jim Bob is spot
on with the red pepper, red hot chili peppers being gibberish.
You keep up the content, guys.
Speaker 2: Under the bridge downtown, you will. I do some cunner
the bridge down town.
Speaker 11: I could not get enough under the bridge, un ton,
I through my lafe away.
Speaker 2: I was sperging, sperging out, not Primal Edge Health. So
we know that this is not Tristan.
Speaker 4: For ten dollars, says sick hat Jay digging that boomer esthetic, Well,
you digging that boomer assesthetic? Ooh, probably goes well with
your white New Balanced sneakers. Yes, I got those from
the Bill Factories free of charge. I get every month
I get Bill Gates. I'm in the New Balance Club,
so I get every month like the Dollar Shave Club,
I get every month New Balance delivered to my door.
But you wouldn't know about that down in Equador. Don't
let the Equad door hit your.
Speaker 2: Ass on the way out, Tristan oh Burn, did you
get a discount on your Consumer Report subscription when you
bought it?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 4: Like I said, it's part of the Bill Gates, New
Balance Club, Lone Star, twenty Bucks.
Speaker 2: Jay, what's your go to cutting meat on Carnivore? It's
always Prime Rebi or New York Strip.
Speaker 4: Basically, I just eat any steak I don't. I'm not
super picky about it. I like the fatty cuts. Now,
that's usually what happens, you know, Carnivore. After a while,
you get used to the fatty cuts, and then you
prefer that. That's pretty much every day. So, oh, Tristan,
he's still He's still here giving me shit.
Speaker 11: All right, Mark Passio Natural Lore, the red hot chili peppers.
You know, when I was trying to stop eating serial
killer diet. The first thing I did is I went
on an all chili pepper diet for six months, just
like the Banana Girl.
Speaker 2: I went six.
Speaker 11: Months living on hot chili peppers. That's why I'm so
fricking mad all the time. Literally chili pepper demonic furor
oozing out of my pores.
Speaker 2: How's that I can't do Mark Passio. He's like.
Speaker 4: He's an unnatural law for your vocal cords if you
do the Mark Pazio voice. So anyway, thank you lone
Star for that twenty dollars.
Speaker 2: That's my go to diet. All right, We're gonna head
on out of here, head over to the Matt Chats channel.
Speaker 4: If I have a voice left, Matt and I will
be discussing something. I don't know what, but going over
there to your boy. He's a beautiful fast boy. His
name's Matt Chats.
Speaker 2: But thank you everybody, and be sure and go ascribe
to Jimbob on Instagrams