Speaker 1: Can you hear me? Oh okay, Well no I was
I was just saying, yeah, sorry, yeah, no, I I
initiated this conversation or this debate or whatever because you know,
I saw you debate many moons ago against Liquid Zulu,
and that felt like that debate didn't go anywhere because
well because you you you left after frustrated for whatever reason.
Speaker 2: Well, the reason I the reason I left, The reason
I left. Yeah, So the reason I left was because
I was asking questions about justification and I felt like
he was never going to answer it. So that was
the reason I left the Zulu debate.
Speaker 1: I would say, we obviously had different interpretations, but nevertheless,
so I yeah, So then I felt like there wasn't
a good debate against the libertarian. And then I saw
you put out a call against you know, looking for libertarians,
and me and a bunch of other libertarians put her
names forward, but also other people's names forward, like some
here's like, hey, you do rematch Liquid with a better thing?
You could me there there are plenty of real libertarians.
And then you debated, Wait you're you're uh, we're only on.
Speaker 2: Twitter, right, No, we're on you two.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, So I can't say the f slur,
but you debated a prag f slur. Uh and and
so yeah, and and so rightfully, I think anybody that's
an actual libertarian was upset.
Speaker 2: Because I don't know who you're talking about. First of all,
can you just tell me who that who it is
you're talking about.
Speaker 1: I remember the person's name again, because they weren't. They
weren't like a famous you mean.
Speaker 2: Like the yarn Brooke from the Objectivist Institute that No.
Speaker 1: Yarn Brook is not a libertarian. It's actively fights against libertarianism.
I've interviewed you're on Brook and I think it's libertarianism.
It's evil and must be defeated.
Speaker 2: Uh what you mean?
Speaker 1: Who I said? Y'are brook as an objectivist? You had
debated I can't remember it's been If someone can dig up.
Speaker 2: The Austin Peterson you you debated somebody that was very
clearly left leaning, not not libertarian.
Speaker 1: Lie. Again, I don't remember the exact name, but if
you found the twee or whatever, then yeah. And so
I was like, dude, what the fuck is this? Like?
This is this is bullshit? Like you put out a
call to libertarians and you bring on someone that's like
a small l libertine brag.
Speaker 2: Right, It's all right? Do you think it's a conspiracy
that I don't want to engage with real libertarians? Got it?
Speaker 1: I didn't say it was a conspiracy because I'm not
saying anyone else was involved. I'm just saying it seemed
like you were duck in a real conversation with libertarianism
because you had had one and you ran from that.
Speaker 2: One, and that was who I run from.
Speaker 1: Liquid.
Speaker 2: Okay, did he answer what I asked about justification?
Speaker 1: I believe multiple times from multiple different perspectives, you were
upset because he wouldn't answer your redirect because he wanted it,
and then eventually Andrews so he answered it.
Speaker 2: And what do you think you answer? What do you
think justification is?
Speaker 1: What do I think justifications? Do you mean that? Like
from like the Hume like question, like what do you
mean by well, like yeah, the human question what justifies this? Like?
Or do you mean like what do you mean by
what is an attempt to state that the statement of
some sort is true? Was that a claim or a
principle of so that has.
Speaker 2: To do with truth value? But no, justification is much
more than that. In epistemology.
Speaker 1: Nevertheless, I don't think you just like I'm how is
that a disagreement from the historical thing.
Speaker 2: From I mean, what you're saying isn't even the historical idea,
because even back to Plato, justification deals.
Speaker 1: With justified has to do about whether or not you
ran with If.
Speaker 2: You asked about the historic context of justification and I'm
giving you that context that back to Plato, it means
more than what you described.
Speaker 1: Okay, that that's irrelevant to whether or not my interpretation
of events.
Speaker 2: Is if he didn't give, if he didn't give, if
he did not give epistemic justification, then his answers were
irrelevant to what I'm asking for.
Speaker 1: Okay, So what would you what would be your what
is your bar for.
Speaker 2: Episode just justified? True belief in the Getty air problem?
Speaker 1: Okay? So again, what what what would he have to
say about jurism for you to say that he gave
you the the aught is the stinction that you why
he didn't believe in the audience get right, like why
he believed that contradictory statements can't be true in the
negation of the contradictory statement is at the very least
an ought not I don't know that I necessarily follow
his ought. Thing there, but why is that reason for
you to run away from the debate. That's why I'm asking, like,
what is yours?
Speaker 2: So, just like him, you're a debate. Just like him,
you're both not understanding what epistemic justification is. Not according
to me, but in the discipline of epistemology. This is
not something I made up. It's what's expected in any
public academic discourse on the topic of how do we
have good reasons for our beliefs? So justification deals with that,
what are the good reasons for our beliefs, what gives
them explanatory power, and what makes them coherent in a
worldview context. That's what justification is.
Speaker 1: Okay, But again you're saying that he didn't meet your standard.
But I know he.
Speaker 2: Didn't meet these standards. These standards, they're not my standards.
This is what would be debated in any epistemology class
when you make assertions.
Speaker 1: What the fuck are you talking about? I am I
talking ran away from a debate and then you said, well,
he didn't answer my question because he didn't.
Speaker 2: No, I said he didn't justification The argument that he
gave and again you don't even understand. You don't understand,
and again you don't understand why that doesn't get to justification,
which is the entire point of the whole time.
Speaker 1: What is this code? Like, like, we're not even into
the debate and you're already like it's a code, right,
Actually he didn't.
Speaker 2: You're the one that said that I was a pussy
and that I wouldn't debate anyone except him. You were
how you.
Speaker 1: Ran from a debate and then when you've.
Speaker 2: Din I left a debate that I laughed at because
it didn't answer just like, just like in this situation,
you can't answer, or even you don't even know the
basics of the question, and you're just already spurging out.
Do you want me to explain it to you in
an ethical example?
Speaker 1: Sure, give me an example of what you mean. But
because I don't see how I'm failing in any means, well.
Speaker 2: Let's let's go. Let's go to the topic of do
you want to do tag or do you want do
you want to do self evidence? Either one's fine with me.
Speaker 1: I don't know what you mean by self evidence or
what you're referring.
Speaker 2: Well, most libertarians and most people who argue for your
type of a position out of the Enlightenment believe that
there are self evident truths or principles, things that are axiomatic,
and I reject that.
Speaker 1: You reject all axioms.
Speaker 2: All self evidence claims.
Speaker 1: Okay, so how okay, Okay, you'd say, okay, we can
go in either one. That's fine. I don't. I'm fine
going into again. The question, before we get too far
away from it, is whether or not why I believe
that this conversation or debate or whatever was important. Was
that I felt like you had not been let's say,
completed with a libertarian. And your claim is that it
wasn't a simic justification And I don't see why. What standard?
He didn't but he didn't meet.
Speaker 2: So when you just assert things to be the case,
you're forfeiting the very question because that means you're being
arbitrary at hawk and not giving epistemic justification.
Speaker 1: Well he didn't do that, Yes he did. He did.
Speaker 2: You don't again, you don't understand what. You don't understand
what justification. So you think that my standard is some
subjective thing of what justification is. And I'm telling you
that any epistemology class will hold you to the same
standards that the laws of critical thinking, the laws of thought.
Those are not my standards.
Speaker 1: Words.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying. So I'm saying common criminology in this
domain and in this field. And you think I'm just
saying words. That's why you guys are not fit for
this debate. You're not even in the arena. You don't
know the topics in the subject matter.
Speaker 1: You're in not making artu.
Speaker 2: No, I'm telling you what's happening in the debate. Let's
get into the argument. So do you believe in the
non aggression principle? You agree with the non aggression principle?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Absolutely, of course I'm a libertarian.
Speaker 2: Is that a normative claim?
Speaker 1: Well, it's an axiom, right, So the normative claim.
Speaker 2: That you shouldn't aggress not.
Speaker 1: Yeah, one ought not a grip that would be the
normative claim.
Speaker 2: So it's prescriptive and not descriptive.
Speaker 1: Yes, libertarianism is a prescriptive ideology of natural I thought you.
Speaker 2: Were saying in the Gymbob debate that you don't believe
in prescriptive claims. It's just descriptive.
Speaker 1: Oh sorry, descriptive. I apologiz I mixed up.
Speaker 2: Okay, precisely. So the non aggression principle is normative and
therefore it's prescriptive, and therefore you're reputed. Can you repeat
that argument, write you made a claim that we ought
not aggress. That's what the non aggression principle states. That
is a claim of ethical normativity, and that refutes or
very position that libertarianism is is not prescriptive but merely descriptive.
Speaker 1: No, I didn't make that claim. I specifically Referencedutulu's argument.
Speaker 2: I'm talking about your debate, your gym Bob debate.
Speaker 1: Pop interrupted. All right, we'll get it. We're in the
actual debate, so we'll get into it. So no, that's
not true, and I didn't say the same did not.
Speaker 2: Occur in you just said what you just said that libertarianism.
I'm not gonna let you lie and go past your
you're lying.
Speaker 1: You're I'm not interrupting your your interrupting.
Speaker 2: So you think interrupting is lying. Those are two different things.
Speaker 1: No, No, No, I think you're doing both. I think
you're interrupting.
Speaker 2: Is the non aggression principal prescriptive or descriptive?
Speaker 1: The non aggression principle is a an accident, right, and.
Speaker 2: It's is it an hot claim?
Speaker 1: I just said right that the actual ought claim or
the ought not claim would be the negation and in
liquids argment from my.
Speaker 2: I'm talking about nap. Why are you bringing Stop your
possession your position, you.
Speaker 1: Rail stop trying to be real, Stop acting like.
Speaker 2: A top your position.
Speaker 1: No big words, don't make you an adult.
Speaker 2: Just hold on for he doesn't even know the basic
terms of this whole debate.
Speaker 1: Right, You're just going to keep interrupting, and you're just
gonna keep.
Speaker 2: Making because you're deflecting. Everyone can tell you did the
same thing with Jim Bob. Sometimes something is the non
aggression principal, prescriptive or description.
Speaker 1: Will you shush for a second.
Speaker 2: Can you answer the question?
Speaker 1: I am trying to answer the question, and you're doing
the same thing Jim Bob, which is saying.
Speaker 2: We just don't let you yap and deflect. Can you
answer the questions? Go answer?
Speaker 1: Yeah? So again. So the not libertarianism is scrypt Okay,
it is. Sorry, script, he's describing natural law here. Now,
the non aggression principle is an axiom. Okay, it is not,
and it is a descriptive.
Speaker 2: No, it's not. You just refuted you. You said it's normative,
so you're refuted yourself. I'm not what is normativity, interrupt
What is normativity?
Speaker 1: Normativity is is, as far as we're discussing in ethics,
would be a claim that something, uh that that is
universalizable and.
Speaker 2: That we're all right, so you ought not aggress people.
Speaker 1: Yes, you ought not aggress people?
Speaker 2: Right, So your position controversy.
Speaker 1: You will know it doesn't if you just go and
act like an adult for a second. So it can't
what I said, and you keep interrupting me.
Speaker 2: So let me stop batching and make your argument.
Speaker 1: Well stop, well, then shut up, act like an adult.
Speaker 2: I'm waiting for you to answer. Quit whining.
Speaker 1: No, you keep interrupting just because.
Speaker 2: You're not answering. Your whining and deflecting.
Speaker 1: I am trying to answer, and you will not stop
interrupting and stop acting like a toddler, like, just listen
for a second, Okay, I can. I can make an
argument with them, and then you can do the same thing.
Speaker 2: Will let me stop saying, let me and go I'm trying.
You're whining and bitching about me interrupting you when you're
being dishonest, and then.
Speaker 1: You're conversation because you keep interrupting.
Speaker 2: Go make the argument.
Speaker 1: Okay, So again, what I was saying is that previously
what I had said is that Liquid Zulu's argument one
that I don't necessarily believe that.
Speaker 2: What is your argument?
Speaker 1: Why can you?
Speaker 2: Are you so you're gonna keep talking about liquid Zulu
when I've asked you specifically about your position? What is
your argument for the tenth time? I am sure nobody's
buying your bullshit.
Speaker 1: There's no bullshit here. You won't shut up. Stop acting
like a toddler.
Speaker 2: You keep bringing up the things that are not relevant.
Are you going to answer the topic?
Speaker 1: I am attempting to do that, and you are not
giving me the space to speak.
Speaker 2: No, you go back to the thing that is irrelevant. Dude,
I'm asking your position. I don't care what you think
about Liquid Zulu. Can you answer your positions on this?
I am I don't care about Liquid Zulu?
Speaker 1: YEA, I absolutely can't.
Speaker 2: What does?
Speaker 1: And I'm bringing The only reason I am bringing up
Liquid Zulu is because you called me a liar by
saying that I was making the argument that Liquid Zulu
was making.
Speaker 2: No fact, No, I'm saying you're lying about being dishonest
about that debate. That's the lie that I didn't. You
said I rage quit when I laughed at the guy,
And no rage rage quitting is when you would have rage.
And I laughed at that guy because I thought his
answers were so low tier that it wasn't worthing in debate.
And you're in the exact same situation. You're actually worse.
You're actually worse than liquid Zulu because you can't actually
address the arguments. So is the NAP an art claim
or not? If it has If it has normativity, it's
an aut claim. You already said that you already lost.
You're so we follow Then.
Speaker 1: If one wants to claim or justify ethics, then one
following if the attempt. If they if they do attempt
to justify their ethical claims and their claims violate the
non aggression principle, then it is contradictory. Therefore the negation
is true.
Speaker 2: Is the n a P an ought?
Speaker 1: The NAP is not, in and of itself an.
Speaker 2: Ought the non aggression principle, does it retain does it
pertain to normativity and ethics that you ought not to
aggress people.
Speaker 1: It is an axiom that you hold if you is
it an ethical axiom if your ethical system, is.
Speaker 2: That an ethical axiom that you ought not?
Speaker 1: Dude?
Speaker 2: Are you You just lost and that's why you're spreading out.
Speaker 1: I'm not spurging out.
Speaker 2: You want is it an ethical? Is it an ethical answer?
Speaker 1: I just told you that the non aggression principle in
and of itself is not an ethical that's false.
Speaker 2: That's false. No, that's false. Axiom, even axioms, even axioms
depending No, that's false. Even axioms, depending upon what they
are or what they are about, can be ethical. Right,
That's the point that you're missing. So when the axiom itself,
calling it an axiom does not remove it from the
ethical domain. That's how stupid. You can have an ethic
you can have an ethical axiom.
Speaker 1: You would shut the fuck up and let someone.
Speaker 2: Finish the sentence, But your sentences are dumb and they're
bad arguments. It's an ethical claim. It deals with what
the claim itself is, that you ought not aggress people.
That's an ethical normative claim. It's in the domain of ethics,
even if you call it an axiom. Did you know
you can have an ethical axiom?
Speaker 1: Yes, but you you you're not listening.
Speaker 2: No, you're just not understanding the basic distinctions.
Speaker 1: No, you're just interrupting people midscent, interrupting me.
Speaker 2: It's no because your answers don't address it. Your answers
don't address it. That's why I'm interrupting you.
Speaker 1: I I cannot believe.
Speaker 2: How do you see that the How do you see
that the axiom is not ethical when it's about ethics?
Speaker 1: Will you allow me to answer this question?
Speaker 2: How do you say that the axiom is not this question?
Speaker 1: Without interrupting?
Speaker 2: Answer? That's what we're waiting for.
Speaker 1: Will you? I'm answer you a question? Will you allow
me to answer?
Speaker 2: Answer?
Speaker 1: Allow me to answer anything?
Speaker 2: The entire chat is laughing.
Speaker 1: You mean, yes, I get it that your checks.
Speaker 2: We're waiting. We're waiting, will you?
Speaker 1: Will you?
Speaker 2: If you don't answer, I'm just going to move on
because you can't. You can't handle an So.
Speaker 1: Are you going to allow me or not to actually answer?
Without you?
Speaker 2: All you wanted to do is the flag. This is
how weak you guys are. You guys are the worst
that you're worse than Austin Peterson.
Speaker 1: I don't know who alsin Peterson is all I know
is should team up? Not You're not engaging in any
way that I could have.
Speaker 2: I'm not engaging again. Will you answer, if the axiom
is moral in its nature and content, how is it
not ethical or moral?
Speaker 1: How is it not ethical or moral?
Speaker 2: If the content of the axiom of the nap is
ethics and morals, how is it not moral or ethical
or normative just because it's an axiom?
Speaker 1: Okay, I didn't say that just because it's an axiom.
Speaker 2: Yes you did. You said it's an it's axiom, it's
not moral. You said it's an action, it's not moral.
Speaker 1: I did not say, Yes you did, it's not moral.
Speaker 2: You said it doesn't do. What do you think morals
deals with? That's normativity, moral, ethical claims or normative claims?
Speaker 1: Sentence, Then you can't say that you've heard.
Speaker 2: The whole chat knows you're a filibuster ring.
Speaker 1: I'm not shillibus ring. You won't stop and just let
me make an argument.
Speaker 2: We're waiting. Will you allow me to The whole chat
knows that you said that go.
Speaker 1: Will you allow me to go? I'm not asking you
to say go. I'm a simple question. Will you act
like an adult from this point on.
Speaker 2: If you make bad arguments argument, if you make bad arguments,
that will interrupt you correct.
Speaker 1: Okay, so you're so you're just going to constantly interrupt
you talk.
Speaker 2: So if you would like so, an you want to
talk about anything but the assertions the axiom. The axiom
is about ethics and normativity.
Speaker 1: If you would like to have this debate, it is
clear that you are. Are you going to apply in
conversation without a monator, So find a moderator and schedule
the debate, or run like you did from liquid Zula.
Speaker 2: I'm not running because you guys are too low to
here to know the topics and what the categories are
to even debate.
Speaker 1: You have, you have insults and.
Speaker 2: Interrupt You didn't even know what justification was. You didn't
know what justificad. You didn't even know what it was.
You did, No, you didn't. You had to ask me
what it is. You had to ask me what it is.
Speaker 1: I asked what.
Speaker 2: You had to ask me what justifica is.
Speaker 1: I asked you what your standard was, because there.
Speaker 2: Is not my personal standard. It's not a subjective topic.
Speaker 1: You're you're in. You're very clearly not honestly.
Speaker 2: Uh huh right, So the axiom about ethics and morals
is an axiom? And how is it not an not claim?
Speaker 1: There's no reason the NAP?
Speaker 2: How is the NAP not an not claim?
Speaker 1: Interrupting?
Speaker 2: And then no, you're just bitching about interrupting to not answer.
You're bitching about interrupting to not answer. How is the
NAP not ethical or moral?
Speaker 1: So again, so again, find a moderator and we'll do.
Speaker 2: How is the NAP?
Speaker 1: Go?
Speaker 2: I will give you the time. How long do you
want to answer? You want? You want like two minutes? Now,
you're gonna let me do you want like two minutes?
Speaker 1: Stop? Leave you find a moderator and we'll see.
Speaker 2: So you're running because you're rage quitting, your rage quitting.
Speaker 1: Well, no, no, no, I'm it's not raged because I can remember.
I can just laugh and then it magically becomes not
rage quitting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but yeah, but I I asked good questions about justification.
What you didn't know what it was? And I'm asking
you the same questions and you can't answer. Is the
n a P an ethical normative claim? I have answered, no,
you didn't answer. Answer No, you didn't What is the answer.
So the entire the entire chat sees that this guy
is running and he won't he won't debate.
Speaker 1: What do you mean I won't debate? You won't You.
Speaker 2: Won't answer the question, dude, If it's a simple question,
why can't you just answer it? So you did the
same thing to Jim Bob because you're literally one of
the worst debaters I've ever debated. You're worse than teet
up at least teed up answers you know again, at
least ted up answering people. Do you want a two
minute Do you want a two minute pause? This is
Do you want a two minute pause? Is the n
a P ethical? When it's about ethics?
Speaker 1: Is it find a moderate?
Speaker 2: Is the n a P ethical or moral?
Speaker 1: Or not? Find a moderate?
Speaker 2: So you can't answer, You literally cannot answer that.
Speaker 1: You can't up and you won't allow what is the answer?
You said you'll give me time to interrupted.
Speaker 2: I'll give you two minutes. I will give you two
minutes of silence.
Speaker 1: I don't believe you. You're a fucking liar.
Speaker 2: So there you go, look at it, look at your rage. Quit.
I will give you two minutes of silence, and you
still won't do it because you can't. You can't answer.
Speaker 1: I can't find a moderator.
Speaker 2: I don't have to find a moderator for you. You're not
worth a fully moderated debate. You're too low tier to
even know how low tier you are. You don't know
what justification is. You didn't know what the term is.
You asked me what it meants.
Speaker 1: You interrupt you positive.
Speaker 2: Because your questions and answers are dumb, dude.
Speaker 1: That's why everything's dumb, except.
Speaker 2: Is the nap ethical or moral.
Speaker 1: There's no reason for me to answer any of your.
Speaker 2: Questions because you can't because you have already lost the debate.
Speaker 1: And you're incapable of having you already lost.
Speaker 2: You rage, quit casting me out because you don't have
an answer to I'll give you two minutes. I'll shut
up for two minutes.
Speaker 1: I don't, I don't.
Speaker 2: Why would you not believe me when I can prove
that I'll do it.
Speaker 1: That's stupid, because you because of your past behavior.
Speaker 2: All right, I'm gonna be quiet right now. I'm gonna
be quiet for two minutes and you can answer.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, sure, go ahead. So now you're asking me
a loaded question, which is you know, when did you
stop being So I'm obviously not gonna answer. But in
regards to what is the non aggression principle, non aggression
principle is an ought claim, but it is also an axiom.
One can choose to follow that axiom or not follow
that acciom in their system of ethics. But if you
have a an ethical system that you attempt to justify,
then that is where that that is where you must
follow or you must your system must be commiserate with
a non aggression principle or it falls into contradiction. That is,
that is the claim that I mean. So you are
correct that the NAP is a moral claim that one
ought not aggress upon other people. But where when we're
talking about bridging kind of the is ought app from
descriptive to prescriptive ideology, what I'm saying is that it
is it is a means of negating ethical justifications when
they go against a non aggression principle. So boom, Finally.
Speaker 2: I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.
Means of negating what is that supposed to mean?
Speaker 1: Right? So, libertarianism as a whole is you know, the
NAP is axiomatic to libertarianism, But things such as like argumentation, ethics,
and other forms of logic showcase that, you know, people
that attempt to justify the law that jungle or are
no longer in ethics. Right, you're if you're saying some
people can be slaves or some property can be taken,
then your your moral claims aren't universalizable and they fall
into contradiction.
Speaker 2: Are moral claims universizable? Well for it to be a
through moral claim, so there are universals. Yeah, okay, how
do you justify universal claims?
Speaker 1: How do I justify the existence of universal claims? Like,
can you give me an example of one that may
just make.
Speaker 2: Uh yeah, one at faulty nap.
Speaker 1: Well, so we would start with existence exists, then we
would move into.
Speaker 2: Formal existence exists. What is that supposed to mean?
Speaker 1: I've seen an unavoidable accident? Right, So one cannot argue.
Speaker 2: I mean it's a it's a it's a self referencing
basically version of the identity principle. But how do you
what does that mean? Existence exists?
Speaker 1: That means that existence exists, right, it's it's it is
self referencing in those situation, but one cannot argue against
the concept of existence.
Speaker 2: Actually you can, because you can't actually pretty easily because existence.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, I could say cats have wings existence.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, I mean in a different point that existence
is a very contested, ambiguous term in the history of philosophy.
It's a metaphysical claim. So have you justified any metaphysics yet?
Speaker 1: I would start where we're starting with existence, and existence
specifies itself.
Speaker 2: By the existence justifies itself. What is your proof for
the proposition existence justifies itself?
Speaker 1: It is you cannot make any form of logical argument
in any about anything without justifying without existing, Like, it's
impossible to make.
Speaker 2: A claim that's not even actually true. I mean, Boolean
approaches to logic have made it deontological, so you can
actually make onto you can actually make logical arguments without
ontological claims. That's not you're making.
Speaker 1: An argument the moment that you make an argument, justify yours.
Speaker 2: No, that's not even true. That's that's a that's not
a justification, and that's a fallacious move. So it doesn't
get it. It doesn't prove the metaphysical notion or the
linguistic symbols that you use for the word existence are
correct in other words, it assumes all kinds of things
like language, predications, language and predication. Right, so if you
had a if you'd had a philosophy language class, you
would know that words like existence presuppose metaphysical structures like universals,
like predicate, predication, like uh, grammar, and none of those
things have been demonstrated yet.
Speaker 1: Okay, this is it's not the concept of existence. But
we're just not the definition of the word existence. So
everything that you just said is silly.
Speaker 2: No, everything I said is basic philosophy, no idiot. The
fact that you think that there's self evident action.
Speaker 1: Other people might like, what is the definition of the
word What do you mean?
Speaker 2: You don't think that the word existence is? So what
is it referring to?
Speaker 1: It is?
Speaker 2: Is impossible to our concepts in this case? Are they
based on linguistic philosophy?
Speaker 1: Can you argue against existence?
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter because I won't get you to justification
even if I admit that. Even if I admit, it
doesn't matter because it doesn't achieve justification. So even if
I admit skepticism and play the role of a skeptic
and counter your claims about existence being existence, it doesn't
prove anything, it doesn't get you anywhere, because I'm pointing
out that it's not self evident if it relies on
things like predication, linguistic philosophy, and grammar, which you haven't
proven yet, So it's not self evident.
Speaker 1: It does not. The concept of existence is not does.
Speaker 2: Not the proposition existence exists, The proposition is itself relying
on Does it rely on the law of identity? No,
yes it does. Existence exists, is relying on the law
of identity.
Speaker 1: No, it would come after exists?
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh. No, to say existence exists relies on
the law of identity, you're predicating identity, Yes.
Speaker 1: Ariskitilian formal logic, ray like law of identity, law of
excluded middle and law of non contradiction. Right, are going
to be are going to be the foundation for making
the argument that existencies.
Speaker 2: I'm calling in to question the argument.
Speaker 1: Language and all those other things. But what I'm saying
is is that by one attempting in any language, in
any in any means anytime a.
Speaker 2: Moral I know what you're saying. It's called retortion.
Speaker 1: Yeah, to make a claim that that that requires existence
for them, that it presupposes existence.
Speaker 2: I'm aware of that, but that still doesn't get you.
I know that, I know it's called retortion. It's called retortion,
and it doesn't get you to justification. That's the point,
all right.
Speaker 1: So how are you? How are you justifying existence because
you clearly believe that existence.
Speaker 2: Well, I believe in the transcendental argument for God's existence,
and that's the ground for the logical categories which make
it possible to predicate at all. So that's my worldview account.
But even if I admit, even if I admit to you,
let me explain the point as to why it doesn't
get you to justification. Right, So this comes up after
Enlightenment philosophers raised the question about justification in this domain
when it comes to for example, Kant says, one reason
that just retortion alone doesn't get you to justification is
that we don't know that the seeming impossibility of not
being able to argue or to use logic or to
have conceptual frameworks itself means that it's the case in
the external world. So even if you could demonstrate that
I can't argue or have human conceptual predication or language
without assuming something like the law of identity or existence exists,
or whatever. It still doesn't get you to justification because
that even if it doesn't seem possible, it would become
a fallacy of incredulity that I don't see how else
you could reason, still doesn't grain your justification, and all
you need is one defeat or to prove I'm not.
Speaker 1: Making the argument that it doesn't seem possible. I am
making the argument that it is not possible.
Speaker 2: So if you're saying it's not possible, you would have
to demonstrate exist then I know that. So then you
would have to then you have to answer const dilemmas
of how you know there even is an external world
to which these categories apply.
Speaker 1: Okay, so constanlemma in how do I know that there
is an external world.
Speaker 2: To where the concepts apply? Like when he critiques the
ontological argument, he's pointing out that there's nothing about the
term existence that contains within it the notion of perfection.
So just proving that something exists doesn't get these other
metaphysical qualities like perfection. So likewise, in your case, the
same problem applied.
Speaker 1: What is what is? What is? If you can explain
it for me? Batter like what is like perfection or
human like conscritique.
Speaker 2: What I'm saying that const critique of the ontological argument
is applicable to the argument that you're making about the
ontological claim that exist distance exists. I'm saying that you
need all kinds of things to be the case for
that to hold or to be true, and those other
things have not been proven yet, and so it's not
self evident or axiomatic. It rests on a bunch of
other assumptions. All the things I've listed, like language.
Speaker 1: Space, space, time, causality currently cons correct well.
Speaker 2: When cont critiques the cogito, he says that it assumes
time and space. But I'm not making that argument, okay,
but it's similar to it, Okay, So.
Speaker 1: Your argument is is that you need I'm having a
hard time, my mom's gone real quick.
Speaker 2: For you to say existence exists and to say that
that's self evident and axiomatic, because if you denied it,
you couldn't reason about the world, You couldn't reason at all.
I agree with that principle and that point, but that
does not get you to epistemic justification, because it doesn't
answer Const's dilemma that even if the position is true,
you don't know that it applies to an external world
without assuming an external world. And I agree with you
that we should assume an external world. But the point
is that you haven't demonstrated an external world yet, and
so the propositions are not axiomatic.
Speaker 1: Even even if we were like in the matrix or something,
there must be an external world for existence who exists.
Speaker 2: But you haven't proven that yet, and so that's why
this statement is not axiomatic. So rests on other beliefs.
Speaker 1: Well, it would sweet, I mean, I could.
Speaker 2: If something actiomatic or Okay, no, it could be false axiom.
But like people self evident, axiomatic beliefs can't rest on
another belief. That's the point, or else they're no longer.
Speaker 1: Is what is the belief that existences.
Speaker 2: In this case, that it applies to something in an
external world to give it meaning and content To refute
my point about why it doesn't get you to justification,
you need it.
Speaker 1: To apply the existence itself.
Speaker 2: You haven't shown that. Now you've read it. You haven't
demonstrated that.
Speaker 1: No existence, it's a concept there is that there is
a material world that exists.
Speaker 2: Now now you're adding, Now you're moving the goalpost because
there's nothing in the word exist. There's nothing in the
word existence that necessarily tells you that it's about an
external world. That's what you just you just added and altered. Well,
you know you might be existence exists, and now you're
modifying it to say that, well that means necessarily the
external world. Well what is there in the word existence
that necessarily means external world?
Speaker 1: So I think you, I think you might actually be
right on this only because existence is this is is objective.
It's randy and right. So you wouldn't it just wouldn't
deny or I don't think she would support any idea
of like the spiritual or any other type of world
other than the material world. I think it is probably implied,
but maybe not explicitly stated. So like, yeah, that's fine.
If you want to critique existence exists, you know, to
like better.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm just giving examples of why it modern. I'm
just giving examples or why it doesn't get you to
self evidence or justification in an epistemic sense.
Speaker 1: It's like, I'm you're saying it doesn't because there could
be a spiritual.
Speaker 2: World that I never said any of that.
Speaker 1: Well, you're saying that it doesn't imply the material.
Speaker 2: All I need is one defeater, and I've given you
a couple of defeaters. It doesn't mean that I have
to all CON's positions. So no, I don't believe.
Speaker 1: All I'm asking. Your argument is that existence exists, doesn't
imply the world.
Speaker 2: Correct, that's a content.
Speaker 1: Right, and well, this content wasn't alive to critique existence
from the from the checktive.
Speaker 2: He made this critique in a similar way, critiquing the
ontological argument. That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: So when I make the argument existence and you're saying, well,
this doesn't necessarily apply to the exist since we're in,
I guess I don't have an argument for that. Because
we exist in the existence we're in, there is no
other existence.
Speaker 2: That's just starting, that's just starting the thing question.
Speaker 1: I'm actually genuinely trying to understand your critique here. It's
not like I'm like, I'm.
Speaker 2: Not, well, the point so to make it in this.
Speaker 1: World right, we we we are acting, we're behaving, we're
attempting to justify the point is that all systems.
Speaker 2: The point is that the point is that all beliefs,
all propositions, all statements, true statements, et cetera, and my
view are theory laden. And so this has been a
long walk to get to the point to try to
prove or demonstrate that classical foundationalism, which is the epistemology
that the Enlightenment relies upon in most libertarians, is philosophically
and epistemically on faulty ground. And it doesn't make me
a content simply because I'm using his argument that there's
nothing necessarily about the word existence that entails a material
external world. I could be an idealist, maybe I believe
that all the world is a Platonic ideal, and for me,
the word existence just means ideas like Plato, right, or
that's the highest.
Speaker 1: Now you're now you're changing the argument.
Speaker 2: No, I'm giving you an example of why the word
existence does not have self evident meaning to it. It's contingent.
Let me finish, it's contingent upon a paradigm.
Speaker 1: So if I just start changing the meaning of words,
right and then saying that, well.
Speaker 2: I mean you're the one that did that where you
modified existence to mean a material external world, But there's
nothing necessary about the word that tells you that.
Speaker 1: The existence exists. As an argument is a justification.
Speaker 2: It's not a justification because it's a restatement of a
self evident in your view, truth doesn't tell you anything
about the world. You're assuming it does. But how do
you know it does?
Speaker 1: Well, it tells you that any individual cannot The reason
is an unavoid.
Speaker 2: Is a But you keep calling it void of all,
resting on the assumption that it actually applies to an
external world, which you haven't demonstrated.
Speaker 1: But you're not making argument like that's critique.
Speaker 2: It's an internal critique. My argument is an internal critique.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you're saying that there is a way that
you can defeat existence exists argumentation by redefining words and
concepts of what.
Speaker 2: No, I'm simply pointing out.
Speaker 1: I'm clarifying what existence means in the objective is framework.
And you're saying, ah, but what if.
Speaker 2: I whether it's a non sequitor. There's nothing about the
word existence argument that you attempt to it's a non
in your system.
Speaker 1: The moment that you attempt to argue that you know
the world is actually just like this platonic forms or.
Speaker 2: That like I didn't say that, I just gave an
example that wasn't my point.
Speaker 1: I'm using I'm using yous in like the universal right,
the one that one you know, attempts to make any
form of justification. They do so in the world that we.
Speaker 2: I mean again, assuming that there is an external world,
which you haven't demonstrated yet. So the whole point is
not because I'm you don't understand what a defeater argument is.
It doesn't mean that I'm a skeptical like human. It
means that I'm using the argument from human Kant to
prove why your assertion existence exists is not self evident.
It rests on other things. That's the point.
Speaker 1: But you haven't shown that it rests on other things.
Speaker 2: I gave you multiple examples. For example, it rests on
the assumption that it applies to the external world. Have
you demonstrated that existence exists applies to the external world
and not just a conceptual framework? When was that justification?
Speaker 1: Again? Who who is? Who can exist? Right without exist?
Speaker 2: So you're answering a question to answer the question I
asked you. I'm trying to get you to understand maybe
maybe that maybe maybe everything is an ideal existence and
there is no external world. I don't believe that, but
I'm saying that your assumptions are not justified, even within
your own system. How do I know that the word existence,
when it has a vast array of meanings throughout the
history of philosophy, somehow necessarily means a material, physical, external world.
There's nothing about the word existence that necessarily means that.
And when I ask you how you know that or
why we should think that, you say, it just has
to be that way. Well, that's a fallacy of incredulity.
Speaker 1: So if there are so the necessary condition for existence
is well, hold on, let me not go there. So
I'm you're you're saying that the argument isn't justified because
one could make arguments outside of reality.
Speaker 2: I'm saying that it's a non sequitor and that it
rests on multiple other assumptions which have not been proven,
and so it's not self evident.
Speaker 1: So, but some existence is self evident. I don't understand.
Speaker 2: I mean, again, you just keep starting the position that's
a variation on the original position. And how do we
know that? What does that mean?
Speaker 1: Because if one because we because we obviously exist in
some capacity.
Speaker 2: So your answer is that it's just the case. So
the answer is again, that is just the case. So
I thoasical foundations and.
Speaker 1: It's an oblable axiom. Right.
Speaker 2: Again, you keep asserting that, but then you've admitted that
it relies on other things like an external world, which
that proposition, the proposition itself does not contain within it
a necessary existence of an ex Okay.
Speaker 1: So so I have put forward that existence exists, and
you've heard that argument. Need it? You say it doesn't.
It's it's not justified because it relies on other assumptions.
What do do you have a counter argument for our existence?
Speaker 2: Yes, and again it's the existence of God grounds and
justifies the transcendental categories which make possible things like predicating
about existence in the created realm. So there's not even
one that God no, because in Christian theology, for example,
there's two types of existences. There's uncreated and created, and
so there's nothing about the word existence that tells me
necessarily which one is even being referred to. Because I
believe in my pl I believe in my paradigm that
there's uncreated existence, who is God himself, and there's created existence,
which is the created world. Those are two types of
existing things. So there's nothing self evident about the word
existence that necessarily tells you anything.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, what is an uncreated existence?
Speaker 2: God himself?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Okay, well that's like, yeah, but what do you
mean by like, what is an uncreated system?
Speaker 2: It means that he is timeless. It means that he
is a noncomposite, He is outside of time and space.
He is transcendent, he is imminent, he is perfect all
the attributes that we've ascribed to God in our system.
Speaker 1: So when you say he's timeless, what is what is?
What do you mean by that? It's a doesn't exist
in reality.
Speaker 2: No, outside of time, meaning that he's eternal. He created time,
he's outside of time.
Speaker 1: So like or like would a vampire be an ungreated
existence if he's a.
Speaker 2: Mortal anything mortal is created by definition?
Speaker 1: Okay, so real.
Speaker 2: Yeah, But I'm just pointing out that the word existence
doesn't necessarily tell you anything self evident without a paradigm
to inform the word and its meaning. Even language itself.
Is why I mentioned earlier to you linguistic philosophy. It's
a holistic structure. It's an epistemic wholism, which means that
there's no words that function in an independent way. You
could read Wickenstein on this because he talks about how
words in terms are part of linguistic structures and systems
because they all relate to one another. So there's no
such thing as a word called existence or ontos or
fusis or being or whatever that somehow has a self evident,
necessary meaning apart from the entire paradigm or worldview that
you have that informs it. That's why I was mentioning.
Speaker 1: So, yeah, what like, So it is true that words,
you know, have a have a shared meaning that we
kind of assume people get like, you know, and we
see language change constantly where a word has as and
then over time the meaning of the word kind of
changes from the cultural context, because it's because it's just
a function, right, It's a tool. A word is just
a tool to describe a concept. And you know, communication
is often, more often than not imperfect. Right. But but
what I'm trying to understand is, you know, I agree
that that is a that is a problem in argumentation.
You have to kind of assume that the reader understands
the meaning of the word that has but that isn't
always perfect. But how do you justify how do how
does your position differ in existence? And so though far
that it justifies, Like saying God is uncreated is like
like you're just saying it's it's outside of the rules,
and it exists and it doesn't.
Speaker 2: Well, now outside of your rules? So and are I
have a different paradigm. So I'm thinking and arguing in
terms of paradigms or world views as a whole. The
transcendental argument is a comparison of to world views or paradigms.
So it involves the entire system because the Christian theistic
system conditions what I mean by words like existence or
time or creation or whatever, all of those things are.
Speaker 1: How does that? How does how does the Christian How
does Christian ethics? Like? All these things are made up
of words? Right, So it's the same problem that that
would occur in any Well.
Speaker 2: I don't have the belief that words are in language
are all purely social constructs. I believe that what the
words refer to is conceptual and universal and objective and
not subjective.
Speaker 1: Yeah, were, But the words themselves are just undicating concepts
or ideas.
Speaker 2: Right, But that's why the words can be flexible. You
can have Roman numeral VIII or the Arabic number seven
that referred to the same abstract conceptual entity. But that
has nothing to do.
Speaker 1: It doesn't get us any justification of like how you
solve the problem as you see that justification can't be
met on anything unless we posit a god. But I
don't understand how.
Speaker 2: That does well, because the tag argument argues that any predication,
any proposition, relies on the structures that are necessary for
the possibility of language and predication. So, in other words,
to say a sentence like the tree is red, a
shout me the tree is green rests on a certain
type of world where there are there is regularity in nature.
It rests on the possibility of having knowledge universals, linguistic structure, grammar,
all of those things are presupposed in the action of
making a proposition.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, but that would be true for objectives philosophy
as well.
Speaker 2: Right, But the difference between the difference between you and
I is how we give an account for those things,
And that your accounts are not good accounts is what
I've been arguing.
Speaker 1: So what is your good account that solves this problem?
Speaker 2: And well, there are no self evident proof positions or
statements because they're embedded within a network or a web
of beliefs that we all have. And thus, if my
system or my view is holistic, if I'm an epistemic holist,
then I have to give an account for the system
as a whole and how those structures or how those
preconditions are the case. So if I need the possibility, predication, universals, mathematics, logic, mathematics, logic,
all of these categories being the true, the good, et cetera,
to have knowledge at all, then I need to give
some account for those things those categories that my statements
are relying on. In the Transcendental are and argues that
only God is the type of being who could give
a justification or account for those things.
Speaker 1: So you're just saying only God can do this, So
therefore God is every saying.
Speaker 2: I'm saying that. The argument is that the only being
who can give given a grounding for those things is
the being revealed in the Christian worldview.
Speaker 1: How is it so? But but God doesn't exist in reality.
Speaker 2: I don't even know what does that mean?
Speaker 1: He said he's an uncreated existence in space. How is
he doing this?
Speaker 2: I said, he's transcendent and he's imminent. That means that
he exists outside of time and in time.
Speaker 1: So he does exist in reality.
Speaker 2: Well, you keep calling reality. I would say there's two realities.
There's created reality on created reality. So when you.
Speaker 1: Say the outside of material reality, yeah, okay, where it was?
So how so how do you prove that?
Speaker 2: Well I could. I could prove it the transcendental argument
and the impossibility of the contrary that anytime you utilize language,
you're utilizing conceptual, abstract things that are not reducible to
physical sense data, and that only God in the trinitarian
sense could give a justification for how that's possible.
Speaker 1: Well, no, I reason, reason alone explains that humans have
the capacity for reason.
Speaker 2: Well, that's alone. You're all humans.
Speaker 1: Well, humans as a category.
Speaker 2: How do you have a justification for categories?
Speaker 1: What do you How do I have a justification that
that that humans have the capacity know.
Speaker 2: That there are things called quote categories like this.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to figure out a way to answer this.
You would accept it? So the how do I justify
the categories exist in the mind that people?
Speaker 2: So now they're just in the mind. They're not actual,
they're not outside of them. One like the numbers are
not material, they're not material.
Speaker 1: No, of course, not.
Speaker 2: Okay, so there's immaterial things.
Speaker 1: There's no category three, right.
Speaker 2: There are immaterial things that exist, immaterial things.
Speaker 1: The mind does not create reality, Reality exists independent.
Speaker 2: Okay, how do you know that there are two types
of things, physical and immaterial?
Speaker 1: Well, we have we do have sense.
Speaker 2: How does your sense data tell you that? You mentioned Hume?
But how does your sensative tell you that there's imterial
things that are not based on sense data?
Speaker 1: How does my sense data tell me that there are
things that are not sense data?
Speaker 2: That's what you just said a question?
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I said that we can see things in reality.
Speaker 2: How does things tell you that there are immaterial things?
Speaker 1: So theirs the first thing is that we can see
that there are material things.
Speaker 2: Right, Well, I would say with the myth of the given,
you don't even know that, and you haven't demonstrated that yet.
But if I grant you that, how does that give
to immaterial even if even.
Speaker 1: Even if I was like, there there has to.
Speaker 2: Be you keep saying, and if you do philosophy, you
know there's no has to any of this. You got
to demonstrate that. You can't just assert that.
Speaker 1: Well, okay, well, if you interrupt someone, you know then
they can't make their full arge.
Speaker 2: So empiricism won't get you to universal categories, is the point?
Speaker 1: Yeah, No, I don't. I don't disagree that empiricism gets you, like,
I don't disagree.
Speaker 2: Okay, So what's the justification for the immaterial things?
Speaker 1: Well, the justification for immaterial things is that the the
concepts exist.
Speaker 2: You mean, how do you know that? How do you
know that the concept in my head of humans as
a category is the same as the concept in your head?
How do you You can't verify?
Speaker 1: You don't. We've already we've already stated that you can't
necessarily verify that.
Speaker 2: Okay, if you can't verify that, then you believe in
immaterial things without justification that you can't verify?
Speaker 1: Well, so do you? You don't know?
Speaker 2: No, I believe in verification. I believe that I can
justify it.
Speaker 1: So you you believe you believe.
Speaker 2: That that's a too quo. That's a two quock way.
That's a two quoke way. No, but you're that's a
two quote way. No but you, No, but you it
is a two quoke way.
Speaker 1: No, it's not no but you because you just.
Speaker 2: You just said no, but you. My world view is different.
I have a different account. You're not understanding that I
have a different account than you.
Speaker 1: I understand that. I understand that you like to interrupt people.
Speaker 2: Now and then this is where once again you're deflecting
because I brought you to a point. You said, you
just see it. What's the justification? Listen when you say joke,
what about you? That's a two quoke way. That's you
know what a two quoke way.
Speaker 1: I asked you. I asked you if you had the
similar belief.
Speaker 2: For thing, it doesn't matter what my similar blakes are.
I will go into you said, I will go into that.
It doesn't matter if I believe I have a different
account of immaterial hands?
Speaker 1: Why why are you I have.
Speaker 2: A different account of material things than you.
Speaker 1: We were finally starting to get to talk like adults.
Speaker 2: And again, now that you've been pinned down, you don't
want to go into it. What is the justification for
immaterial things? What is your justification for immaterial things?
Speaker 1: What is my justification that immaterial immaterial things exist? So
first I started with existence exists, but you say that
that's not valid. But we'll just move on.
Speaker 2: So well, you kind of admitted that there's problems for that,
nor did you demonstrate the actually did you demonstrate the
external world which you said it means.
Speaker 1: I said that in order for us to have existence,
we have to exist in some type of thing.
Speaker 2: Have you demonstrated that you demonstrate that? We know, you
said an external world. What if we live in a
mental world. You haven't proven that it's the external, material,
physical world that we have necessarily, you haven't proven that.
You've just asserted it.
Speaker 1: The mind cannot the mind cannot exist without a material
How do you know that?
Speaker 2: You just assert this. What's the justification for this?
Speaker 1: Well, so the justification for how reason or consciousness comes
to be.
Speaker 2: You keep asserting all kinds of metaphysical claims like that
there's immaterial realities, and you've not justified any of these.
Speaker 1: We do exist in some form of existence, right, Let's
let's take into account.
Speaker 2: I mean we exist in existence is basically a meaningless phrase.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I'm going through it. Right, So we exist?
We could exist by your your you're asserting, what if
we exist in the frame of the mind. We would
then have to note that an existence must have some
form of identity specific.
Speaker 2: How do we know that maybe it? Maybe it does.
Maybe we're all schizophrenic and our schema in our minds
don't match up to anything in the next wal world.
We just interpret it like it does.
Speaker 1: Yees. So if if you deny the law of identity,
then then this our conversation is meaning so but wait.
Speaker 2: A minute, you said that existence exists doesn't rely on
the law of identity earlier, Well.
Speaker 1: We're moving, we moved past existence. What do you mean.
Speaker 2: No, you're we're still talking about it. So you're saying
it does. It does rely on the law of the
law of identity.
Speaker 1: If if the law of identity is no, I'm saying
that I'm moving from existence exists and then making.
Speaker 2: That's a proposition that relies on the law of identity.
Speaker 1: Obviously I'm making a separate claim, which is essentially that
the law of I didn't.
Speaker 2: Okay, how do we know that the laws like that
and the classical Ristilian laws are the case and that
they apply and by the.
Speaker 1: Way we perceive we perceive existence.
Speaker 2: Perceiving existence, You don't understand that, you don't understand why
that doesn't answer that question. You're basically just saying you're
basically I'm.
Speaker 1: Sorry, ahead, no, no, you go ahead. It's fine.
Speaker 2: You're basically just saying that my position is the case,
because if you look at my position, it's that this
is the case, and that's what the words mean my position.
Speaker 1: No. No, what I'm saying is that we again premise
one or action one I guess would be existences we
exist in some that to argue for.
Speaker 2: How do you know that?
Speaker 1: Is because of the negation. You can't argue against your
own existence. Do so presupposes existence, It's impossible, But you
have to exist.
Speaker 2: I'm making the argument right now. And what if our
conceptual schema just seems to be the case in our
minds but doesn't apply to an actual external ontological existence.
How do we know? That is the question? And you
can you can say that because it has to be
that way, But that doesn't answer the objection or the defeater.
Speaker 1: No, I'm saying that if you make the argument that
existence doesn't exist, fall into contradiction.
Speaker 2: No, that's not the argument argument. The argument is that
existence exists necessarily applies to some external physical world. You
have not demonstrated the external world yet, and thus it's
not axiomatic because it relies on other positions and other beliefs.
Speaker 1: Well, it's well, the first axiom is existence exists. Once
we recognize that one must exist in some capacity.
Speaker 2: Then when you say one, you're just assuming the existence
of the self. Have you not read a critique of
the code.
Speaker 1: Celf Well, of course, of course I'm assuming the existence
of this.
Speaker 2: Well, then thank you. Then it's not self evident. It
assumes other things exactly, No.
Speaker 1: It's the individual.
Speaker 2: Does it assume the existence of the self.
Speaker 1: It is the self that makes the argument? Is it not?
Speaker 2: So? Is it assuming it is? The proposition?
Speaker 1: To me? Would you okay, we'll put another axiom before it.
The self exists, an existence.
Speaker 2: Exists, but you have no Now you're adding the moving
the goalpost to add another proposition ahead.
Speaker 1: Adding the goal post. I'm saying that's fine.
Speaker 2: I'll okay. Then if the second proposition exists, then it's
no longer self evident because it relies on another proposition. Obviously,
so the.
Speaker 1: Self exists, right, you just agree that the self exit.
Speaker 2: No, I'm saying it doesn't matter how you construct it.
It's no longer self evident because you're adding other propping
up beliefs. So if you look, if you study this,
it's it's no, it.
Speaker 1: Is, it's self evident because the self is the one
that argues if.
Speaker 2: Someone that's a category error, that's a category error talking
about the self does not make it self evident. That's
that's amazing mistake. Man.
Speaker 1: No, No, it's not a category when when when I
say that something is the unavoidable axiom, what I'm saying
is that one a person that attempts to argue a self,
that attempts to argue against existence, is incapable of doing
so because they exist. They must exist in.
Speaker 2: Order I know what says. I'm giving it the classic
critique of it.
Speaker 1: A non an entity that doesn't exist can't make an
argument against.
Speaker 2: You know, you're missing the point.
Speaker 1: It's not they don't exist that you're.
Speaker 2: You're not even getting what the point of the objection is.
It's not an objection about the ontological status of the
self or whatever. And you could go that route. It's
more fundamental than that that something axiomatic or what's called
dosastic or properly basic, cannot rest on any other assumptions, principles,
or things that have not yet been proven or else.
It is no longer doxastically basic, is no longer self evident.
And so every time you tackle on these other explanations,
you're just proving my point that it doesn't matter whether
you say, uh, the cogito or whether you say existence exists,
It doesn't answer the objection that I'm laying out That
is no.
Speaker 1: So the argument, the argument for the for objective reality is.
Speaker 2: I don't care about that objective route. You're saying one action,
asking me to justify you know, whether Christy, let me
ask you this.
Speaker 1: You're asking me, you're asking me to justify this external reality. Okay,
and you were saying that an external reality comes from that,
that that this existence exists, you know, presupposes this external reality.
What I'm saying is is that existence exists is one
axiom of of of.
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter that you say that it's one that
doesn't It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because that.
Speaker 1: In order to justify object reality, I.
Speaker 2: Don't think you know what entity and consciousness, Well, you
would need those things. But that's the point is that
you've not yet demonstrated those things.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So because if you say yes, if you say yes,
then you've admitted my point that it's not self evident, it.
Speaker 1: Is existence exists is self evidence.
Speaker 2: It's no, it is not.
Speaker 1: Nor is.
Speaker 2: Again. You keep saying it is that. You keep saying
it is that. But I've given you multiple reasons why
it doesn't get you to the justification for why you
say that.
Speaker 1: No, what it gets existence exists again is one axiom?
Speaker 2: Does it rely on other things? Does it rely on
other things? Does it rely on other things?
Speaker 1: Does the existence exist rely on other things? No, it
doesn't rely on anything it is?
Speaker 2: Does it rely Does the proposition rely on grammar?
Speaker 1: You being able to communicate? That argument is not the same.
Speaker 2: Thing as the truth value of the proposition. Does it
rely on grammar? To say it?
Speaker 1: That's that's not an argument, It is an argument.
Speaker 2: It's a classic critique. Does it rely on grammar?
Speaker 1: If you say God is real and then someone just
changes the definition of God, well then then then that's
a failure of communication.
Speaker 2: No, it's not. It's a classic critique of foundationalism. If
you knew the if you knew what I'm talking about,
you know that.
Speaker 1: Critique to say that it relies on our ability to communicate.
Speaker 2: Oh so wait a minute, so now it relies on
communication skills.
Speaker 1: That's what you're saying, not me you're saying that language
is required so that we.
Speaker 2: Know what the word correct. Propositions that are that have true,
propositions that have truth value require language. Right, assuming do
your propositions do they do they rely on language?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 2: Of course, argument, then they're not self evident. Thank you.
Speaker 1: That's so stupid.
Speaker 2: No, it's not the whole This is like you want
to go read J. Jay Wood's epistemology book where he
makes this very argument that you think is stupid.
Speaker 1: I think it's absolutely How is it that this is
a word.
Speaker 2: No, you don't know about linguistic philosophy. I'm pointing out
to you what a grad student would point out to
somebody who's in a sophomore philosophy that you don't realize
the assumptions that are being made. Right, just like when
Concretius Koge, when Concritique to Kog to listen.
Speaker 1: We both realize, we both realize that language is a
tool of communicating.
Speaker 2: You can call it that is, how does that? It
doesn't matter it's relying on communication and language, then it's
not off evidence if it relies on another thing, whether
it's time, determination, predication, grammar, linguistic structure, all of those
things negate the idea that it is self evident. Because
it is relying on other things, it is no longer
properly proper?
Speaker 1: Can it be? Can it? Being of non existence? Green language?
Speaker 2: That has nothing to do with answering this critique?
Speaker 1: Can a being of can it? Being of non existence?
Has nothing to do being of non language?
Speaker 2: A being of none existence, a being of a being
of non I don't know what language.
Speaker 1: Do you know what a being of non existence is?
I don't know.
Speaker 2: You seem a being of non existence is something incoherent.
Speaker 1: Right because existence exists? Thank you? It is incoherent to being.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is I'm trying to be.
Speaker 1: So finally we've gotten to the point where you're accepting
existence exists.
Speaker 2: I have Do you understand that you're not understanding what
the debate is? It's different accounts of that phrase. I
have no problem with the truth value.
Speaker 1: The debate is tag and you're just fucking tag.
Speaker 2: Is about worldview apologetics. That's the whole point and the thing.
Do you know what I mean? Look, when I say
something is when I say something is theory? Layden? Do
you know what I'm saying? Uh?
Speaker 1: Well, according to according in epistemology.
Speaker 2: Man, you keep saying, according to me, just in modern epistemology.
Do you know what I mean when I say that
that it uh?
Speaker 1: If it's theory laden, I would I believe it's like
that there are ideas that predicate the concept. No, I'm
not without looking at it.
Speaker 2: It's best, okay. So are you familiar with Kuon and paradigms?
Speaker 1: Not? Not recently? I'm fucking I like my the last
time I took philosophy classes, like ten years ago, I've.
Speaker 2: Forgotten a lot, right, So plain it's so. The whole
point of Kuhn's paradigm is that in the world, in
social discourse, in philosophy, people don't realize that their whole set,
their whole set of beliefs are actually based on a
web of beliefs or an entire paradigm, and that all
these things are interlinked and interconnected. Against the term epistemic wholeism,
And it's kind of it's kind of similar to coherence theory.
It's not identical to coherence theory, but it's the idea
that there's no self evident basic non theory laid in
propositions are truths, and language is another example of this
because language, for example, a single word usually comes with
a other set of words that help inform that word,
and there's nothing okay, so in the same way, same thing.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like the same thing.
Speaker 2: Deed constantly are well, I'm not a postmodernist, but Dereda
asked some of these questions. But more so relevant is
Wickenstein because when he talked about language games, he didn't
mean that just playing games. What he meant was that
language is a funny thing because the way language works
is that, yes, it's flexible, and yes it can be
you know, you can use different symbols to denote the
same idea. But the point is rather that it is
systemic and it's it's a holistic thing.
Speaker 1: So how does how does this apply to?
Speaker 2: Because what it shows because then listen because in the
history of the debate about self evident axioms, like the
way that Descartes, for example, said you know, I think right.
So if Descartes says this, what happens is that later
philosophy critiques it on many different grounds. For example, you
get cont saying that the problem with this being self
evident is that it presupposes time and space determination. Right,
because to say that I exist is to say that
I'm existing right now, which is a right now, is
a time determinant at the moment, at this instant. Okay,
but but the argument has not proven time as a
metaphysical concept or reality yet. And so Kant had a
good critique that if it's properly basic, it cannot rely
on another proposition or another principle or another belief that
has not yet been demonstrated. That's the point. Then you
get people saying it also is hold on. There's a
couple more critiques that you get bertrand Russell saying it's
a non sequitor. The fact that you say that you're
an eye does not prove that you exist in some
metaphysical reality. We don't know that yet. Maybe you do,
but how do we know that. It necessarily follows that
you have some sort of ontological existence in this world.
We don't know that yet. So we all agree, yeah,
we do exist in this world, and I agree with you.
But the point is that we got to have a
good account of these principles. You can't just give an
account that is arbitrary and at hawk. And that's why
I reject all classical foundationalists of pistemology.
Speaker 1: So how do is so the problem that I'm having
here or whatever is I don't see it's it seems
you're saying, how do you justify existence exist when it
presupposes concept I guess, right, So that's.
Speaker 2: Kind of not just concepts, But I mean, I don't
know what kind.
Speaker 1: Of simplify that steel I'm trying to steal. Man.
Speaker 2: It presupposes a lot of things, and I've listened a
bunch of them, and I mean, I don't think those
things are just conceptual. I think they're actual ontological structures
and things that exist. But if you want to call
them concepts.
Speaker 1: Sure, right. But the issue that I have is in
almost all of those we we get to this position
where it's, well, how can those things be posited by
a being of non existence?
Speaker 2: What does that mean? I don't know what you mean
by you about God.
Speaker 1: I don't know, because you're you're the one that is
saying that that that there is this hole, there's this issue,
there's this possibility of exist since.
Speaker 2: Not existing or I never said that. I said uncreated
existence is what God is and we are created existence.
I never said non existence.
Speaker 1: By the virtue of arguing I know you're doing an
internal critique. I'm not necessarily leaking this claim down, right,
But what I mean is that if one is attempting
to argue that existence exists is false, then they must
believe it.
Speaker 2: I didn't argue that no exist. I didn't argue it's false.
I argued that you have not given an account of
the proposition in an epistemic sense, right.
Speaker 1: But this is the argument would be that if it
is impossible to argue against, then it must be true.
Speaker 2: But you have not shown that it's impossible to argue against.
And that's why I gave the kantient retort, which is
that just because it seems impossible to me does not
mean that it is ontologically the case.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, if we're trying to, like, if we're
trying to make an argument from like a asmology or something,
I totally agree, right, Like we could we could go
out and observe reality and make a claim, is this
is true? And you know, we have imperfect knowledge and
there is at some point, you know, a paradigm something,
so like it's not it's not necessarily proven to be true.
It's like a balance of probabilities that we assume to
be true so that we can function. The argument isn't
a pistemologically saying. So what I'm saying is that it's
impossible for one to argue against and that is you
against existence, because one must exist in order.
Speaker 2: You're missing the whole of what you're missing. The point
of the retorts to things like the Kogito, the point
of the retorts is not to deny them. The point
of the retorts is to point out that you need
good reasons for why that's the case. I believe it
is the case. Right, You could say, you know, we
I believe in the self. I believe in identity over time.
I believe in you know, the external world. I believe
in causation. I believe in all these things. It's just
that my account of those things, and hence justification is
a different account than the account that you're giving. So
when I use it, So let's and that's what justification
is about.
Speaker 1: Let's let's let's let's just say we're at an impasse.
You don't believe that my arguments are sustasion justify. Its fine,
I'm okay with that. I don't want to I don't
want to beat that for so long that everyone is
fucking annoyed, which they probably already are. It's fine. So
and you believe that an external world exists, So moving
on those moving on to that, let's move into your
worldview and why you believe that you have an appropriate
account of those things that my uh that my grounding fails.
Speaker 2: Right. So, if God exists, then we have a world
where there is a basis for metaphysical principles, epistemic principles,
laws of logic, critical thinking, moral absolute, ethical claims. Because
man has made the image of God, the world operates
on a regular fact and that it has divine providence
which assures the you know, regularity of nature, which is
the basis of all science and empirical sense data. I
have a reasoning faculty, which I have by virtue of
being made in the image of God. And so I'm
a little g God who can reason about the world
and make decisions and do things, create things. Right, I'm
a little creator because God is a creator. So for me,
the divine the existence of God and his self, disclosure
about who he is, and divine revelation is itself the
basis for how things like the preconditions or categories for
the possibility of knowledge are the case. So because God
is omniscient, because he has intentionality as being a person
and not an impersonal force, and because the world is
external to him and it's not identical to him, I
can have the ability to make these kinds of distinctions
and set boundaries. I can make, you know, I can
do things in the world because of that being made
bind image and also the way that I go about predicating. Uh,
you know, sentences, structure, language structure, grammar, universals, numbers, those
things exist outside of the mere human empirical individual sense
data examples because they are grounded in a divine mind.
This is called divine conceptualism, which itself is omniscient, omnipresent, eternally. No,
he's an idealist and an empiricist idealist. I'm not arguing
that at all. I'm arguing the transcendental argument.
Speaker 1: Okay, I thought he was the guy like God. It's
the observers, so it's that problem or whatever.
Speaker 2: He's an empirical idealist. He thinks that God is the
great mind and that the rest of us are just
other minds observing other ideas.
Speaker 1: So he believes thought that, Yeah, I thought.
Speaker 2: No, No, I'm not saying that all reality is that it
is right.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: So now I'm not an empirical idealist like Berkeley. I'm
arguing for Christian theism that there's a creator and there's
the creative. So fundamental reality fundamentally is two different things,
created and uncreated.
Speaker 1: Okay, So, so things exist outside of the mind. You're
You're not You're not like a Berkeley like you we
we we agree.
Speaker 2: That there's an external world substances, substances of course.
Speaker 1: Okay, okay, So why is it you're saying God is necessary?
Where where are you making that? I heard a lot
of God. God.
Speaker 2: I would say God is these things. God is necessary
in the sense that he's the only He's the necessary
justification for the transcendental categories that make knowledge possible. Only
that type of a being could ground things like universals.
Speaker 1: So, and I'm not trying to be an asshole. I
I'm just I'm genuinely trying to get your position here.
How is this not like a God of the gaps ar?
How is this not just?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 1: I believe God exists because only God could fix all
of these problems that I see in the philosophy. Therefore
you know, one and done.
Speaker 2: We're good. Because it's a much stronger than a claim
than God of the gaps. It's actually saying that any
possible predication assumes transcendental categories, and transcendental categories assume God,
so it's much strong. It's not just saying that wherever
I see a gap, I'm gonna stick God in. It's
actually saying that you couldn't make a sentence in a
coherent justph all the way without God's existence.
Speaker 1: How so where are you getting that? Where you're getting
that from?
Speaker 2: That?
Speaker 1: No? No, no, no, yeah, I'm saying like where, well, sure,
like you know, I can, we can all make verguments
true false. So my ax, I'm saying, when you say
that God is necessary for any transcendental category, where are
you getting that from?
Speaker 2: Because there is no other being that could justify the
transcendental categories by definition by what they are.
Speaker 1: So how does God justify those?
Speaker 2: Because He's the only being that could ground them by
the y virtue of who and what he is I
listed earlier, Because he's omniscient, because of the omnies, because
he's excuse me, omnipresent, because he has personal person, not
an intentionality that gives us a basis for things like
tilos in the world uh, and also things like causation.
So without God's existence, you couldn't have a justification for
universal telos teleology, nor could you have a justification for causation.
Speaker 1: But I still haven't. You haven't answered my question out.
You haven't.
Speaker 2: You've just said is because of because of the impossibility
of the contrary, which is the internal critique of the
other world views or your world worldview, and the other
the other argument, the other half of it is earlier on.
Speaker 1: You said earlier that that's not an argument.
Speaker 2: You can't just the other part of the the other correct.
And that's why if I only had an internal critique,
I would agree with you that my position wouldn't achieve justification.
That's why you also have to give the positive case
for why the trinitarian deity is the one that does
justifying ground them right within that paradigm, within the Christian paradigm,
it makes sense why there would be rationality like that.
Speaker 1: Can you make that argument because as of right now
we're kind of on equal.
Speaker 2: Footing the argument right because in the Christian paradigm, right
where God exists, it's a trinity. He creates man in
his image. I'm saying that the world view of Christianity
makes a coherent sense of why there would be things
like universals, because for in this case, God is omniscient
and there are divine ideas, and the universals are grounded
in the divine mind. If you don't have a divine mind,
there's no basis for universals, and thus there's no basis
for predication.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm not, but I'm not actually hearing. You're just
saying the Christian doctrine says so.
Speaker 2: No, it's a paradigm argument, and that's the argument, is
that it's a comparison of one paradigm versus the other.
If my paradigm gives an account for it and yours doesn't,
then this paradigm is correct.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm asking for the account like you're just you're
just restating the account.
Speaker 2: Is the Christian paradigm compared to your paradigm, that's the account.
Speaker 1: But we can't be compared to my paradigm.
Speaker 2: Because of course the argument is the argument is comparison.
Speaker 1: Like the same reason that you said that mine is.
Speaker 2: Not the argument. No, it's not you're missing the point.
So you're assuming that the argument for the argumentation at
a paradigm level is not the same thing. It's the
argumentation on a mundane first order level. So this is
a meta level argument. So it's an argument about the
possibility of arguments. So if my position can give an
account for within its paradigm, how it's possible to have
laws of logic, universals, metaphysical categories, et cetera, all the
things I've been listing, and your position doesn't give an
account for it, then my position is correct.
Speaker 1: So you're what is given an accounting, so that there
is one? What is the argument?
Speaker 2: The argument is that I need universals, I need these categories.
God is the only possible being in Christian revelation has
given that disclosure as to who God is. Divine conceptualism
grounds the universal categories. How's that?
Speaker 1: But again it gets suspected, like the God of the gaps.
Speaker 2: It's not God of the gaps. It's a God of
The argument is all predication, not God of the gaps.
That's what you're missing. So God of the gaps is
this idea that whenever there's a problem, I can just
kind of stick God in there. This is a way
stronger claim that all predication requires a certain type of
world and certain types of transcendental categories. And I'm saying
that to have the transcendental categories requires some kind of
metaphysical justification and grounding itself. The only type of being
who could possibly ground those in a coherent way is
our God.
Speaker 1: That's the argument, my my argument, And I want you
to tell me why what I'm saying is false so
that I can better understand, which is this sence exists
because it's impossible to argue against it. Right that a being,
a being you know, making argumentation, exists in some pass
to argue against their own existence, would would would negate,
it would be false, like it would just be false,
it would be it would be like a performative contradiction minimum.
And then your argument is when I'm asking you, like,
how do you justify that God solves this problem? Is
that it's impossible to argue against it because you need
these other categories. Sounds like we're making the exist.
Speaker 2: If I again, if I only did, if I only
did an internal critique, I would agree with you. That
doesn't necessarily mean that my position is correct, but if
I also offer a counter worldview to you which does
ground and give an account for universal categories, et cetera,
all those things that I listed, then that's the positive side,
and that's where it gets a justification.
Speaker 1: But but but I can do the same thing, right,
which is what if existence exists identity?
Speaker 2: No, you didn't. You didn't give a justification. You didn't
give any kind of justification.
Speaker 1: You just asserted, well, we we got bogged down, and
existence exists quite a bit.
Speaker 2: I never heard a justification argument at all.
Speaker 1: So existence exists would be like axiom one, axiom two
would be the law.
Speaker 2: You didn't prove your axioms on.
Speaker 1: Oh, you haven't proven yours. You're just saying God exists.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I'm not a classical foundationalist. You're trying to
hold me to your standards. I don't have that same system.
Speaker 1: Just just God. Must God adhere to logic? Or can
God be logical?
Speaker 2: God is the basis for logic, is my argument.
Speaker 1: So so can God contradict?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: Okay, so if God can't contradict, then we agree regardless
of what Ever, that.
Speaker 2: Doesn't mean the account is so Again, you keep confusing
agreement with account of the agreement. I have a different agreement.
Speaker 1: So we can move forward in the argument.
Speaker 2: But it doesn't work because you're missing. But the reason
that doesn't work to move forward is that you're not understanding.
It's two rival paradigms trying to give an account for
the same types of things. And my argument is that
my paradigm can give an account and your paradigm cannot.
And not only can your paradigm, not your paradigm cannot
make knowledge possible. It's even stronger than God of the Gaps.
Speaker 1: How the fuck? How is knowledge impossible under my.
Speaker 2: Paradigm because you cannot give a justification for the assertions.
That's the point. If you don't get the justification, then
you don't get the assertions given to you. That's what
philosophy does.
Speaker 1: Okay, so it's import well, I mean obviously knowledge.
Speaker 2: It's again you keep saying obviously, and I don't grant
you any of those things. You have not you've not
yet proven that anything is self evident. You just asserted, Okay.
Speaker 1: This is what happens when you interrupt people, so that
you start.
Speaker 2: To start That's because the whole argument was continually based
on you just asserting and believing in self evident principles,
and I mean I can give you. Do you want
to go into another.
Speaker 1: With your own argument of tag? Your own argument of tag.
Speaker 2: It's not a classical foundational.
Speaker 1: Necessary conditions, right, So that's.
Speaker 2: Not what self evidence is. That's not what you even by. Okay, brother,
that's not what self evidence is. So you're trying to
hold me to a criteria external to my worldviewer system.
And it doesn't work.
Speaker 1: I said knowledge exists, and then you jump down my throat.
Speaker 2: I don't grant you that. So again, what is that
you don't understand that it doesn't that doesn't apply to
the men.
Speaker 1: You won't even agree with your own argument.
Speaker 2: No, I have a different account. It's a different account. Actually,
it's a different account.
Speaker 1: Man, does or does not your argument hinge upon the
fact that there are that knowledge, all these.
Speaker 2: Things, but those all of those words, these are necessary,
All of those words are conditioned by my paradigm and
not your parents.
Speaker 1: How am I supposed to have a conversation?
Speaker 2: The point is that you can't have It's not it's
a debate, and that's why you're being held to the
standards of critical things on logic, and you don't get
to assert things.
Speaker 1: Hold on, Hold on, relax. How am I supposed to
have any meaningful debate if you if I make a
statement and you immediately interrupt said statement, and that statement
is even part of your own.
Speaker 2: Argument, because come on, because it's not getting to an
understanding the point of what the debate is. You don't
understand the difference between Like I.
Speaker 1: Said, obviously knowledge exists. I said three words.
Speaker 2: I don't agree. Again, you don't understand part of your
own argos. It doesn't matter because I have a different account.
So understand that this is like the word. Remember when
we're talking about the words.
Speaker 1: You mean a different account, a different account.
Speaker 2: It's it doesn't matter matter how many words it is,
it's a totally different account, no matter what, no matter what, yes,
everything in the paradigm. I said that you haven't given
a justification, which I don't think you understand what the
word means. Still for the assertions of self evidence, and
my position does not believe in self evidence or ad
hoc assertions. So you have the burden of proof on
you if you start your position and your system with that,
with self evidence and things being properly basic.
Speaker 1: We I'm not allowed to apparently make my.
Speaker 2: Arg what you We've been talking fine for the last hour.
What do you mean?
Speaker 1: I keep trying to get through it and you keep
just going back to existence exists. We've hifted over to yours,
but you never just I'm trying again, So I'm shifting
over to yours. We can do an internal critique of yours, and.
Speaker 2: I'm trying, but you're in eternal partique is not internal.
It's your system. Brother, You're asking me, you're you're critiquing
me from classical foundationalism, and that's not my system. It
doesn't work.
Speaker 1: Oh listen, I'm trying to I'm I am. I am
here genuinely listening to you as you lay out large
arguments trying to steal man your You're not giving me
the same grace it's making just being able to even have.
Speaker 2: A debate or okay, there you go.
Speaker 1: Right. So I'm trying to understand right where it is
that why it is that when you plug God into
the equator, all that sticks.
Speaker 2: Is not just plugging God in, it's pointing out that
the paradigm itself is coherent, consistent, has explanatory power, and
gives a justification for human knowledge, because it's a paradigm
level argument. I am not plugging in. This is why
I can already tell where the error is and what
you're assessing. You're assessing that my position is God of gaps,
And for the third time, it's a much stronger argument
than God of the gaps, which is that all predication
and knowledge requires the transcendental categories my position. I know
you don't accept the argument or believe that what I'm
saying is necessarily the case, but the argument is that
in my worldview or paradigm, there is a coherent, sensible
account of why there would be the self, the external
world logic, et cetera. That is contrasted to your entire
worldview and system in paradigm, which cannot give an account
for even the transcendental categories themselves. That's the force of
the argument.
Speaker 1: I'm genuinely not trying to accuse you.
Speaker 2: It's a it's a meta level argument, and you're trying
to argue on a non meta level. That's the point.
That's the problem we're having.
Speaker 1: My problem is that and you say that it's somehow
false to say you plug gotten, But maybe I'm.
Speaker 2: Just dumb, like you know what a meta level argument
versus a first order argument.
Speaker 1: Is I mean, like meta would be the meta would
be like the thing of itself, as opposed to like
the minute ship.
Speaker 2: Right, So, in other word, like logic itself, how is
logic itself logical? Or how do we know that it works?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: Versus you know, a more mundane claim like and you're correct?
I agree?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: So, like if I said, well, you know, does Bill
Cosby live next door to me? I don't know. I'll
have to go, you know, empirically investigate it, right, Debating
the status of logic itself is way more devastating and
important and more fundamental to my worldview. No, I agree, okay,
So that's why this debate is a meta level worldview
level debate.
Speaker 1: I didn't, I didn't. I didn't disagree with you on that.
Speaker 2: Okay. So then the torchs that you're giving are not
understanding that in my system, God is the justification for
the transceital categories, because he's the only possible being who
could ground them. And you're saying, how do we know that?
What's the justification? The system itself in terms of revealed
theism is the justification in my paradigm, so you could say, well,
I don't accept that. That's fine, but.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just like I just I'm trying to see
I'm trying. So I said, if you plug God in,
and you took.
Speaker 2: It's not plugging God in. It's stronger than for the
third time, the reason you said God of the gaps twice,
and I'm pointing out that it's way stronger argument or
claim than God of the gaps. God of the Gap says,
where I see a problem, I stick God in there
to try to make sense of it. This is more
fundamental than that. This is saying all human knowledge and
predication requires the existence of our God, who grounds the
transl categories.
Speaker 1: How are we justifying that.
Speaker 2: Necessary by the impossibility of the opposing worldview not even
being able to give an account for anything. It's a
disjunctive argument, but.
Speaker 1: The only way that so the way that you're you're
able to say knowledge to exist because and I had
I don't have this God to.
Speaker 2: Solve that, to solve the basis for the transcentional categories.
So you appeal to things like being is being, existence
is existence, things that are just supposed to be self evident.
And that's why I went through deconstructing how that's not
self evident?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't, I disagree. I'm trying to. I'm I'm
trying to get to a point where we can where
we can have this conversation. But I feel like we're
kind of just at a point where we just disagree versions.
I mean, this is so I disagree that like just
plugging in this concept that like, oh, well God justifies
everything and therefore you know if there are any issues, so.
Speaker 2: Your answer is just existence exists.
Speaker 1: My yeah, I mean like that would be the fundamentals.
Speaker 2: So can I say, could I say so if I
come to it's.
Speaker 1: The exact same argument.
Speaker 2: No, it's not my argument. Your argument is your argument was.
Speaker 1: On on My argument is existence exists. And we go, well,
you can't justify that, and I say, well, it's impossible
to arguement. And then your argument is God exists, and
I say, well can you justify that? And say, well,
you can't argue against that because all of the.
Speaker 2: Things I said twice, I said twice, you're not listening.
I said twice that if I only gave an in,
if I only gave an internal critique, you would be correct.
I already said this twice. That's why you also counter
with the positive case explaining the paradigm in the worldview,
because you're debating, we're debating things like logic and existence
in this language and this kind of stuff that are
within the paradigm, within the system, so they're going to
be conditioned by the systems. That's why the transcendental argument
is literally saying that all argumentation at this level, at
this fundamental level, is a paradigm level argument because there
is no self evident principle. So every time you try
to critique me on your classical foundationalist basis, you're proving
my point and not understanding that within the paradigm justification
makes sense because God literally is the only being who
could ground those things. For example, let's let's make it
let's make it clear. How could I put this into
an either or either the world Either the world is
at a universal sense disteleological, or there is tellos, there
is purpose, there is teleology operant in the world. And
maybe you could come up with some mixed third position
where it's a little bit of both or something if
you had. But in this disjunctive there's only two and
perhaps three options for an entire worldview. If you if
you answer either way on this, you're gonna be led
to my position. And that's the that's the force of
the transcendental argument. You can take anything causation, teleology, pencils,
predication and make the transcendental argument.
Speaker 1: How am I so, well, then let's walk Mut's make
it super simple. Either blue T shirts exist or blue
T shirts don't exend.
Speaker 2: You know, I gave it this theological versus a teleological world, right,
that was my exams.
Speaker 1: So either meaning exists or meaning doesn't exist.
Speaker 2: Well, it's purpose in the world at a at a
grand scale, or there is no purpose in a grand scale.
Speaker 1: Okay, I was using meaning and purpose, you know, simplify
the argument, right, like, so either meaning exists or meaning
doesn't exit. And you're saying that.
Speaker 2: If at a at a universal level, not at a
subjective level.
Speaker 1: Okay, So then yes, so I would so meaning at
a universal level doesn't exit. We'll take that. We'll take that.
My argument would be meaning does not exist at a
universal level for for all all beings.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Then how do I then if that's the
universal status of that proposition or claim. If that is
the case, then every particular case her status of so
called meaning is also encapsulated under the ultimate non meaning.
So every argument you make is based on meaninglessness.
Speaker 1: And how does God? How does? How does how does
the existence of a non or uncreated existence?
Speaker 2: Because God is because God is personal and intentional, and
intentionality means that there is a meaningful world at a universal,
grand scale.
Speaker 1: Okay, So so essentially where it's like a sart No.
Speaker 2: It's not at all, it's not. It's not. It's a
transcendental argument for teleology.
Speaker 1: Why do you know I was saying, So it's it's
it's similar to like if God doesn't exist in everything's permitted.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's a boil down ethical version of it.
But I'm making another. I'm making more of a metaphysical
argument about purpose and teleology and intentionality that the universe
does not at a grand scale have that then than
what we're The only other option is what's called accidentalism
or dysteleology. And if that's the case, then hold on.
If that's the case, then knowledge is no longer possible.
Speaker 1: Why is knowledge? Because let's stick to me.
Speaker 2: Because now everything is accidental. Now everything is accidental. I'm
going to answer question. Because everything is now accidental, including
every action of knowledge is an accident. And thus there's
no laws of thought or laws of reasoning which are
necessary for the possibility of meaningful discourse. You would negate
the possibility laws you.
Speaker 1: Don't need you don't need it. You don't need a
god for that exist.
Speaker 2: There are no immaterial laws. You keep saying that, But
there's what's the justification for immaterial laws? If everything is
an accident?
Speaker 1: I So first, let's let's go buy this piece PIPI.
So I recognize that people want to discover meaning in
their life.
Speaker 2: But okay, hold.
Speaker 1: On, why is it that meaning is a necessary condition
for the universe? Why must the universe have meaning?
Speaker 2: Because to have justified knowledge you need intentionality, purpose and
laws of thought and grammar, and those things cannot exist
in a world that is ultimately, purely and totally accidental.
Speaker 1: So well yeah, well okay, so if if if if
things have identities right, like a like a like a
rabbiting system, and that is, you know, rabbit naings, that
thing has it's we can describe what it is. Why
is God a necessary element or conscious being able?
Speaker 2: Because if the total existence is because because it's not
justified that's why let me.
Speaker 1: Finished, let me finds. So why is it that I
can see, like, why is God a necessary element for
me to see a rabbit that is named Steve and
perceive the behaviors that the rabbit. Again, it's the things
the rabbit does.
Speaker 2: The fact that you have the knowledge does not equate
to you justifying the knowledge. That's what this whole debate
has been about. Justification is not pragmatism. It's not you
just having it. It's not you asserting it. It's not
you believing in self evident assertions. It's you giving an
account for the things that make it possible. So you
can say, well, I have.
Speaker 1: So it wouldn't be able to justify them.
Speaker 2: That's correct. So if you say, well, I believe that
I've found meaning and predicating about my pet rabbits, and
it gives me the solace I get warm feelies over it.
In the grand scheme, In the grand scheme, when you
die and you go into the nothingness, that is gone,
and so it has no relevance or reference to the
universe as a whole. And so ultimately, even though you
might have subjectively felt like there was me, there there
is no meaning beyond your own personal subjective creating of meaning.
So there is no Tels in your position?
Speaker 1: Right, But why does that matter?
Speaker 2: Because knowledge can no longer be epistemically justified if the
universe is accidental and disteleological.
Speaker 1: If I live a life, and how does that get
you justification? Hold on, if I live a life and right,
and then the world moves on without me for a
million years? Right, whatever my actions are had some effect
on the world. But why does like why what? What
is this you're you're positing that a grand vision or
meaning is necessary.
Speaker 2: It's called accidentalism disteleological. Right, this is actually a fa
a famous argument. Right, If the universe at a grand
scale is accidental and distillological, then by necessity, every particular person, object,
and thing within is also accidental, and thus there is
no base this for logic knowledge in a just victory sense,
because there are no laws of thought because they are
also accidental and dissiological and with no purpose.
Speaker 1: Okay, So.
Speaker 2: If the grand scale universal is purposeless, all the particular
parts are purposeless.
Speaker 1: But it doesn't it doesn't actually answer the question you're
just saying, because it doesn't have propose like we can
we can.
Speaker 2: Look at again for the third time, to have the
laws of no hold on for the laws of thought. No,
I'm not interrupting for having the laws of thought. Let
me explain it. Let me explain it. For having You
can't have language without the laws of thought.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, Oh my god, oh my god. Brother,
I'm letting you make your full argument and then taking
that argument.
Speaker 2: You can't have language is very law. Come on, man, Okay.
Speaker 1: So I'm trying to like, I'm not like, I'm not.
I'm asking you a question and I'm not getting an answer.
What I'm getting is that what I'm getting is you're
appealing to the people's desire. No, I didn't for purpose
and meaning, I'm asking.
Speaker 2: Where did I ever say where did I ever say that?
That's totally not true? I said, you're not You're not.
I said, you're doing.
Speaker 1: By not actually answering the question, which is why.
Speaker 2: The very beginning point was about the universe as a
whole having either a teleological intentionality purpose behind it or
it's purely accidental at a grand scale. That was what
I said, very clear, And there's only two options here,
Or if you want to say there's a mix, you
could have a third option. And you said, well, but
how does that mean I can't justify knowledge? And I said,
because if the universe is purely accidental, all the so
called laws within it, including the laws of thought, the
laws of logic, mathematical laws, are also thus accidental and
have no purpose. And so your arguments right now have
no purpose by your own admission.
Speaker 1: If so, you're saying that purpose and meaning is required
for let's.
Speaker 2: Saying a world with no purpose and no meaning cannot
give rise to universal.
Speaker 1: Maybe I need a better definition of what you mean
when you're making the arguments like teleology, purpose meaning, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Like what you mean in this regards the universe as
a whole in all of its parts have a directed,
intentional purpose or they do not.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, like a heart pumps blood. The purpose of
the heart is to pump blood. Why is God necessary
for the For the heart to pump blood?
Speaker 2: The justification for tilos in a universal sense requires some
universal being or thing to ground it and justify it.
That's the argument.
Speaker 1: So okay, well, why is God necessary for that?
Speaker 2: God is the only being who could give an account
for that.
Speaker 1: That's not answering my question.
Speaker 2: It is just you don't like to answer. But what
other being could?
Speaker 1: Why is God necessary?
Speaker 2: Because he's the only type of being who could give
an account?
Speaker 1: I can give it a I can give an account of.
Speaker 2: But you already admit it because your account, your account
is not Your account is not universally Your accounts is subjective.
Your account is subjective and not universally true. That's the point.
Speaker 1: So you're saying that another person could have an interpretation
of the heart.
Speaker 2: No, I'm asking about your assertion of universals now, and
you don't have a justification for how there's universe.
Speaker 1: I would depend it would depend upon what we mean
when we're talking about like the purpose of inanimate objects?
Speaker 2: Right, No, you said that this is Is it true?
Is it universally true?
Speaker 1: That that the if we're talking about the specific identity? Yes,
it is universally true.
Speaker 2: How do you have knowledge of the universal? How do
you have knowledge of universals as a individual, finite empirical being.
Speaker 1: I have consciousness. Consciousness gives me.
Speaker 2: How does having consciousness prove the existence of universals?
Speaker 1: Well, consciousness is alitional. It's not what it's volitional, it's intentional.
It's like it's it's like the consciousness.
Speaker 2: Okay, you keep what is the proof of the justification
that you have these things? You keep asserting it. We
have to Can I come to the debate and just
say God just Can I come to the debate and
say God just is?
Speaker 1: I feel like that's kind of what you're doing. No.
Speaker 2: I made a transcend in argument which you just don't understand,
and you're coming to bet and saying what existence just is?
And it just is?
Speaker 1: Well, you're I fail to see the distinction between I
really do, but you'll just say that it's like I'm
dumb or something. It's fine.
Speaker 2: Again, the distinction is that you're not justifying all of
these assertions and beliefs and dog you have a bunch
of dogmas that you've not justified. You on your paradigm,
on your paradigm. That okay, well, so is everything. You said,
everything is an accident, everything is without purpose. And you said,
but in my personal life, I can say that the
heart beats, okay, And then you said that that's universe.
That's you said, that's universally true. You don't have a
justification for universals because universals are No, it's not you
can say that, but you've contradicted it by saying that
the universe as a whole is also purposeless. That means
that your universal claims are also purposeless.
Speaker 1: Again, this is why I asked you to clarify on
your meanings of like purposeless purposefulness.
Speaker 2: There's no purpose he lows to anything. That means your
arguments are no have no.
Speaker 1: Purpose when we take you're so frustrated.
Speaker 2: Because you're losing at this point, it's a very obvious points.
If everything is meaninglessness, then your arguments are meaningless.
Speaker 1: Brother, brother, for the loves God whining?
Speaker 2: Do we don't care about your whining?
Speaker 1: I know that you don't care about my learning. It's
because you're a rude right regardless.
Speaker 2: So everything is purposelessness, everything is meaningless, purposelesslessness, but your
universal truth. You said that, Yes, you did. You said
the universe was purposeless. You said that you are. You
said at a grand scale, it was you gave.
Speaker 1: You gave an argument that said there's optional option, be
potentially a mixed You said that too, I said, And
you said that these will necessitate God when we follow
them through.
Speaker 2: So I said, sure, I said you right, And you
said that.
Speaker 1: I'm saying the universe purposefuls, it's meaningless or whatever.
Speaker 2: Right, but there's only two options on this question. Bad faith, dude,
nobody's buying.
Speaker 1: Your bullshit bad faith.
Speaker 2: When you say, if there's only two options, then that
must be your positions, right, I say, let's all.
Speaker 1: Right, let's pick one and let's follow your logic.
Speaker 2: Is that not your positions? Is it not your position?
Speaker 1: I don't know that. I don't I would, I would
genuinely and honestly have to think about it.
Speaker 2: Okay, then you're not in a position to give a
justification for universal claims by that admission.
Speaker 1: I'm not in a position to give universal claims because
I don't know whether or not one specific claim.
Speaker 2: Something because of the no, because of intentionality and tilos.
If the universe is universally purposeless and meaningless, and now
you're saying, well, I don't actually believe that, then you
are arguing in bad faith.
Speaker 1: How am I arguing in bad faith just because I
don't like?
Speaker 2: I would say like, because there's only two options in
this question, for there's only two options for anyone.
Speaker 1: No, No.
Speaker 2: The whole chat is you're over, you are this is
shush me, this is I'm gonna know you. Nobody's buying
the bullshit man, and you're I'm not lying. You literally
contradicted yourself again.
Speaker 1: No, listen again. Your claim now is that it is
talk about meta car.
Speaker 2: You said the universe's purpose. Listen, nest, and now you're
walking it back because you got repeated. You're walking it
back because you got repeated again.
Speaker 1: No, I can't. Who is the two options? I said,
let's explore this option. It is not bad.
Speaker 2: There's only two options.
Speaker 1: There's only time.
Speaker 2: You're cooked, You're done, you're melting down, your spurging out.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, s dude, brother, Yeah, I'm just I'm
I'm I will I guess I will finish with this.
The idea that you call someone bad faith because.
Speaker 2: You're the one who bitched about me being bad face
the entire time.
Speaker 1: Okay, so we're starting the idea that you would call
someone bad fake because you present an argument and the
person listens to it, takes notes.
Speaker 2: On it, and then walks it back when they see
a problem. Correct, that's bad faith. Yeah, you affirmed, you
affirmed universal meaninglessness. We can, we can, we can do
this where.
Speaker 1: You eventually act like an adult.
Speaker 2: You affirmed universal meaninglessness on a possible in a position
that only has two options. And now you're saying I
don't necessarily agree with that, Well, then do you accept
that there is universal meetings? We're No, I'm not lying.
I don't have to lie in a person who has
bombed an entire debate for two hours. Why would I
have to lie? You have crashed and burned, dude, I'm
not lying about you. You're a terrible debater objectively.
Speaker 1: I get it that this is a debate game for you.
Speaker 2: No, it's not a game. You crashed and burned miserably.
But I entertained the entire discussion because I'm happy to
explain the arguments to you. Oh my gosh, Oh my gosh,
Oh my gosh. Can you just make your arguments without whiny,
you whining bitch this whole time?
Speaker 1: Yes, that is that is true. I have complained quite
a lot.
Speaker 2: Yes, whining and bitching because you can't deal with the arguments.
You would rather whine and bitch about actually deal arguments.
Speaker 1: No, it's just because and it's so difficult to.
Speaker 2: Have a conversation while you're in a feminist swine man.
So I'm gonna be I'm gonna be childish with you.
So how's that.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm sure, brother, whatever, whatever, okay, ok I am yeah.
So again I did not say any. Again, I will reaffirm,
you know, I don't know. I'd have to think about
many of the concept.
Speaker 2: Maybe in a debate to say that I don't know.
I don't know. Is that a good sign in the debate,
to be like, I don't know, let me walk it back,
I don't know.
Speaker 1: Actually, I think I think that's a really good sign
of someone that's actually being good faith as opposed to you, oh,
that you're you're searching for a dub as opposed to so.
Speaker 2: I don't know. Let me debate a topic. Let me
walk it back and admit that I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'll walk back anything.
Speaker 2: You affirmed that, you affirmed that the universe is purposeless.
Everybody heard you, So I asked.
Speaker 1: I did an internal critique. I said, why must there
be purposes?
Speaker 2: No? No, no, Now you're alive because you did explicitly
verbally say fine, as purposeless. I'll go with that.
Speaker 1: Yes, fine, I'll go with that. Yes, that is saying
for the any for the for the sake of continuing the.
Speaker 2: Argument for it it doesn't matter that you walk it
back and say that it's not your position, which would
mean it's in bad faith. If there's only two options.
Speaker 1: Dude, I I I.
Speaker 2: The whole chat you lost. I I you're done walking back.
Everyone heard you affirm discilology. Everyone heard you affirm it.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't know how to continue this conversation right,
because you crash exactly. It's not a matter of crashing
and burning. I made the mistake. I find it engaged
honestly with a piece with a piece of right.
Speaker 2: So now it's all personally. When I keep it on
the topic, you make it personal. All you do this
whole time was wine until at the end I said,
you're a soy man. You talk non stop ship about me,
calling me a pussy. I bring you on here. You
crash and burn and have a meltdown because you can't
answer basic philosophical questions. Man, I agree that that is
your interpretation of No, that's just everyone's interpretation, because that's
what happened.
Speaker 1: Fair enough. You know, you win some, you lose some.
Maybe one day I can, you know, learn more about
the more, learn more about these arguments and debated with
somebody that's interest.
Speaker 2: So you're admitting that you don't know the topic. That's
a good admission. I appreciate that.
Speaker 1: Well. I well, obviously I would admit that there are
aspects of any argumentation from other people that you don't know,
Like what kind of narcissism?
Speaker 2: No, I mean actual, I mean basically, I mean basically,
you've had three debates now with people on our side
of this, and you've not done any work to understand epistemology.
You've done nothing, So you're not the typical lazy libertarian
kumer man who doesn't actually study the positions. You haven't
progressed against. After Andrew, after Jim, Bob and me, you've
made no progress at all in this topic.
Speaker 1: This is so silly. I attempt to know my ability,
you know, to to bring for the argument.
Speaker 2: All you have is to call name. No. I let
you talk for hours on end here today fair enough,
And you made a bunch of bad arguments, and you're
whining and melting down because your arguments are piss poor.
They're sophomore level I have.
Speaker 1: I think that that is silly for you to say
that I'm whining because my arguments are bad.
Speaker 2: It's a reflection technique and a person's crashing that they
start whining and bitching about the other person.
Speaker 1: No, I'm just I'm I just can't get my arguments
out like it took me.
Speaker 2: You got, you got a lot of bullshit out. We
heard all, we heard your stuff, and we know after
two hours is not going to get much better.
Speaker 1: Fair enough, fair enough, Well, I appreciate the opportunity to
come here. Regardless of whether or not I will, I
will recant my position that you are fully and holy
you know, a pussy or a coward in terms of debating,
which I had said earlier, because it felt very fucked
up that you have not brought on actual libertarians and
only discussed.
Speaker 2: Nobody cares what you think an actual libertarian is and
no true scotsman, so we don't care about that. Well,
I mean you at very least, I don't know who
you I don't care who you think is real.
Speaker 1: I know, I know, I know without God, words have
no meaning.
Speaker 2: No, I just don't care what you think a real
libertarian is. Who's the lorilla libertarian?
Speaker 1: You? Anyone anyone that legitimately and fully follows through on
the non aggression principles.
Speaker 2: Which is not an at claim to be even though
it is an all to be right, which is an AT,
but it's not an not because it's an axiom, but
it's also an a right exactly you want to do
super chats or not.
Speaker 1: No, No, I'm good, but I again, like I said,
I'll about out now, but I just wanted to say
thank you for bringing me on and again, if you'll
let me get it out, I do recant my position
that you were able to see it and that yeah,
you had pissed me off, but not bringing on. Obviously
you do. So they're is that I'm Fambi in Liberty.
Speaker 2: You can find me pretty much, and I've got his
channel linked in the chat in the show description. If
anybody wants to check out his material, even if we
have a heated disagreement in debate, I'm gonna give you
the links to the people so you can follow him