WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.120 --> 00:00:04.160 Can you hear me? Oh okay, Well no I was 2 00:00:04.200 --> 00:00:08.199 I was just saying, yeah, sorry, yeah, no, I I 3 00:00:08.240 --> 00:00:12.480 initiated this conversation or this debate or whatever because you know, 4 00:00:12.519 --> 00:00:17.039 I saw you debate many moons ago against Liquid Zulu, 5 00:00:17.280 --> 00:00:19.519 and that felt like that debate didn't go anywhere because 6 00:00:19.879 --> 00:00:25.039 well because you you you left after frustrated for whatever reason. 7 00:00:25.800 --> 00:00:28.480 Well, the reason I the reason I left, The reason 8 00:00:28.519 --> 00:00:31.000 I left. Yeah, So the reason I left was because 9 00:00:31.120 --> 00:00:33.719 I was asking questions about justification and I felt like 10 00:00:33.759 --> 00:00:35.399 he was never going to answer it. So that was 11 00:00:35.439 --> 00:00:37.200 the reason I left the Zulu debate. 12 00:00:39.719 --> 00:00:43.159 I would say, we obviously had different interpretations, but nevertheless, 13 00:00:44.560 --> 00:00:48.079 so I yeah, So then I felt like there wasn't 14 00:00:48.079 --> 00:00:51.000 a good debate against the libertarian. And then I saw 15 00:00:51.079 --> 00:00:54.719 you put out a call against you know, looking for libertarians, 16 00:00:54.759 --> 00:00:57.280 and me and a bunch of other libertarians put her 17 00:00:57.359 --> 00:00:59.880 names forward, but also other people's names forward, like some 18 00:01:00.079 --> 00:01:03.479 here's like, hey, you do rematch Liquid with a better thing? 19 00:01:03.640 --> 00:01:06.400 You could me there there are plenty of real libertarians. 20 00:01:06.439 --> 00:01:09.519 And then you debated, Wait you're you're uh, we're only on. 21 00:01:09.480 --> 00:01:11.560 Twitter, right, No, we're on you two. 22 00:01:12.840 --> 00:01:14.640 Okay, all right, So I can't say the f slur, 23 00:01:15.400 --> 00:01:20.920 but you debated a prag f slur. Uh and and 24 00:01:20.959 --> 00:01:24.000 so yeah, and and so rightfully, I think anybody that's 25 00:01:24.040 --> 00:01:26.040 an actual libertarian was upset. 26 00:01:26.120 --> 00:01:28.359 Because I don't know who you're talking about. First of all, 27 00:01:28.359 --> 00:01:29.680 can you just tell me who that who it is 28 00:01:29.719 --> 00:01:30.599 you're talking about. 29 00:01:32.400 --> 00:01:35.200 I remember the person's name again, because they weren't. They 30 00:01:35.239 --> 00:01:37.560 weren't like a famous you mean. 31 00:01:37.439 --> 00:01:43.280 Like the yarn Brooke from the Objectivist Institute that No. 32 00:01:43.359 --> 00:01:47.959 Yarn Brook is not a libertarian. It's actively fights against libertarianism. 33 00:01:48.400 --> 00:01:52.400 I've interviewed you're on Brook and I think it's libertarianism. 34 00:01:52.439 --> 00:01:53.840 It's evil and must be defeated. 35 00:01:55.239 --> 00:01:57.319 Uh what you mean? 36 00:01:57.879 --> 00:02:01.319 Who I said? Y'are brook as an objectivist? You had 37 00:02:01.319 --> 00:02:04.640 debated I can't remember it's been If someone can dig up. 38 00:02:04.599 --> 00:02:09.919 The Austin Peterson you you debated somebody that was very 39 00:02:09.919 --> 00:02:13.719 clearly left leaning, not not libertarian. 40 00:02:15.360 --> 00:02:21.599 Lie. Again, I don't remember the exact name, but if 41 00:02:21.599 --> 00:02:25.759 you found the twee or whatever, then yeah. And so 42 00:02:25.840 --> 00:02:28.000 I was like, dude, what the fuck is this? Like? 43 00:02:28.080 --> 00:02:30.120 This is this is bullshit? Like you put out a 44 00:02:30.120 --> 00:02:32.120 call to libertarians and you bring on someone that's like 45 00:02:32.120 --> 00:02:34.639 a small l libertine brag. 46 00:02:35.360 --> 00:02:38.080 Right, It's all right? Do you think it's a conspiracy 47 00:02:38.080 --> 00:02:40.840 that I don't want to engage with real libertarians? Got it? 48 00:02:41.919 --> 00:02:44.879 I didn't say it was a conspiracy because I'm not 49 00:02:45.039 --> 00:02:49.479 saying anyone else was involved. I'm just saying it seemed 50 00:02:49.560 --> 00:02:52.439 like you were duck in a real conversation with libertarianism 51 00:02:52.439 --> 00:02:54.319 because you had had one and you ran from that. 52 00:02:54.280 --> 00:02:57.560 One, and that was who I run from. 53 00:02:57.759 --> 00:02:58.080 Liquid. 54 00:02:58.719 --> 00:03:01.719 Okay, did he answer what I asked about justification? 55 00:03:03.479 --> 00:03:06.159 I believe multiple times from multiple different perspectives, you were 56 00:03:06.240 --> 00:03:11.360 upset because he wouldn't answer your redirect because he wanted it, 57 00:03:11.400 --> 00:03:13.680 and then eventually Andrews so he answered it. 58 00:03:13.719 --> 00:03:16.000 And what do you think you answer? What do you 59 00:03:16.000 --> 00:03:17.159 think justification is? 60 00:03:19.039 --> 00:03:21.080 What do I think justifications? Do you mean that? Like 61 00:03:21.120 --> 00:03:24.120 from like the Hume like question, like what do you 62 00:03:24.159 --> 00:03:29.439 mean by well, like yeah, the human question what justifies this? Like? 63 00:03:29.560 --> 00:03:31.120 Or do you mean like what do you mean by 64 00:03:31.400 --> 00:03:37.520 what is an attempt to state that the statement of 65 00:03:37.719 --> 00:03:41.479 some sort is true? Was that a claim or a 66 00:03:41.479 --> 00:03:43.199 principle of so that has. 67 00:03:43.039 --> 00:03:45.520 To do with truth value? But no, justification is much 68 00:03:45.560 --> 00:03:49.759 more than that. In epistemology. 69 00:03:49.800 --> 00:03:54.039 Nevertheless, I don't think you just like I'm how is 70 00:03:54.080 --> 00:03:57.719 that a disagreement from the historical thing. 71 00:03:57.360 --> 00:04:00.479 From I mean, what you're saying isn't even the historical idea, 72 00:04:00.599 --> 00:04:03.960 because even back to Plato, justification deals. 73 00:04:03.759 --> 00:04:06.520 With justified has to do about whether or not you 74 00:04:06.599 --> 00:04:07.240 ran with If. 75 00:04:07.159 --> 00:04:11.280 You asked about the historic context of justification and I'm 76 00:04:11.280 --> 00:04:14.240 giving you that context that back to Plato, it means 77 00:04:14.280 --> 00:04:15.479 more than what you described. 78 00:04:17.360 --> 00:04:22.160 Okay, that that's irrelevant to whether or not my interpretation 79 00:04:22.920 --> 00:04:24.040 of events. 80 00:04:23.720 --> 00:04:27.639 Is if he didn't give, if he didn't give, if 81 00:04:27.639 --> 00:04:31.519 he did not give epistemic justification, then his answers were 82 00:04:31.560 --> 00:04:33.120 irrelevant to what I'm asking for. 83 00:04:34.240 --> 00:04:37.519 Okay, So what would you what would be your what 84 00:04:37.680 --> 00:04:38.639 is your bar for. 85 00:04:38.600 --> 00:04:43.399 Episode just justified? True belief in the Getty air problem? 86 00:04:43.519 --> 00:04:47.199 Okay? So again, what what what would he have to 87 00:04:47.279 --> 00:04:50.439 say about jurism for you to say that he gave 88 00:04:50.480 --> 00:04:53.600 you the the aught is the stinction that you why 89 00:04:53.639 --> 00:04:57.040 he didn't believe in the audience get right, like why 90 00:04:57.120 --> 00:05:00.839 he believed that contradictory statements can't be true in the 91 00:05:00.879 --> 00:05:04.199 negation of the contradictory statement is at the very least 92 00:05:04.199 --> 00:05:06.160 an ought not I don't know that I necessarily follow 93 00:05:06.240 --> 00:05:11.439 his ought. Thing there, but why is that reason for 94 00:05:11.560 --> 00:05:14.279 you to run away from the debate. That's why I'm asking, like, 95 00:05:14.360 --> 00:05:15.439 what is yours? 96 00:05:15.480 --> 00:05:19.639 So, just like him, you're a debate. Just like him, 97 00:05:20.000 --> 00:05:24.639 you're both not understanding what epistemic justification is. Not according 98 00:05:24.680 --> 00:05:27.360 to me, but in the discipline of epistemology. This is 99 00:05:27.399 --> 00:05:31.439 not something I made up. It's what's expected in any 100 00:05:31.639 --> 00:05:35.040 public academic discourse on the topic of how do we 101 00:05:35.079 --> 00:05:38.439 have good reasons for our beliefs? So justification deals with that, 102 00:05:39.000 --> 00:05:42.920 what are the good reasons for our beliefs, what gives 103 00:05:42.959 --> 00:05:45.720 them explanatory power, and what makes them coherent in a 104 00:05:45.959 --> 00:05:48.920 worldview context. That's what justification is. 105 00:05:49.879 --> 00:05:54.279 Okay, But again you're saying that he didn't meet your standard. 106 00:05:54.319 --> 00:05:55.399 But I know he. 107 00:05:55.319 --> 00:05:59.160 Didn't meet these standards. These standards, they're not my standards. 108 00:05:59.160 --> 00:06:02.439 This is what would be debated in any epistemology class 109 00:06:02.800 --> 00:06:04.680 when you make assertions. 110 00:06:06.480 --> 00:06:08.680 What the fuck are you talking about? I am I 111 00:06:08.720 --> 00:06:11.519 talking ran away from a debate and then you said, well, 112 00:06:11.519 --> 00:06:13.279 he didn't answer my question because he didn't. 113 00:06:13.480 --> 00:06:16.240 No, I said he didn't justification The argument that he 114 00:06:16.319 --> 00:06:20.279 gave and again you don't even understand. You don't understand, 115 00:06:20.680 --> 00:06:24.519 and again you don't understand why that doesn't get to justification, 116 00:06:24.720 --> 00:06:26.240 which is the entire point of the whole time. 117 00:06:27.040 --> 00:06:29.839 What is this code? Like, like, we're not even into 118 00:06:29.839 --> 00:06:32.360 the debate and you're already like it's a code, right, 119 00:06:32.480 --> 00:06:33.480 Actually he didn't. 120 00:06:33.720 --> 00:06:35.639 You're the one that said that I was a pussy 121 00:06:35.839 --> 00:06:38.399 and that I wouldn't debate anyone except him. You were 122 00:06:38.959 --> 00:06:39.480 how you. 123 00:06:39.560 --> 00:06:41.560 Ran from a debate and then when you've. 124 00:06:41.360 --> 00:06:44.959 Din I left a debate that I laughed at because 125 00:06:44.959 --> 00:06:48.279 it didn't answer just like, just like in this situation, 126 00:06:48.439 --> 00:06:50.399 you can't answer, or even you don't even know the 127 00:06:50.439 --> 00:06:53.240 basics of the question, and you're just already spurging out. 128 00:06:53.439 --> 00:06:54.720 Do you want me to explain it to you in 129 00:06:54.800 --> 00:06:56.639 an ethical example? 130 00:06:58.040 --> 00:07:00.160 Sure, give me an example of what you mean. But 131 00:07:00.319 --> 00:07:03.199 because I don't see how I'm failing in any means, well. 132 00:07:03.160 --> 00:07:06.959 Let's let's go. Let's go to the topic of do 133 00:07:07.000 --> 00:07:08.360 you want to do tag or do you want do 134 00:07:08.360 --> 00:07:10.399 you want to do self evidence? Either one's fine with me. 135 00:07:12.279 --> 00:07:15.000 I don't know what you mean by self evidence or 136 00:07:15.040 --> 00:07:15.519 what you're referring. 137 00:07:15.720 --> 00:07:18.120 Well, most libertarians and most people who argue for your 138 00:07:18.160 --> 00:07:20.240 type of a position out of the Enlightenment believe that 139 00:07:20.279 --> 00:07:23.199 there are self evident truths or principles, things that are axiomatic, 140 00:07:23.399 --> 00:07:24.399 and I reject that. 141 00:07:25.360 --> 00:07:27.160 You reject all axioms. 142 00:07:27.000 --> 00:07:28.399 All self evidence claims. 143 00:07:30.360 --> 00:07:34.160 Okay, so how okay, Okay, you'd say, okay, we can 144 00:07:34.199 --> 00:07:37.759 go in either one. That's fine. I don't. I'm fine 145 00:07:37.800 --> 00:07:42.680 going into again. The question, before we get too far 146 00:07:42.720 --> 00:07:47.680 away from it, is whether or not why I believe 147 00:07:47.759 --> 00:07:51.319 that this conversation or debate or whatever was important. Was 148 00:07:51.360 --> 00:07:53.439 that I felt like you had not been let's say, 149 00:07:53.600 --> 00:07:57.480 completed with a libertarian. And your claim is that it 150 00:07:57.720 --> 00:08:03.120 wasn't a simic justification And I don't see why. What standard? 151 00:08:03.399 --> 00:08:04.959 He didn't but he didn't meet. 152 00:08:05.439 --> 00:08:08.000 So when you just assert things to be the case, 153 00:08:08.519 --> 00:08:11.879 you're forfeiting the very question because that means you're being 154 00:08:12.000 --> 00:08:15.360 arbitrary at hawk and not giving epistemic justification. 155 00:08:16.519 --> 00:08:19.079 Well he didn't do that, Yes he did. He did. 156 00:08:19.439 --> 00:08:22.759 You don't again, you don't understand what. You don't understand 157 00:08:22.759 --> 00:08:25.879 what justification. So you think that my standard is some 158 00:08:26.000 --> 00:08:28.600 subjective thing of what justification is. And I'm telling you 159 00:08:28.639 --> 00:08:31.879 that any epistemology class will hold you to the same 160 00:08:31.920 --> 00:08:35.039 standards that the laws of critical thinking, the laws of thought. 161 00:08:35.519 --> 00:08:36.720 Those are not my standards. 162 00:08:37.080 --> 00:08:37.440 Words. 163 00:08:38.399 --> 00:08:42.039 I'm just saying. So I'm saying common criminology in this 164 00:08:42.159 --> 00:08:44.080 domain and in this field. And you think I'm just 165 00:08:44.120 --> 00:08:46.840 saying words. That's why you guys are not fit for 166 00:08:46.879 --> 00:08:49.799 this debate. You're not even in the arena. You don't 167 00:08:49.840 --> 00:08:51.519 know the topics in the subject matter. 168 00:08:51.600 --> 00:08:53.159 You're in not making artu. 169 00:08:53.320 --> 00:08:55.559 No, I'm telling you what's happening in the debate. Let's 170 00:08:55.600 --> 00:08:57.600 get into the argument. So do you believe in the 171 00:08:57.639 --> 00:09:01.519 non aggression principle? You agree with the non aggression principle? 172 00:09:02.519 --> 00:09:04.440 Yeah? Absolutely, of course I'm a libertarian. 173 00:09:04.919 --> 00:09:09.919 Is that a normative claim? 174 00:09:09.960 --> 00:09:13.919 Well, it's an axiom, right, So the normative claim. 175 00:09:14.879 --> 00:09:16.120 That you shouldn't aggress not. 176 00:09:17.360 --> 00:09:19.279 Yeah, one ought not a grip that would be the 177 00:09:19.279 --> 00:09:19.879 normative claim. 178 00:09:20.559 --> 00:09:22.639 So it's prescriptive and not descriptive. 179 00:09:24.159 --> 00:09:28.240 Yes, libertarianism is a prescriptive ideology of natural I thought you. 180 00:09:28.200 --> 00:09:30.799 Were saying in the Gymbob debate that you don't believe 181 00:09:30.840 --> 00:09:33.240 in prescriptive claims. It's just descriptive. 182 00:09:33.720 --> 00:09:35.679 Oh sorry, descriptive. I apologiz I mixed up. 183 00:09:37.000 --> 00:09:41.559 Okay, precisely. So the non aggression principle is normative and 184 00:09:41.600 --> 00:09:46.840 therefore it's prescriptive, and therefore you're reputed. Can you repeat 185 00:09:46.840 --> 00:09:51.840 that argument, write you made a claim that we ought 186 00:09:51.919 --> 00:09:56.080 not aggress. That's what the non aggression principle states. That 187 00:09:56.240 --> 00:10:00.120 is a claim of ethical normativity, and that refutes or 188 00:10:00.279 --> 00:10:05.519 very position that libertarianism is is not prescriptive but merely descriptive. 189 00:10:06.600 --> 00:10:10.679 No, I didn't make that claim. I specifically Referencedutulu's argument. 190 00:10:10.799 --> 00:10:14.679 I'm talking about your debate, your gym Bob debate. 191 00:10:15.960 --> 00:10:18.240 Pop interrupted. All right, we'll get it. We're in the 192 00:10:18.240 --> 00:10:20.399 actual debate, so we'll get into it. So no, that's 193 00:10:20.480 --> 00:10:23.879 not true, and I didn't say the same did not. 194 00:10:23.799 --> 00:10:27.720 Occur in you just said what you just said that libertarianism. 195 00:10:28.120 --> 00:10:30.159 I'm not gonna let you lie and go past your 196 00:10:30.440 --> 00:10:31.039 you're lying. 197 00:10:30.919 --> 00:10:33.759 You're I'm not interrupting your your interrupting. 198 00:10:33.840 --> 00:10:36.879 So you think interrupting is lying. Those are two different things. 199 00:10:36.919 --> 00:10:38.600 No, No, No, I think you're doing both. I think 200 00:10:38.639 --> 00:10:39.240 you're interrupting. 201 00:10:39.600 --> 00:10:41.879 Is the non aggression principal prescriptive or descriptive? 202 00:10:43.120 --> 00:10:48.360 The non aggression principle is a an accident, right, and. 203 00:10:48.360 --> 00:10:51.240 It's is it an hot claim? 204 00:10:51.399 --> 00:10:54.440 I just said right that the actual ought claim or 205 00:10:54.480 --> 00:10:57.600 the ought not claim would be the negation and in 206 00:10:57.720 --> 00:10:59.159 liquids argment from my. 207 00:10:59.360 --> 00:11:03.480 I'm talking about nap. Why are you bringing Stop your 208 00:11:03.559 --> 00:11:05.879 possession your position, you. 209 00:11:05.960 --> 00:11:08.440 Rail stop trying to be real, Stop acting like. 210 00:11:08.360 --> 00:11:09.559 A top your position. 211 00:11:09.679 --> 00:11:11.320 No big words, don't make you an adult. 212 00:11:11.399 --> 00:11:13.240 Just hold on for he doesn't even know the basic 213 00:11:13.320 --> 00:11:14.320 terms of this whole debate. 214 00:11:15.240 --> 00:11:17.440 Right, You're just going to keep interrupting, and you're just 215 00:11:17.480 --> 00:11:18.080 gonna keep. 216 00:11:17.919 --> 00:11:20.919 Making because you're deflecting. Everyone can tell you did the 217 00:11:20.960 --> 00:11:23.919 same thing with Jim Bob. Sometimes something is the non 218 00:11:23.960 --> 00:11:25.960 aggression principal, prescriptive or description. 219 00:11:26.720 --> 00:11:29.000 Will you shush for a second. 220 00:11:28.799 --> 00:11:29.919 Can you answer the question? 221 00:11:30.840 --> 00:11:33.120 I am trying to answer the question, and you're doing 222 00:11:33.159 --> 00:11:35.399 the same thing Jim Bob, which is saying. 223 00:11:35.919 --> 00:11:38.320 We just don't let you yap and deflect. Can you 224 00:11:38.360 --> 00:11:39.879 answer the questions? Go answer? 225 00:11:40.840 --> 00:11:46.240 Yeah? So again. So the not libertarianism is scrypt Okay, 226 00:11:46.639 --> 00:11:51.519 it is. Sorry, script, he's describing natural law here. Now, 227 00:11:51.919 --> 00:11:55.759 the non aggression principle is an axiom. Okay, it is not, 228 00:11:56.120 --> 00:11:57.720 and it is a descriptive. 229 00:11:58.399 --> 00:12:01.559 No, it's not. You just refuted you. You said it's normative, 230 00:12:01.720 --> 00:12:05.799 so you're refuted yourself. I'm not what is normativity, interrupt 231 00:12:06.080 --> 00:12:07.120 What is normativity? 232 00:12:10.080 --> 00:12:13.440 Normativity is is, as far as we're discussing in ethics, 233 00:12:13.679 --> 00:12:16.919 would be a claim that something, uh that that is 234 00:12:17.000 --> 00:12:17.879 universalizable and. 235 00:12:17.799 --> 00:12:20.200 That we're all right, so you ought not aggress people. 236 00:12:21.679 --> 00:12:23.279 Yes, you ought not aggress people? 237 00:12:23.440 --> 00:12:25.399 Right, So your position controversy. 238 00:12:25.720 --> 00:12:28.759 You will know it doesn't if you just go and 239 00:12:28.879 --> 00:12:31.840 act like an adult for a second. So it can't 240 00:12:31.960 --> 00:12:34.159 what I said, and you keep interrupting me. 241 00:12:34.159 --> 00:12:36.360 So let me stop batching and make your argument. 242 00:12:37.159 --> 00:12:40.240 Well stop, well, then shut up, act like an adult. 243 00:12:40.399 --> 00:12:42.120 I'm waiting for you to answer. Quit whining. 244 00:12:42.759 --> 00:12:45.440 No, you keep interrupting just because. 245 00:12:45.159 --> 00:12:47.120 You're not answering. Your whining and deflecting. 246 00:12:47.279 --> 00:12:49.840 I am trying to answer, and you will not stop 247 00:12:49.919 --> 00:12:52.600 interrupting and stop acting like a toddler, like, just listen 248 00:12:52.679 --> 00:12:55.000 for a second, Okay, I can. I can make an 249 00:12:55.080 --> 00:12:58.399 argument with them, and then you can do the same thing. 250 00:12:58.440 --> 00:13:03.200 Will let me stop saying, let me and go I'm trying. 251 00:13:03.519 --> 00:13:07.360 You're whining and bitching about me interrupting you when you're 252 00:13:07.399 --> 00:13:08.759 being dishonest, and then. 253 00:13:08.759 --> 00:13:12.360 You're conversation because you keep interrupting. 254 00:13:12.480 --> 00:13:13.720 Go make the argument. 255 00:13:13.879 --> 00:13:19.600 Okay, So again, what I was saying is that previously 256 00:13:19.639 --> 00:13:22.480 what I had said is that Liquid Zulu's argument one 257 00:13:22.519 --> 00:13:26.080 that I don't necessarily believe that. 258 00:13:26.679 --> 00:13:27.879 What is your argument? 259 00:13:29.879 --> 00:13:30.879 Why can you? 260 00:13:30.919 --> 00:13:33.759 Are you so you're gonna keep talking about liquid Zulu 261 00:13:33.840 --> 00:13:37.759 when I've asked you specifically about your position? What is 262 00:13:37.799 --> 00:13:41.759 your argument for the tenth time? I am sure nobody's 263 00:13:41.799 --> 00:13:42.559 buying your bullshit. 264 00:13:43.600 --> 00:13:46.759 There's no bullshit here. You won't shut up. Stop acting 265 00:13:46.759 --> 00:13:47.399 like a toddler. 266 00:13:47.440 --> 00:13:49.240 You keep bringing up the things that are not relevant. 267 00:13:49.240 --> 00:13:50.600 Are you going to answer the topic? 268 00:13:51.639 --> 00:13:54.159 I am attempting to do that, and you are not 269 00:13:54.240 --> 00:13:55.600 giving me the space to speak. 270 00:13:55.799 --> 00:14:00.559 No, you go back to the thing that is irrelevant. Dude, 271 00:14:01.000 --> 00:14:03.480 I'm asking your position. I don't care what you think 272 00:14:03.519 --> 00:14:07.480 about Liquid Zulu. Can you answer your positions on this? 273 00:14:07.600 --> 00:14:09.080 I am I don't care about Liquid Zulu? 274 00:14:09.200 --> 00:14:10.759 YEA, I absolutely can't. 275 00:14:10.840 --> 00:14:11.399 What does? 276 00:14:11.519 --> 00:14:13.679 And I'm bringing The only reason I am bringing up 277 00:14:13.679 --> 00:14:17.200 Liquid Zulu is because you called me a liar by 278 00:14:17.279 --> 00:14:19.840 saying that I was making the argument that Liquid Zulu 279 00:14:19.919 --> 00:14:20.279 was making. 280 00:14:20.360 --> 00:14:23.559 No fact, No, I'm saying you're lying about being dishonest 281 00:14:23.600 --> 00:14:28.279 about that debate. That's the lie that I didn't. You 282 00:14:28.320 --> 00:14:30.639 said I rage quit when I laughed at the guy, 283 00:14:30.679 --> 00:14:34.639 And no rage rage quitting is when you would have rage. 284 00:14:34.679 --> 00:14:36.919 And I laughed at that guy because I thought his 285 00:14:37.039 --> 00:14:39.720 answers were so low tier that it wasn't worthing in debate. 286 00:14:40.000 --> 00:14:42.840 And you're in the exact same situation. You're actually worse. 287 00:14:43.360 --> 00:14:46.240 You're actually worse than liquid Zulu because you can't actually 288 00:14:46.279 --> 00:14:50.559 address the arguments. So is the NAP an art claim 289 00:14:50.679 --> 00:14:53.600 or not? If it has If it has normativity, it's 290 00:14:53.639 --> 00:14:57.960 an aut claim. You already said that you already lost. 291 00:14:58.080 --> 00:15:02.200 You're so we follow Then. 292 00:15:05.080 --> 00:15:08.360 If one wants to claim or justify ethics, then one 293 00:15:08.639 --> 00:15:15.000 following if the attempt. If they if they do attempt 294 00:15:15.039 --> 00:15:19.240 to justify their ethical claims and their claims violate the 295 00:15:19.279 --> 00:15:22.879 non aggression principle, then it is contradictory. Therefore the negation 296 00:15:23.519 --> 00:15:24.159 is true. 297 00:15:25.399 --> 00:15:27.440 Is the n a P an ought? 298 00:15:29.320 --> 00:15:31.200 The NAP is not, in and of itself an. 299 00:15:31.159 --> 00:15:34.799 Ought the non aggression principle, does it retain does it 300 00:15:34.799 --> 00:15:37.799 pertain to normativity and ethics that you ought not to 301 00:15:37.840 --> 00:15:38.559 aggress people. 302 00:15:41.919 --> 00:15:44.600 It is an axiom that you hold if you is 303 00:15:44.639 --> 00:15:49.480 it an ethical axiom if your ethical system, is. 304 00:15:49.200 --> 00:15:51.200 That an ethical axiom that you ought not? 305 00:15:52.240 --> 00:15:52.480 Dude? 306 00:15:52.480 --> 00:15:55.000 Are you You just lost and that's why you're spreading out. 307 00:15:55.720 --> 00:15:56.759 I'm not spurging out. 308 00:15:56.840 --> 00:16:01.519 You want is it an ethical? Is it an ethical answer? 309 00:16:02.639 --> 00:16:05.279 I just told you that the non aggression principle in 310 00:16:05.440 --> 00:16:08.200 and of itself is not an ethical that's false. 311 00:16:08.440 --> 00:16:13.320 That's false. No, that's false. Axiom, even axioms, even axioms 312 00:16:13.320 --> 00:16:16.799 depending No, that's false. Even axioms, depending upon what they 313 00:16:16.840 --> 00:16:19.679 are or what they are about, can be ethical. Right, 314 00:16:20.360 --> 00:16:23.440 That's the point that you're missing. So when the axiom itself, 315 00:16:24.279 --> 00:16:26.440 calling it an axiom does not remove it from the 316 00:16:26.440 --> 00:16:28.440 ethical domain. That's how stupid. You can have an ethic 317 00:16:28.559 --> 00:16:30.000 you can have an ethical axiom. 318 00:16:30.080 --> 00:16:32.720 You would shut the fuck up and let someone. 319 00:16:32.480 --> 00:16:35.120 Finish the sentence, But your sentences are dumb and they're 320 00:16:35.159 --> 00:16:40.519 bad arguments. It's an ethical claim. It deals with what 321 00:16:41.000 --> 00:16:43.960 the claim itself is, that you ought not aggress people. 322 00:16:44.000 --> 00:16:46.799 That's an ethical normative claim. It's in the domain of ethics, 323 00:16:46.799 --> 00:16:48.759 even if you call it an axiom. Did you know 324 00:16:48.799 --> 00:16:51.399 you can have an ethical axiom? 325 00:16:51.600 --> 00:16:54.120 Yes, but you you you're not listening. 326 00:16:54.799 --> 00:16:57.320 No, you're just not understanding the basic distinctions. 327 00:16:58.000 --> 00:17:01.559 No, you're just interrupting people midscent, interrupting me. 328 00:17:01.759 --> 00:17:05.640 It's no because your answers don't address it. Your answers 329 00:17:05.680 --> 00:17:07.559 don't address it. That's why I'm interrupting you. 330 00:17:08.680 --> 00:17:11.640 I I cannot believe. 331 00:17:12.039 --> 00:17:14.759 How do you see that the How do you see 332 00:17:14.799 --> 00:17:18.000 that the axiom is not ethical when it's about ethics? 333 00:17:20.480 --> 00:17:22.279 Will you allow me to answer this question? 334 00:17:22.279 --> 00:17:25.519 How do you say that the axiom is not this question? 335 00:17:25.559 --> 00:17:26.240 Without interrupting? 336 00:17:26.839 --> 00:17:28.400 Answer? That's what we're waiting for. 337 00:17:28.799 --> 00:17:31.720 Will you? I'm answer you a question? Will you allow 338 00:17:31.759 --> 00:17:32.160 me to answer? 339 00:17:32.279 --> 00:17:32.640 Answer? 340 00:17:32.799 --> 00:17:33.799 Allow me to answer anything? 341 00:17:33.839 --> 00:17:35.160 The entire chat is laughing. 342 00:17:36.079 --> 00:17:39.279 You mean, yes, I get it that your checks. 343 00:17:39.440 --> 00:17:42.319 We're waiting. We're waiting, will you? 344 00:17:42.680 --> 00:17:43.039 Will you? 345 00:17:43.640 --> 00:17:45.599 If you don't answer, I'm just going to move on 346 00:17:45.680 --> 00:17:48.960 because you can't. You can't handle an So. 347 00:17:49.039 --> 00:17:51.759 Are you going to allow me or not to actually answer? 348 00:17:51.799 --> 00:17:52.160 Without you? 349 00:17:52.599 --> 00:17:54.359 All you wanted to do is the flag. This is 350 00:17:54.359 --> 00:17:56.200 how weak you guys are. You guys are the worst 351 00:17:56.240 --> 00:17:58.559 that you're worse than Austin Peterson. 352 00:17:59.559 --> 00:18:01.599 I don't know who alsin Peterson is all I know 353 00:18:01.680 --> 00:18:05.319 is should team up? Not You're not engaging in any 354 00:18:05.319 --> 00:18:06.440 way that I could have. 355 00:18:06.640 --> 00:18:10.359 I'm not engaging again. Will you answer, if the axiom 356 00:18:10.480 --> 00:18:13.559 is moral in its nature and content, how is it 357 00:18:13.640 --> 00:18:15.119 not ethical or moral? 358 00:18:16.599 --> 00:18:18.200 How is it not ethical or moral? 359 00:18:18.440 --> 00:18:20.839 If the content of the axiom of the nap is 360 00:18:20.880 --> 00:18:24.599 ethics and morals, how is it not moral or ethical 361 00:18:24.640 --> 00:18:27.880 or normative just because it's an axiom? 362 00:18:28.000 --> 00:18:30.519 Okay, I didn't say that just because it's an axiom. 363 00:18:30.799 --> 00:18:32.880 Yes you did. You said it's an it's axiom, it's 364 00:18:32.920 --> 00:18:35.119 not moral. You said it's an action, it's not moral. 365 00:18:36.000 --> 00:18:38.480 I did not say, Yes you did, it's not moral. 366 00:18:38.640 --> 00:18:41.039 You said it doesn't do. What do you think morals 367 00:18:41.039 --> 00:18:45.400 deals with? That's normativity, moral, ethical claims or normative claims? 368 00:18:45.440 --> 00:18:47.440 Sentence, Then you can't say that you've heard. 369 00:18:47.519 --> 00:18:49.319 The whole chat knows you're a filibuster ring. 370 00:18:50.200 --> 00:18:53.559 I'm not shillibus ring. You won't stop and just let 371 00:18:53.640 --> 00:18:54.720 me make an argument. 372 00:18:55.960 --> 00:18:59.599 We're waiting. Will you allow me to The whole chat 373 00:18:59.720 --> 00:19:00.920 knows that you said that go. 374 00:19:01.759 --> 00:19:05.359 Will you allow me to go? I'm not asking you 375 00:19:05.440 --> 00:19:08.880 to say go. I'm a simple question. Will you act 376 00:19:08.960 --> 00:19:10.359 like an adult from this point on. 377 00:19:10.960 --> 00:19:14.200 If you make bad arguments argument, if you make bad arguments, 378 00:19:14.200 --> 00:19:15.319 that will interrupt you correct. 379 00:19:16.559 --> 00:19:19.319 Okay, so you're so you're just going to constantly interrupt 380 00:19:19.319 --> 00:19:19.799 you talk. 381 00:19:19.920 --> 00:19:21.880 So if you would like so, an you want to 382 00:19:21.920 --> 00:19:25.119 talk about anything but the assertions the axiom. The axiom 383 00:19:25.240 --> 00:19:27.559 is about ethics and normativity. 384 00:19:27.759 --> 00:19:29.400 If you would like to have this debate, it is 385 00:19:29.559 --> 00:19:31.759 clear that you are. Are you going to apply in 386 00:19:32.079 --> 00:19:35.559 conversation without a monator, So find a moderator and schedule 387 00:19:35.599 --> 00:19:38.160 the debate, or run like you did from liquid Zula. 388 00:19:38.319 --> 00:19:40.519 I'm not running because you guys are too low to 389 00:19:40.519 --> 00:19:43.119 here to know the topics and what the categories are 390 00:19:43.160 --> 00:19:43.920 to even debate. 391 00:19:44.119 --> 00:19:45.359 You have, you have insults and. 392 00:19:45.359 --> 00:19:48.640 Interrupt You didn't even know what justification was. You didn't 393 00:19:48.640 --> 00:19:50.640 know what justificad. You didn't even know what it was. 394 00:19:51.640 --> 00:19:53.799 You did, No, you didn't. You had to ask me 395 00:19:53.839 --> 00:19:55.799 what it is. You had to ask me what it is. 396 00:19:56.119 --> 00:19:57.160 I asked what. 397 00:19:58.640 --> 00:20:00.440 You had to ask me what justifica is. 398 00:20:00.920 --> 00:20:03.720 I asked you what your standard was, because there. 399 00:20:03.640 --> 00:20:06.640 Is not my personal standard. It's not a subjective topic. 400 00:20:07.400 --> 00:20:11.839 You're you're in. You're very clearly not honestly. 401 00:20:11.880 --> 00:20:15.440 Uh huh right, So the axiom about ethics and morals 402 00:20:15.599 --> 00:20:19.519 is an axiom? And how is it not an not claim? 403 00:20:19.559 --> 00:20:20.920 There's no reason the NAP? 404 00:20:21.200 --> 00:20:22.960 How is the NAP not an not claim? 405 00:20:23.240 --> 00:20:23.759 Interrupting? 406 00:20:23.839 --> 00:20:26.519 And then no, you're just bitching about interrupting to not answer. 407 00:20:26.920 --> 00:20:29.200 You're bitching about interrupting to not answer. How is the 408 00:20:29.279 --> 00:20:30.759 NAP not ethical or moral? 409 00:20:30.839 --> 00:20:34.319 So again, so again, find a moderator and we'll do. 410 00:20:34.319 --> 00:20:35.359 How is the NAP? 411 00:20:35.640 --> 00:20:35.720 Go? 412 00:20:35.880 --> 00:20:38.079 I will give you the time. How long do you 413 00:20:38.079 --> 00:20:42.279 want to answer? You want? You want like two minutes? Now, 414 00:20:42.319 --> 00:20:44.359 you're gonna let me do you want like two minutes? 415 00:20:44.440 --> 00:20:48.359 Stop? Leave you find a moderator and we'll see. 416 00:20:48.400 --> 00:20:51.119 So you're running because you're rage quitting, your rage quitting. 417 00:20:52.119 --> 00:20:54.519 Well, no, no, no, I'm it's not raged because I can remember. 418 00:20:54.559 --> 00:20:56.640 I can just laugh and then it magically becomes not 419 00:20:56.720 --> 00:20:57.279 rage quitting. 420 00:20:57.440 --> 00:21:00.640 Yeah, but yeah, but I I asked good questions about justification. 421 00:21:00.680 --> 00:21:02.640 What you didn't know what it was? And I'm asking 422 00:21:02.680 --> 00:21:05.519 you the same questions and you can't answer. Is the 423 00:21:05.640 --> 00:21:10.759 n a P an ethical normative claim? I have answered, no, 424 00:21:10.880 --> 00:21:14.400 you didn't answer. Answer No, you didn't What is the answer. 425 00:21:15.920 --> 00:21:18.440 So the entire the entire chat sees that this guy 426 00:21:18.559 --> 00:21:20.160 is running and he won't he won't debate. 427 00:21:21.440 --> 00:21:23.319 What do you mean I won't debate? You won't You. 428 00:21:23.599 --> 00:21:26.799 Won't answer the question, dude, If it's a simple question, 429 00:21:27.000 --> 00:21:30.759 why can't you just answer it? So you did the 430 00:21:30.759 --> 00:21:32.920 same thing to Jim Bob because you're literally one of 431 00:21:32.960 --> 00:21:35.079 the worst debaters I've ever debated. You're worse than teet 432 00:21:35.160 --> 00:21:39.039 up at least teed up answers you know again, at 433 00:21:39.119 --> 00:21:42.079 least ted up answering people. Do you want a two 434 00:21:42.119 --> 00:21:45.319 minute Do you want a two minute pause? This is 435 00:21:46.160 --> 00:21:48.119 Do you want a two minute pause? Is the n 436 00:21:48.119 --> 00:21:50.119 a P ethical? When it's about ethics? 437 00:21:50.200 --> 00:21:51.799 Is it find a moderate? 438 00:21:52.039 --> 00:21:53.880 Is the n a P ethical or moral? 439 00:21:54.200 --> 00:21:55.640 Or not? Find a moderate? 440 00:21:55.720 --> 00:21:58.240 So you can't answer, You literally cannot answer that. 441 00:21:58.920 --> 00:22:01.240 You can't up and you won't allow what is the answer? 442 00:22:01.799 --> 00:22:03.599 You said you'll give me time to interrupted. 443 00:22:04.279 --> 00:22:06.759 I'll give you two minutes. I will give you two 444 00:22:06.759 --> 00:22:07.680 minutes of silence. 445 00:22:08.440 --> 00:22:10.920 I don't believe you. You're a fucking liar. 446 00:22:11.519 --> 00:22:13.680 So there you go, look at it, look at your rage. Quit. 447 00:22:13.799 --> 00:22:15.640 I will give you two minutes of silence, and you 448 00:22:15.680 --> 00:22:19.000 still won't do it because you can't. You can't answer. 449 00:22:20.000 --> 00:22:21.440 I can't find a moderator. 450 00:22:21.519 --> 00:22:23.440 I don't have to find a moderator for you. You're not 451 00:22:23.559 --> 00:22:25.880 worth a fully moderated debate. You're too low tier to 452 00:22:25.920 --> 00:22:27.960 even know how low tier you are. You don't know 453 00:22:28.000 --> 00:22:30.680 what justification is. You didn't know what the term is. 454 00:22:31.000 --> 00:22:32.160 You asked me what it meants. 455 00:22:32.920 --> 00:22:34.799 You interrupt you positive. 456 00:22:34.559 --> 00:22:37.279 Because your questions and answers are dumb, dude. 457 00:22:37.079 --> 00:22:39.839 That's why everything's dumb, except. 458 00:22:39.759 --> 00:22:42.440 Is the nap ethical or moral. 459 00:22:44.440 --> 00:22:46.319 There's no reason for me to answer any of your. 460 00:22:46.319 --> 00:22:49.960 Questions because you can't because you have already lost the debate. 461 00:22:49.720 --> 00:22:53.400 And you're incapable of having you already lost. 462 00:22:53.720 --> 00:22:55.759 You rage, quit casting me out because you don't have 463 00:22:55.799 --> 00:22:58.200 an answer to I'll give you two minutes. I'll shut 464 00:22:58.240 --> 00:22:58.799 up for two minutes. 465 00:22:58.839 --> 00:22:59.519 I don't, I don't. 466 00:23:00.000 --> 00:23:01.599 Why would you not believe me when I can prove 467 00:23:01.640 --> 00:23:02.200 that I'll do it. 468 00:23:02.279 --> 00:23:06.119 That's stupid, because you because of your past behavior. 469 00:23:06.759 --> 00:23:08.519 All right, I'm gonna be quiet right now. I'm gonna 470 00:23:08.519 --> 00:23:10.079 be quiet for two minutes and you can answer. 471 00:23:11.519 --> 00:23:15.319 Okay, yeah, sure, go ahead. So now you're asking me 472 00:23:15.400 --> 00:23:17.359 a loaded question, which is you know, when did you 473 00:23:17.400 --> 00:23:21.079 stop being So I'm obviously not gonna answer. But in 474 00:23:21.119 --> 00:23:24.519 regards to what is the non aggression principle, non aggression 475 00:23:24.519 --> 00:23:27.720 principle is an ought claim, but it is also an axiom. 476 00:23:27.759 --> 00:23:30.759 One can choose to follow that axiom or not follow 477 00:23:30.759 --> 00:23:33.920 that acciom in their system of ethics. But if you 478 00:23:34.039 --> 00:23:37.079 have a an ethical system that you attempt to justify, 479 00:23:37.799 --> 00:23:40.920 then that is where that that is where you must 480 00:23:40.960 --> 00:23:43.759 follow or you must your system must be commiserate with 481 00:23:43.799 --> 00:23:47.839 a non aggression principle or it falls into contradiction. That is, 482 00:23:48.000 --> 00:23:50.240 that is the claim that I mean. So you are 483 00:23:50.359 --> 00:23:53.680 correct that the NAP is a moral claim that one 484 00:23:53.799 --> 00:23:57.759 ought not aggress upon other people. But where when we're 485 00:23:57.799 --> 00:24:00.480 talking about bridging kind of the is ought app from 486 00:24:00.519 --> 00:24:06.559 descriptive to prescriptive ideology, what I'm saying is that it 487 00:24:06.599 --> 00:24:11.319 is it is a means of negating ethical justifications when 488 00:24:11.440 --> 00:24:15.400 they go against a non aggression principle. So boom, Finally. 489 00:24:16.279 --> 00:24:17.880 I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. 490 00:24:17.960 --> 00:24:20.000 Means of negating what is that supposed to mean? 491 00:24:21.839 --> 00:24:26.680 Right? So, libertarianism as a whole is you know, the 492 00:24:26.759 --> 00:24:32.000 NAP is axiomatic to libertarianism, But things such as like argumentation, ethics, 493 00:24:32.279 --> 00:24:36.799 and other forms of logic showcase that, you know, people 494 00:24:36.839 --> 00:24:39.720 that attempt to justify the law that jungle or are 495 00:24:39.759 --> 00:24:43.799 no longer in ethics. Right, you're if you're saying some 496 00:24:43.880 --> 00:24:47.640 people can be slaves or some property can be taken, 497 00:24:48.720 --> 00:24:52.400 then your your moral claims aren't universalizable and they fall 498 00:24:52.440 --> 00:24:53.119 into contradiction. 499 00:24:54.960 --> 00:25:01.200 Are moral claims universizable? Well for it to be a 500 00:25:01.480 --> 00:25:08.519 through moral claim, so there are universals. Yeah, okay, how 501 00:25:08.519 --> 00:25:10.519 do you justify universal claims? 502 00:25:13.039 --> 00:25:16.559 How do I justify the existence of universal claims? Like, 503 00:25:16.640 --> 00:25:18.039 can you give me an example of one that may 504 00:25:18.119 --> 00:25:18.559 just make. 505 00:25:19.640 --> 00:25:21.599 Uh yeah, one at faulty nap. 506 00:25:25.400 --> 00:25:29.599 Well, so we would start with existence exists, then we 507 00:25:29.640 --> 00:25:30.880 would move into. 508 00:25:30.759 --> 00:25:33.319 Formal existence exists. What is that supposed to mean? 509 00:25:34.720 --> 00:25:38.200 I've seen an unavoidable accident? Right, So one cannot argue. 510 00:25:38.240 --> 00:25:41.039 I mean it's a it's a it's a self referencing 511 00:25:41.400 --> 00:25:44.680 basically version of the identity principle. But how do you 512 00:25:44.720 --> 00:25:46.400 what does that mean? Existence exists? 513 00:25:47.559 --> 00:25:50.799 That means that existence exists, right, it's it's it is 514 00:25:50.839 --> 00:25:54.160 self referencing in those situation, but one cannot argue against 515 00:25:54.160 --> 00:25:55.440 the concept of existence. 516 00:25:55.519 --> 00:26:00.400 Actually you can, because you can't actually pretty easily because existence. 517 00:26:00.160 --> 00:26:03.079 Well, yeah, I could say cats have wings existence. 518 00:26:03.200 --> 00:26:05.640 No, no, no, I mean in a different point that existence 519 00:26:05.799 --> 00:26:09.519 is a very contested, ambiguous term in the history of philosophy. 520 00:26:09.559 --> 00:26:13.279 It's a metaphysical claim. So have you justified any metaphysics yet? 521 00:26:16.079 --> 00:26:19.319 I would start where we're starting with existence, and existence 522 00:26:19.319 --> 00:26:20.680 specifies itself. 523 00:26:20.319 --> 00:26:24.319 By the existence justifies itself. What is your proof for 524 00:26:24.400 --> 00:26:28.240 the proposition existence justifies itself? 525 00:26:28.359 --> 00:26:32.319 It is you cannot make any form of logical argument 526 00:26:32.640 --> 00:26:37.839 in any about anything without justifying without existing, Like, it's 527 00:26:37.880 --> 00:26:38.960 impossible to make. 528 00:26:38.799 --> 00:26:41.160 A claim that's not even actually true. I mean, Boolean 529 00:26:41.759 --> 00:26:44.839 approaches to logic have made it deontological, so you can 530 00:26:44.880 --> 00:26:47.559 actually make onto you can actually make logical arguments without 531 00:26:47.599 --> 00:26:50.240 ontological claims. That's not you're making. 532 00:26:50.000 --> 00:26:53.039 An argument the moment that you make an argument, justify yours. 533 00:26:53.359 --> 00:26:56.200 No, that's not even true. That's that's a that's not 534 00:26:56.279 --> 00:26:59.200 a justification, and that's a fallacious move. So it doesn't 535 00:26:59.279 --> 00:27:04.480 get it. It doesn't prove the metaphysical notion or the 536 00:27:04.559 --> 00:27:07.400 linguistic symbols that you use for the word existence are 537 00:27:07.440 --> 00:27:09.680 correct in other words, it assumes all kinds of things 538 00:27:10.240 --> 00:27:15.599 like language, predications, language and predication. Right, so if you 539 00:27:15.599 --> 00:27:17.799 had a if you'd had a philosophy language class, you 540 00:27:17.839 --> 00:27:24.799 would know that words like existence presuppose metaphysical structures like universals, 541 00:27:24.960 --> 00:27:30.359 like predicate, predication, like uh, grammar, and none of those 542 00:27:30.359 --> 00:27:31.799 things have been demonstrated yet. 543 00:27:33.240 --> 00:27:37.839 Okay, this is it's not the concept of existence. But 544 00:27:37.920 --> 00:27:40.960 we're just not the definition of the word existence. So 545 00:27:41.039 --> 00:27:42.400 everything that you just said is silly. 546 00:27:43.160 --> 00:27:47.480 No, everything I said is basic philosophy, no idiot. The 547 00:27:47.519 --> 00:27:50.079 fact that you think that there's self evident action. 548 00:27:50.440 --> 00:27:53.599 Other people might like, what is the definition of the 549 00:27:53.640 --> 00:27:54.599 word What do you mean? 550 00:27:54.720 --> 00:27:57.519 You don't think that the word existence is? So what 551 00:27:57.599 --> 00:27:58.240 is it referring to? 552 00:27:58.759 --> 00:27:59.559 It is? 553 00:28:00.240 --> 00:28:03.359 Is impossible to our concepts in this case? Are they 554 00:28:03.400 --> 00:28:04.880 based on linguistic philosophy? 555 00:28:06.200 --> 00:28:07.519 Can you argue against existence? 556 00:28:07.759 --> 00:28:09.920 It doesn't matter because I won't get you to justification 557 00:28:10.079 --> 00:28:14.720 even if I admit that. Even if I admit, it 558 00:28:14.720 --> 00:28:17.519 doesn't matter because it doesn't achieve justification. So even if 559 00:28:17.599 --> 00:28:21.319 I admit skepticism and play the role of a skeptic 560 00:28:21.880 --> 00:28:26.279 and counter your claims about existence being existence, it doesn't 561 00:28:26.319 --> 00:28:29.079 prove anything, it doesn't get you anywhere, because I'm pointing 562 00:28:29.119 --> 00:28:31.240 out that it's not self evident if it relies on 563 00:28:31.319 --> 00:28:34.759 things like predication, linguistic philosophy, and grammar, which you haven't 564 00:28:34.799 --> 00:28:36.279 proven yet, So it's not self evident. 565 00:28:37.559 --> 00:28:40.599 It does not. The concept of existence is not does. 566 00:28:40.559 --> 00:28:46.720 Not the proposition existence exists, The proposition is itself relying 567 00:28:46.759 --> 00:28:51.200 on Does it rely on the law of identity? No, 568 00:28:51.839 --> 00:28:55.359 yes it does. Existence exists, is relying on the law 569 00:28:55.400 --> 00:28:55.920 of identity. 570 00:28:56.920 --> 00:28:58.279 No, it would come after exists? 571 00:28:58.279 --> 00:29:02.640 Oh my gosh. No, to say existence exists relies on 572 00:29:02.720 --> 00:29:05.799 the law of identity, you're predicating identity, Yes. 573 00:29:05.759 --> 00:29:08.680 Ariskitilian formal logic, ray like law of identity, law of 574 00:29:08.720 --> 00:29:12.440 excluded middle and law of non contradiction. Right, are going 575 00:29:12.519 --> 00:29:15.920 to be are going to be the foundation for making 576 00:29:16.039 --> 00:29:17.880 the argument that existencies. 577 00:29:18.279 --> 00:29:20.440 I'm calling in to question the argument. 578 00:29:20.240 --> 00:29:22.720 Language and all those other things. But what I'm saying 579 00:29:22.839 --> 00:29:27.400 is is that by one attempting in any language, in 580 00:29:27.480 --> 00:29:30.079 any in any means anytime a. 581 00:29:31.680 --> 00:29:33.559 Moral I know what you're saying. It's called retortion. 582 00:29:33.960 --> 00:29:38.599 Yeah, to make a claim that that that requires existence 583 00:29:38.680 --> 00:29:40.839 for them, that it presupposes existence. 584 00:29:40.839 --> 00:29:42.799 I'm aware of that, but that still doesn't get you. 585 00:29:42.920 --> 00:29:46.160 I know that, I know it's called retortion. It's called retortion, 586 00:29:46.279 --> 00:29:48.839 and it doesn't get you to justification. That's the point, 587 00:29:50.920 --> 00:29:51.319 all right. 588 00:29:51.240 --> 00:29:54.640 So how are you? How are you justifying existence because 589 00:29:54.960 --> 00:29:56.359 you clearly believe that existence. 590 00:29:56.559 --> 00:29:59.119 Well, I believe in the transcendental argument for God's existence, 591 00:29:59.160 --> 00:30:01.680 and that's the ground for the logical categories which make 592 00:30:01.759 --> 00:30:05.240 it possible to predicate at all. So that's my worldview account. 593 00:30:05.759 --> 00:30:08.200 But even if I admit, even if I admit to you, 594 00:30:08.559 --> 00:30:11.160 let me explain the point as to why it doesn't 595 00:30:11.160 --> 00:30:13.880 get you to justification. Right, So this comes up after 596 00:30:14.079 --> 00:30:18.039 Enlightenment philosophers raised the question about justification in this domain 597 00:30:18.119 --> 00:30:21.119 when it comes to for example, Kant says, one reason 598 00:30:21.240 --> 00:30:24.640 that just retortion alone doesn't get you to justification is 599 00:30:24.680 --> 00:30:28.799 that we don't know that the seeming impossibility of not 600 00:30:28.920 --> 00:30:32.640 being able to argue or to use logic or to 601 00:30:32.799 --> 00:30:36.119 have conceptual frameworks itself means that it's the case in 602 00:30:36.160 --> 00:30:38.920 the external world. So even if you could demonstrate that 603 00:30:39.079 --> 00:30:43.599 I can't argue or have human conceptual predication or language 604 00:30:43.680 --> 00:30:48.279 without assuming something like the law of identity or existence exists, 605 00:30:48.359 --> 00:30:51.480 or whatever. It still doesn't get you to justification because 606 00:30:51.519 --> 00:30:55.240 that even if it doesn't seem possible, it would become 607 00:30:55.240 --> 00:30:57.640 a fallacy of incredulity that I don't see how else 608 00:30:57.680 --> 00:31:00.680 you could reason, still doesn't grain your justification, and all 609 00:31:00.720 --> 00:31:03.000 you need is one defeat or to prove I'm not. 610 00:31:03.000 --> 00:31:05.759 Making the argument that it doesn't seem possible. I am 611 00:31:05.799 --> 00:31:07.839 making the argument that it is not possible. 612 00:31:07.920 --> 00:31:10.079 So if you're saying it's not possible, you would have 613 00:31:10.119 --> 00:31:12.480 to demonstrate exist then I know that. So then you 614 00:31:12.519 --> 00:31:15.440 would have to then you have to answer const dilemmas 615 00:31:15.480 --> 00:31:17.200 of how you know there even is an external world 616 00:31:17.240 --> 00:31:18.640 to which these categories apply. 617 00:31:19.839 --> 00:31:22.599 Okay, so constanlemma in how do I know that there 618 00:31:22.640 --> 00:31:23.880 is an external world. 619 00:31:24.519 --> 00:31:28.039 To where the concepts apply? Like when he critiques the 620 00:31:28.759 --> 00:31:32.119 ontological argument, he's pointing out that there's nothing about the 621 00:31:32.200 --> 00:31:35.079 term existence that contains within it the notion of perfection. 622 00:31:35.480 --> 00:31:38.319 So just proving that something exists doesn't get these other 623 00:31:38.359 --> 00:31:41.720 metaphysical qualities like perfection. So likewise, in your case, the 624 00:31:41.759 --> 00:31:42.759 same problem applied. 625 00:31:42.920 --> 00:31:45.559 What is what is? What is? If you can explain 626 00:31:45.599 --> 00:31:47.799 it for me? Batter like what is like perfection or 627 00:31:48.279 --> 00:31:51.480 human like conscritique. 628 00:31:51.559 --> 00:31:54.480 What I'm saying that const critique of the ontological argument 629 00:31:54.880 --> 00:31:58.279 is applicable to the argument that you're making about the 630 00:31:58.440 --> 00:32:02.720 ontological claim that exist distance exists. I'm saying that you 631 00:32:02.799 --> 00:32:05.240 need all kinds of things to be the case for 632 00:32:05.319 --> 00:32:08.400 that to hold or to be true, and those other 633 00:32:08.480 --> 00:32:10.960 things have not been proven yet, and so it's not 634 00:32:11.039 --> 00:32:13.839 self evident or axiomatic. It rests on a bunch of 635 00:32:13.880 --> 00:32:17.680 other assumptions. All the things I've listed, like language. 636 00:32:18.039 --> 00:32:24.960 Space, space, time, causality currently cons correct well. 637 00:32:25.039 --> 00:32:28.519 When cont critiques the cogito, he says that it assumes 638 00:32:28.519 --> 00:32:32.200 time and space. But I'm not making that argument, okay, 639 00:32:32.599 --> 00:32:35.480 but it's similar to it, Okay, So. 640 00:32:35.400 --> 00:32:38.000 Your argument is is that you need I'm having a 641 00:32:38.000 --> 00:32:40.880 hard time, my mom's gone real quick. 642 00:32:42.200 --> 00:32:45.559 For you to say existence exists and to say that 643 00:32:45.559 --> 00:32:49.160 that's self evident and axiomatic, because if you denied it, 644 00:32:49.200 --> 00:32:51.599 you couldn't reason about the world, You couldn't reason at all. 645 00:32:52.039 --> 00:32:54.559 I agree with that principle and that point, but that 646 00:32:54.640 --> 00:32:57.839 does not get you to epistemic justification, because it doesn't 647 00:32:57.920 --> 00:33:00.920 answer Const's dilemma that even if the position is true, 648 00:33:01.240 --> 00:33:03.359 you don't know that it applies to an external world 649 00:33:03.599 --> 00:33:06.000 without assuming an external world. And I agree with you 650 00:33:06.039 --> 00:33:07.880 that we should assume an external world. But the point 651 00:33:07.920 --> 00:33:10.319 is that you haven't demonstrated an external world yet, and 652 00:33:10.359 --> 00:33:12.400 so the propositions are not axiomatic. 653 00:33:12.759 --> 00:33:15.359 Even even if we were like in the matrix or something, 654 00:33:15.559 --> 00:33:19.559 there must be an external world for existence who exists. 655 00:33:19.359 --> 00:33:21.160 But you haven't proven that yet, and so that's why 656 00:33:21.200 --> 00:33:24.039 this statement is not axiomatic. So rests on other beliefs. 657 00:33:25.759 --> 00:33:27.720 Well, it would sweet, I mean, I could. 658 00:33:28.319 --> 00:33:32.240 If something actiomatic or Okay, no, it could be false axiom. 659 00:33:32.279 --> 00:33:36.279 But like people self evident, axiomatic beliefs can't rest on 660 00:33:36.359 --> 00:33:39.200 another belief. That's the point, or else they're no longer. 661 00:33:39.720 --> 00:33:43.680 Is what is the belief that existences. 662 00:33:44.880 --> 00:33:47.160 In this case, that it applies to something in an 663 00:33:47.160 --> 00:33:50.480 external world to give it meaning and content To refute 664 00:33:50.480 --> 00:33:52.920 my point about why it doesn't get you to justification, 665 00:33:53.039 --> 00:33:53.440 you need it. 666 00:33:53.480 --> 00:33:56.519 To apply the existence itself. 667 00:33:57.279 --> 00:34:00.359 You haven't shown that. Now you've read it. You haven't 668 00:34:00.359 --> 00:34:01.240 demonstrated that. 669 00:34:02.039 --> 00:34:05.799 No existence, it's a concept there is that there is 670 00:34:05.839 --> 00:34:07.599 a material world that exists. 671 00:34:07.759 --> 00:34:10.920 Now now you're adding, Now you're moving the goalpost because 672 00:34:10.960 --> 00:34:13.280 there's nothing in the word exist. There's nothing in the 673 00:34:13.280 --> 00:34:15.840 word existence that necessarily tells you that it's about an 674 00:34:15.840 --> 00:34:21.119 external world. That's what you just you just added and altered. Well, 675 00:34:21.760 --> 00:34:24.679 you know you might be existence exists, and now you're 676 00:34:24.679 --> 00:34:27.719 modifying it to say that, well that means necessarily the 677 00:34:27.760 --> 00:34:29.840 external world. Well what is there in the word existence 678 00:34:29.880 --> 00:34:32.079 that necessarily means external world? 679 00:34:32.960 --> 00:34:35.239 So I think you, I think you might actually be 680 00:34:35.360 --> 00:34:40.079 right on this only because existence is this is is objective. 681 00:34:40.239 --> 00:34:43.280 It's randy and right. So you wouldn't it just wouldn't 682 00:34:43.440 --> 00:34:46.039 deny or I don't think she would support any idea 683 00:34:46.039 --> 00:34:48.800 of like the spiritual or any other type of world 684 00:34:48.840 --> 00:34:52.920 other than the material world. I think it is probably implied, 685 00:34:53.000 --> 00:34:56.519 but maybe not explicitly stated. So like, yeah, that's fine. 686 00:34:56.519 --> 00:34:59.559 If you want to critique existence exists, you know, to 687 00:34:59.719 --> 00:35:01.119 like better. 688 00:35:01.480 --> 00:35:04.880 Well, I'm just giving examples of why it modern. I'm 689 00:35:04.920 --> 00:35:07.840 just giving examples or why it doesn't get you to 690 00:35:08.159 --> 00:35:11.239 self evidence or justification in an epistemic sense. 691 00:35:12.800 --> 00:35:16.400 It's like, I'm you're saying it doesn't because there could 692 00:35:16.480 --> 00:35:18.719 be a spiritual. 693 00:35:18.159 --> 00:35:20.800 World that I never said any of that. 694 00:35:21.719 --> 00:35:24.480 Well, you're saying that it doesn't imply the material. 695 00:35:24.599 --> 00:35:26.480 All I need is one defeater, and I've given you 696 00:35:26.519 --> 00:35:28.679 a couple of defeaters. It doesn't mean that I have 697 00:35:28.760 --> 00:35:32.119 to all CON's positions. So no, I don't believe. 698 00:35:32.119 --> 00:35:36.400 All I'm asking. Your argument is that existence exists, doesn't 699 00:35:36.440 --> 00:35:37.199 imply the world. 700 00:35:37.840 --> 00:35:39.800 Correct, that's a content. 701 00:35:40.480 --> 00:35:43.400 Right, and well, this content wasn't alive to critique existence 702 00:35:44.159 --> 00:35:45.559 from the from the checktive. 703 00:35:45.639 --> 00:35:49.440 He made this critique in a similar way, critiquing the 704 00:35:49.440 --> 00:35:51.159 ontological argument. That's what I'm saying. 705 00:35:53.280 --> 00:35:57.159 So when I make the argument existence and you're saying, well, 706 00:35:57.199 --> 00:36:00.840 this doesn't necessarily apply to the exist since we're in, 707 00:36:02.320 --> 00:36:04.840 I guess I don't have an argument for that. Because 708 00:36:04.880 --> 00:36:07.039 we exist in the existence we're in, there is no 709 00:36:07.199 --> 00:36:07.920 other existence. 710 00:36:08.039 --> 00:36:11.239 That's just starting, that's just starting the thing question. 711 00:36:13.280 --> 00:36:16.199 I'm actually genuinely trying to understand your critique here. It's 712 00:36:16.239 --> 00:36:17.639 not like I'm like, I'm. 713 00:36:17.519 --> 00:36:21.719 Not, well, the point so to make it in this. 714 00:36:21.760 --> 00:36:24.639 World right, we we we are acting, we're behaving, we're 715 00:36:24.639 --> 00:36:28.239 attempting to justify the point is that all systems. 716 00:36:28.320 --> 00:36:32.119 The point is that the point is that all beliefs, 717 00:36:32.159 --> 00:36:36.159 all propositions, all statements, true statements, et cetera, and my 718 00:36:36.280 --> 00:36:39.639 view are theory laden. And so this has been a 719 00:36:39.679 --> 00:36:41.960 long walk to get to the point to try to 720 00:36:42.000 --> 00:36:46.159 prove or demonstrate that classical foundationalism, which is the epistemology 721 00:36:46.199 --> 00:36:50.719 that the Enlightenment relies upon in most libertarians, is philosophically 722 00:36:50.760 --> 00:36:53.800 and epistemically on faulty ground. And it doesn't make me 723 00:36:53.840 --> 00:36:57.079 a content simply because I'm using his argument that there's 724 00:36:57.119 --> 00:37:01.599 nothing necessarily about the word existence that entails a material 725 00:37:01.679 --> 00:37:04.280 external world. I could be an idealist, maybe I believe 726 00:37:04.320 --> 00:37:07.119 that all the world is a Platonic ideal, and for me, 727 00:37:07.159 --> 00:37:10.400 the word existence just means ideas like Plato, right, or 728 00:37:10.400 --> 00:37:11.440 that's the highest. 729 00:37:11.159 --> 00:37:13.679 Now you're now you're changing the argument. 730 00:37:14.000 --> 00:37:16.480 No, I'm giving you an example of why the word 731 00:37:16.559 --> 00:37:21.159 existence does not have self evident meaning to it. It's contingent. 732 00:37:21.360 --> 00:37:24.400 Let me finish, it's contingent upon a paradigm. 733 00:37:24.559 --> 00:37:27.719 So if I just start changing the meaning of words, 734 00:37:27.960 --> 00:37:30.000 right and then saying that, well. 735 00:37:30.000 --> 00:37:31.840 I mean you're the one that did that where you 736 00:37:32.000 --> 00:37:35.159 modified existence to mean a material external world, But there's 737 00:37:35.159 --> 00:37:37.000 nothing necessary about the word that tells you that. 738 00:37:40.320 --> 00:37:42.880 The existence exists. As an argument is a justification. 739 00:37:43.800 --> 00:37:47.039 It's not a justification because it's a restatement of a 740 00:37:47.760 --> 00:37:50.679 self evident in your view, truth doesn't tell you anything 741 00:37:50.719 --> 00:37:52.920 about the world. You're assuming it does. But how do 742 00:37:52.960 --> 00:37:53.440 you know it does? 743 00:37:53.800 --> 00:37:59.320 Well, it tells you that any individual cannot The reason 744 00:37:59.360 --> 00:38:00.360 is an unavoid. 745 00:38:01.079 --> 00:38:03.559 Is a But you keep calling it void of all, 746 00:38:03.639 --> 00:38:05.800 resting on the assumption that it actually applies to an 747 00:38:05.800 --> 00:38:07.320 external world, which you haven't demonstrated. 748 00:38:07.320 --> 00:38:09.639 But you're not making argument like that's critique. 749 00:38:09.639 --> 00:38:11.920 It's an internal critique. My argument is an internal critique. 750 00:38:12.840 --> 00:38:16.679 Yeah, but you're saying that there is a way that 751 00:38:16.760 --> 00:38:22.079 you can defeat existence exists argumentation by redefining words and 752 00:38:22.199 --> 00:38:22.920 concepts of what. 753 00:38:23.239 --> 00:38:24.800 No, I'm simply pointing out. 754 00:38:25.239 --> 00:38:29.159 I'm clarifying what existence means in the objective is framework. 755 00:38:29.480 --> 00:38:31.320 And you're saying, ah, but what if. 756 00:38:31.199 --> 00:38:33.400 I whether it's a non sequitor. There's nothing about the 757 00:38:33.440 --> 00:38:37.360 word existence argument that you attempt to it's a non 758 00:38:38.000 --> 00:38:39.519 in your system. 759 00:38:39.559 --> 00:38:42.719 The moment that you attempt to argue that you know 760 00:38:42.840 --> 00:38:46.239 the world is actually just like this platonic forms or. 761 00:38:46.199 --> 00:38:48.119 That like I didn't say that, I just gave an 762 00:38:48.119 --> 00:38:49.519 example that wasn't my point. 763 00:38:49.760 --> 00:38:53.199 I'm using I'm using yous in like the universal right, 764 00:38:53.280 --> 00:38:56.480 the one that one you know, attempts to make any 765 00:38:56.519 --> 00:39:00.000 form of justification. They do so in the world that we. 766 00:39:01.559 --> 00:39:03.519 I mean again, assuming that there is an external world, 767 00:39:03.559 --> 00:39:08.960 which you haven't demonstrated yet. So the whole point is 768 00:39:09.000 --> 00:39:12.079 not because I'm you don't understand what a defeater argument is. 769 00:39:12.119 --> 00:39:13.880 It doesn't mean that I'm a skeptical like human. It 770 00:39:13.880 --> 00:39:16.079 means that I'm using the argument from human Kant to 771 00:39:16.159 --> 00:39:20.199 prove why your assertion existence exists is not self evident. 772 00:39:20.280 --> 00:39:22.079 It rests on other things. That's the point. 773 00:39:22.480 --> 00:39:24.360 But you haven't shown that it rests on other things. 774 00:39:24.800 --> 00:39:28.840 I gave you multiple examples. For example, it rests on 775 00:39:28.840 --> 00:39:31.000 the assumption that it applies to the external world. Have 776 00:39:31.079 --> 00:39:34.199 you demonstrated that existence exists applies to the external world 777 00:39:34.239 --> 00:39:37.639 and not just a conceptual framework? When was that justification? 778 00:39:39.199 --> 00:39:45.400 Again? Who who is? Who can exist? Right without exist? 779 00:39:45.519 --> 00:39:48.960 So you're answering a question to answer the question I 780 00:39:49.000 --> 00:39:52.360 asked you. I'm trying to get you to understand maybe 781 00:39:53.039 --> 00:39:57.280 maybe that maybe maybe everything is an ideal existence and 782 00:39:57.360 --> 00:39:59.760 there is no external world. I don't believe that, but 783 00:39:59.760 --> 00:40:03.920 I'm saying that your assumptions are not justified, even within 784 00:40:04.000 --> 00:40:07.039 your own system. How do I know that the word existence, 785 00:40:07.320 --> 00:40:10.519 when it has a vast array of meanings throughout the 786 00:40:10.599 --> 00:40:15.840 history of philosophy, somehow necessarily means a material, physical, external world. 787 00:40:15.840 --> 00:40:19.599 There's nothing about the word existence that necessarily means that. 788 00:40:20.159 --> 00:40:21.679 And when I ask you how you know that or 789 00:40:21.679 --> 00:40:23.360 why we should think that, you say, it just has 790 00:40:23.440 --> 00:40:26.440 to be that way. Well, that's a fallacy of incredulity. 791 00:40:28.159 --> 00:40:33.599 So if there are so the necessary condition for existence 792 00:40:33.920 --> 00:40:37.639 is well, hold on, let me not go there. So 793 00:40:38.800 --> 00:40:43.039 I'm you're you're saying that the argument isn't justified because 794 00:40:43.320 --> 00:40:47.480 one could make arguments outside of reality. 795 00:40:48.039 --> 00:40:50.119 I'm saying that it's a non sequitor and that it 796 00:40:50.199 --> 00:40:53.920 rests on multiple other assumptions which have not been proven, 797 00:40:54.000 --> 00:40:55.360 and so it's not self evident. 798 00:40:58.599 --> 00:41:04.440 So, but some existence is self evident. I don't understand. 799 00:41:04.599 --> 00:41:07.159 I mean, again, you just keep starting the position that's 800 00:41:07.199 --> 00:41:09.639 a variation on the original position. And how do we 801 00:41:09.679 --> 00:41:10.599 know that? What does that mean? 802 00:41:11.800 --> 00:41:15.559 Because if one because we because we obviously exist in 803 00:41:15.559 --> 00:41:16.239 some capacity. 804 00:41:16.400 --> 00:41:18.639 So your answer is that it's just the case. So 805 00:41:18.960 --> 00:41:20.880 the answer is again, that is just the case. So 806 00:41:21.400 --> 00:41:23.280 I thoasical foundations and. 807 00:41:23.280 --> 00:41:25.079 It's an oblable axiom. Right. 808 00:41:25.199 --> 00:41:27.400 Again, you keep asserting that, but then you've admitted that 809 00:41:27.400 --> 00:41:29.800 it relies on other things like an external world, which 810 00:41:29.840 --> 00:41:34.159 that proposition, the proposition itself does not contain within it 811 00:41:34.320 --> 00:41:37.159 a necessary existence of an ex Okay. 812 00:41:37.199 --> 00:41:40.880 So so I have put forward that existence exists, and 813 00:41:41.000 --> 00:41:43.920 you've heard that argument. Need it? You say it doesn't. 814 00:41:43.920 --> 00:41:48.360 It's it's not justified because it relies on other assumptions. 815 00:41:48.840 --> 00:41:52.039 What do do you have a counter argument for our existence? 816 00:41:52.519 --> 00:41:56.679 Yes, and again it's the existence of God grounds and 817 00:41:56.880 --> 00:42:01.639 justifies the transcendental categories which make possible things like predicating 818 00:42:01.679 --> 00:42:04.599 about existence in the created realm. So there's not even 819 00:42:04.639 --> 00:42:10.440 one that God no, because in Christian theology, for example, 820 00:42:11.000 --> 00:42:14.280 there's two types of existences. There's uncreated and created, and 821 00:42:14.320 --> 00:42:16.360 so there's nothing about the word existence that tells me 822 00:42:16.440 --> 00:42:18.800 necessarily which one is even being referred to. Because I 823 00:42:18.840 --> 00:42:21.599 believe in my pl I believe in my paradigm that 824 00:42:21.599 --> 00:42:25.599 there's uncreated existence, who is God himself, and there's created existence, 825 00:42:25.599 --> 00:42:27.519 which is the created world. Those are two types of 826 00:42:27.559 --> 00:42:30.960 existing things. So there's nothing self evident about the word 827 00:42:31.000 --> 00:42:33.119 existence that necessarily tells you anything. 828 00:42:33.719 --> 00:42:36.000 Yeah, yeah, what is an uncreated existence? 829 00:42:36.360 --> 00:42:37.159 God himself? 830 00:42:38.320 --> 00:42:40.079 Yeah? Okay, well that's like, yeah, but what do you 831 00:42:40.119 --> 00:42:43.280 mean by like, what is an uncreated system? 832 00:42:43.440 --> 00:42:45.519 It means that he is timeless. It means that he 833 00:42:45.599 --> 00:42:48.880 is a noncomposite, He is outside of time and space. 834 00:42:49.280 --> 00:42:52.159 He is transcendent, he is imminent, he is perfect all 835 00:42:52.199 --> 00:42:56.320 the attributes that we've ascribed to God in our system. 836 00:42:56.400 --> 00:42:58.880 So when you say he's timeless, what is what is? 837 00:42:58.960 --> 00:43:01.719 What do you mean by that? It's a doesn't exist 838 00:43:01.719 --> 00:43:02.840 in reality. 839 00:43:02.920 --> 00:43:06.440 No, outside of time, meaning that he's eternal. He created time, 840 00:43:06.519 --> 00:43:07.599 he's outside of time. 841 00:43:08.599 --> 00:43:11.440 So like or like would a vampire be an ungreated 842 00:43:11.440 --> 00:43:12.360 existence if he's a. 843 00:43:12.400 --> 00:43:16.440 Mortal anything mortal is created by definition? 844 00:43:17.679 --> 00:43:19.440 Okay, so real. 845 00:43:21.320 --> 00:43:23.320 Yeah, But I'm just pointing out that the word existence 846 00:43:23.360 --> 00:43:27.400 doesn't necessarily tell you anything self evident without a paradigm 847 00:43:27.480 --> 00:43:30.719 to inform the word and its meaning. Even language itself. 848 00:43:30.800 --> 00:43:33.440 Is why I mentioned earlier to you linguistic philosophy. It's 849 00:43:33.480 --> 00:43:37.199 a holistic structure. It's an epistemic wholism, which means that 850 00:43:37.480 --> 00:43:40.800 there's no words that function in an independent way. You 851 00:43:40.800 --> 00:43:43.119 could read Wickenstein on this because he talks about how 852 00:43:44.039 --> 00:43:48.679 words in terms are part of linguistic structures and systems 853 00:43:48.800 --> 00:43:51.199 because they all relate to one another. So there's no 854 00:43:51.239 --> 00:43:56.360 such thing as a word called existence or ontos or 855 00:43:56.719 --> 00:44:01.559 fusis or being or whatever that somehow has a self evident, 856 00:44:01.800 --> 00:44:06.159 necessary meaning apart from the entire paradigm or worldview that 857 00:44:06.199 --> 00:44:09.079 you have that informs it. That's why I was mentioning. 858 00:44:09.119 --> 00:44:13.039 So, yeah, what like, So it is true that words, 859 00:44:13.400 --> 00:44:16.000 you know, have a have a shared meaning that we 860 00:44:16.079 --> 00:44:19.480 kind of assume people get like, you know, and we 861 00:44:19.519 --> 00:44:22.639 see language change constantly where a word has as and 862 00:44:22.639 --> 00:44:25.400 then over time the meaning of the word kind of 863 00:44:25.440 --> 00:44:28.280 changes from the cultural context, because it's because it's just 864 00:44:28.320 --> 00:44:30.599 a function, right, It's a tool. A word is just 865 00:44:30.639 --> 00:44:35.039 a tool to describe a concept. And you know, communication 866 00:44:35.199 --> 00:44:39.199 is often, more often than not imperfect. Right. But but 867 00:44:39.239 --> 00:44:43.400 what I'm trying to understand is, you know, I agree 868 00:44:43.440 --> 00:44:46.039 that that is a that is a problem in argumentation. 869 00:44:46.760 --> 00:44:49.559 You have to kind of assume that the reader understands 870 00:44:49.599 --> 00:44:52.719 the meaning of the word that has but that isn't 871 00:44:52.719 --> 00:44:57.639 always perfect. But how do you justify how do how 872 00:44:57.639 --> 00:45:01.880 does your position differ in existence? And so though far 873 00:45:01.920 --> 00:45:06.599 that it justifies, Like saying God is uncreated is like 874 00:45:06.599 --> 00:45:09.440 like you're just saying it's it's outside of the rules, 875 00:45:09.800 --> 00:45:10.960 and it exists and it doesn't. 876 00:45:11.239 --> 00:45:13.679 Well, now outside of your rules? So and are I 877 00:45:13.719 --> 00:45:16.400 have a different paradigm. So I'm thinking and arguing in 878 00:45:16.480 --> 00:45:18.920 terms of paradigms or world views as a whole. The 879 00:45:18.960 --> 00:45:22.320 transcendental argument is a comparison of to world views or paradigms. 880 00:45:22.400 --> 00:45:25.960 So it involves the entire system because the Christian theistic 881 00:45:26.000 --> 00:45:29.519 system conditions what I mean by words like existence or 882 00:45:29.679 --> 00:45:33.280 time or creation or whatever, all of those things are. 883 00:45:34.320 --> 00:45:36.559 How does that? How does how does the Christian How 884 00:45:36.599 --> 00:45:38.679 does Christian ethics? Like? All these things are made up 885 00:45:38.679 --> 00:45:41.880 of words? Right, So it's the same problem that that 886 00:45:42.000 --> 00:45:43.280 would occur in any Well. 887 00:45:43.320 --> 00:45:46.400 I don't have the belief that words are in language 888 00:45:46.440 --> 00:45:49.480 are all purely social constructs. I believe that what the 889 00:45:49.519 --> 00:45:55.440 words refer to is conceptual and universal and objective and 890 00:45:55.480 --> 00:45:56.360 not subjective. 891 00:45:57.119 --> 00:46:01.400 Yeah, were, But the words themselves are just undicating concepts 892 00:46:01.480 --> 00:46:02.760 or ideas. 893 00:46:02.519 --> 00:46:04.679 Right, But that's why the words can be flexible. You 894 00:46:04.679 --> 00:46:08.119 can have Roman numeral VIII or the Arabic number seven 895 00:46:08.159 --> 00:46:12.760 that referred to the same abstract conceptual entity. But that 896 00:46:12.800 --> 00:46:13.440 has nothing to do. 897 00:46:13.440 --> 00:46:17.280 It doesn't get us any justification of like how you 898 00:46:17.480 --> 00:46:21.000 solve the problem as you see that justification can't be 899 00:46:21.119 --> 00:46:25.239 met on anything unless we posit a god. But I 900 00:46:25.239 --> 00:46:26.119 don't understand how. 901 00:46:26.079 --> 00:46:30.400 That does well, because the tag argument argues that any predication, 902 00:46:30.639 --> 00:46:35.320 any proposition, relies on the structures that are necessary for 903 00:46:35.400 --> 00:46:38.719 the possibility of language and predication. So, in other words, 904 00:46:38.760 --> 00:46:42.400 to say a sentence like the tree is red, a 905 00:46:42.440 --> 00:46:45.519 shout me the tree is green rests on a certain 906 00:46:45.559 --> 00:46:49.679 type of world where there are there is regularity in nature. 907 00:46:49.760 --> 00:46:55.199 It rests on the possibility of having knowledge universals, linguistic structure, grammar, 908 00:46:55.360 --> 00:46:58.280 all of those things are presupposed in the action of 909 00:46:58.360 --> 00:46:59.559 making a proposition. 910 00:47:00.800 --> 00:47:03.679 Well, yeah, but that would be true for objectives philosophy 911 00:47:03.719 --> 00:47:04.119 as well. 912 00:47:04.480 --> 00:47:07.960 Right, But the difference between the difference between you and 913 00:47:08.000 --> 00:47:10.760 I is how we give an account for those things, 914 00:47:10.880 --> 00:47:13.320 And that your accounts are not good accounts is what 915 00:47:13.360 --> 00:47:13.960 I've been arguing. 916 00:47:14.719 --> 00:47:17.239 So what is your good account that solves this problem? 917 00:47:17.280 --> 00:47:22.519 And well, there are no self evident proof positions or 918 00:47:22.519 --> 00:47:25.679 statements because they're embedded within a network or a web 919 00:47:25.719 --> 00:47:28.559 of beliefs that we all have. And thus, if my 920 00:47:28.679 --> 00:47:31.840 system or my view is holistic, if I'm an epistemic holist, 921 00:47:32.360 --> 00:47:35.519 then I have to give an account for the system 922 00:47:35.559 --> 00:47:39.559 as a whole and how those structures or how those 923 00:47:39.599 --> 00:47:47.599 preconditions are the case. So if I need the possibility, predication, universals, mathematics, logic, mathematics, logic, 924 00:47:48.119 --> 00:47:51.320 all of these categories being the true, the good, et cetera, 925 00:47:51.440 --> 00:47:53.800 to have knowledge at all, then I need to give 926 00:47:53.840 --> 00:47:58.159 some account for those things those categories that my statements 927 00:47:58.199 --> 00:48:00.760 are relying on. In the Transcendental are and argues that 928 00:48:01.199 --> 00:48:04.000 only God is the type of being who could give 929 00:48:04.039 --> 00:48:05.880 a justification or account for those things. 930 00:48:07.840 --> 00:48:10.440 So you're just saying only God can do this, So 931 00:48:10.480 --> 00:48:12.519 therefore God is every saying. 932 00:48:12.559 --> 00:48:15.320 I'm saying that. The argument is that the only being 933 00:48:15.360 --> 00:48:18.440 who can give given a grounding for those things is 934 00:48:18.480 --> 00:48:20.440 the being revealed in the Christian worldview. 935 00:48:22.880 --> 00:48:25.760 How is it so? But but God doesn't exist in reality. 936 00:48:26.599 --> 00:48:27.760 I don't even know what does that mean? 937 00:48:28.000 --> 00:48:34.920 He said he's an uncreated existence in space. How is 938 00:48:34.960 --> 00:48:35.440 he doing this? 939 00:48:35.519 --> 00:48:38.400 I said, he's transcendent and he's imminent. That means that 940 00:48:38.800 --> 00:48:41.000 he exists outside of time and in time. 941 00:48:42.519 --> 00:48:44.159 So he does exist in reality. 942 00:48:44.840 --> 00:48:47.400 Well, you keep calling reality. I would say there's two realities. 943 00:48:47.400 --> 00:48:50.480 There's created reality on created reality. So when you. 944 00:48:50.440 --> 00:48:55.639 Say the outside of material reality, yeah, okay, where it was? 945 00:48:55.679 --> 00:48:57.519 So how so how do you prove that? 946 00:48:58.440 --> 00:49:01.440 Well I could. I could prove it the transcendental argument 947 00:49:01.480 --> 00:49:05.679 and the impossibility of the contrary that anytime you utilize language, 948 00:49:05.840 --> 00:49:10.079 you're utilizing conceptual, abstract things that are not reducible to 949 00:49:10.320 --> 00:49:13.800 physical sense data, and that only God in the trinitarian 950 00:49:13.840 --> 00:49:15.920 sense could give a justification for how that's possible. 951 00:49:17.000 --> 00:49:20.400 Well, no, I reason, reason alone explains that humans have 952 00:49:20.440 --> 00:49:21.519 the capacity for reason. 953 00:49:21.840 --> 00:49:24.519 Well, that's alone. You're all humans. 954 00:49:26.400 --> 00:49:29.320 Well, humans as a category. 955 00:49:29.320 --> 00:49:31.119 How do you have a justification for categories? 956 00:49:34.360 --> 00:49:36.480 What do you How do I have a justification that 957 00:49:36.480 --> 00:49:38.039 that that humans have the capacity know. 958 00:49:38.119 --> 00:49:40.199 That there are things called quote categories like this. 959 00:49:42.800 --> 00:49:47.039 I'm trying to figure out a way to answer this. 960 00:49:47.239 --> 00:49:53.000 You would accept it? So the how do I justify 961 00:49:53.119 --> 00:49:55.639 the categories exist in the mind that people? 962 00:49:57.000 --> 00:49:58.840 So now they're just in the mind. They're not actual, 963 00:49:59.159 --> 00:50:01.440 they're not outside of them. One like the numbers are 964 00:50:01.559 --> 00:50:03.800 not material, they're not material. 965 00:50:04.639 --> 00:50:05.199 No, of course, not. 966 00:50:05.360 --> 00:50:06.559 Okay, so there's immaterial things. 967 00:50:06.800 --> 00:50:08.559 There's no category three, right. 968 00:50:09.079 --> 00:50:11.519 There are immaterial things that exist, immaterial things. 969 00:50:14.000 --> 00:50:18.320 The mind does not create reality, Reality exists independent. 970 00:50:18.440 --> 00:50:20.480 Okay, how do you know that there are two types 971 00:50:20.480 --> 00:50:22.960 of things, physical and immaterial? 972 00:50:24.920 --> 00:50:26.559 Well, we have we do have sense. 973 00:50:27.360 --> 00:50:29.719 How does your sense data tell you that? You mentioned Hume? 974 00:50:29.920 --> 00:50:31.880 But how does your sensative tell you that there's imterial 975 00:50:31.960 --> 00:50:33.400 things that are not based on sense data? 976 00:50:35.400 --> 00:50:37.960 How does my sense data tell me that there are 977 00:50:37.960 --> 00:50:39.519 things that are not sense data? 978 00:50:39.639 --> 00:50:40.880 That's what you just said a question? 979 00:50:41.239 --> 00:50:44.760 Yeah, no, I said that we can see things in reality. 980 00:50:44.840 --> 00:50:47.719 How does things tell you that there are immaterial things? 981 00:50:49.199 --> 00:50:51.679 So theirs the first thing is that we can see 982 00:50:51.679 --> 00:50:53.519 that there are material things. 983 00:50:53.239 --> 00:50:56.440 Right, Well, I would say with the myth of the given, 984 00:50:56.480 --> 00:50:58.880 you don't even know that, and you haven't demonstrated that yet. 985 00:50:58.920 --> 00:51:00.559 But if I grant you that, how does that give 986 00:51:00.639 --> 00:51:02.440 to immaterial even if even. 987 00:51:02.239 --> 00:51:04.440 Even if I was like, there there has to. 988 00:51:04.400 --> 00:51:08.360 Be you keep saying, and if you do philosophy, you 989 00:51:08.480 --> 00:51:10.119 know there's no has to any of this. You got 990 00:51:10.119 --> 00:51:11.719 to demonstrate that. You can't just assert that. 991 00:51:12.800 --> 00:51:17.039 Well, okay, well, if you interrupt someone, you know then 992 00:51:17.079 --> 00:51:18.039 they can't make their full arge. 993 00:51:18.079 --> 00:51:21.079 So empiricism won't get you to universal categories, is the point? 994 00:51:22.360 --> 00:51:25.440 Yeah, No, I don't. I don't disagree that empiricism gets you, like, 995 00:51:25.440 --> 00:51:26.000 I don't disagree. 996 00:51:26.079 --> 00:51:28.280 Okay, So what's the justification for the immaterial things? 997 00:51:30.159 --> 00:51:34.880 Well, the justification for immaterial things is that the the 998 00:51:34.920 --> 00:51:35.760 concepts exist. 999 00:51:35.840 --> 00:51:39.039 You mean, how do you know that? How do you 1000 00:51:39.079 --> 00:51:41.840 know that the concept in my head of humans as 1001 00:51:41.840 --> 00:51:44.119 a category is the same as the concept in your head? 1002 00:51:44.119 --> 00:51:45.880 How do you You can't verify? 1003 00:51:45.920 --> 00:51:48.239 You don't. We've already we've already stated that you can't 1004 00:51:48.239 --> 00:51:49.400 necessarily verify that. 1005 00:51:49.480 --> 00:51:51.360 Okay, if you can't verify that, then you believe in 1006 00:51:51.360 --> 00:51:54.119 immaterial things without justification that you can't verify? 1007 00:51:54.960 --> 00:51:56.480 Well, so do you? You don't know? 1008 00:51:56.519 --> 00:51:58.599 No, I believe in verification. I believe that I can 1009 00:51:58.719 --> 00:51:59.199 justify it. 1010 00:51:59.199 --> 00:52:01.079 So you you believe you believe. 1011 00:52:00.840 --> 00:52:02.800 That that's a too quo. That's a two quock way. 1012 00:52:03.159 --> 00:52:06.519 That's a two quoke way. No, but you're that's a 1013 00:52:06.519 --> 00:52:09.039 two quote way. No but you, No, but you it 1014 00:52:09.119 --> 00:52:09.880 is a two quoke way. 1015 00:52:10.679 --> 00:52:12.719 No, it's not no but you because you just. 1016 00:52:12.719 --> 00:52:16.760 You just said no, but you. My world view is different. 1017 00:52:16.840 --> 00:52:19.360 I have a different account. You're not understanding that I 1018 00:52:19.400 --> 00:52:21.000 have a different account than you. 1019 00:52:21.119 --> 00:52:24.000 I understand that. I understand that you like to interrupt people. 1020 00:52:24.039 --> 00:52:26.960 Now and then this is where once again you're deflecting 1021 00:52:27.119 --> 00:52:31.119 because I brought you to a point. You said, you 1022 00:52:31.280 --> 00:52:34.960 just see it. What's the justification? Listen when you say joke, 1023 00:52:35.039 --> 00:52:37.760 what about you? That's a two quoke way. That's you 1024 00:52:37.760 --> 00:52:38.559 know what a two quoke way. 1025 00:52:39.840 --> 00:52:42.199 I asked you. I asked you if you had the 1026 00:52:42.280 --> 00:52:43.320 similar belief. 1027 00:52:43.000 --> 00:52:45.159 For thing, it doesn't matter what my similar blakes are. 1028 00:52:45.159 --> 00:52:47.440 I will go into you said, I will go into that. 1029 00:52:47.519 --> 00:52:49.559 It doesn't matter if I believe I have a different 1030 00:52:49.599 --> 00:52:50.920 account of immaterial hands? 1031 00:52:51.199 --> 00:52:52.960 Why why are you I have. 1032 00:52:52.880 --> 00:52:55.280 A different account of material things than you. 1033 00:52:55.320 --> 00:52:58.360 We were finally starting to get to talk like adults. 1034 00:52:58.400 --> 00:53:01.639 And again, now that you've been pinned down, you don't 1035 00:53:01.639 --> 00:53:06.039 want to go into it. What is the justification for 1036 00:53:06.440 --> 00:53:10.239 immaterial things? What is your justification for immaterial things? 1037 00:53:12.360 --> 00:53:17.280 What is my justification that immaterial immaterial things exist? So 1038 00:53:18.440 --> 00:53:20.599 first I started with existence exists, but you say that 1039 00:53:20.599 --> 00:53:22.239 that's not valid. But we'll just move on. 1040 00:53:23.280 --> 00:53:25.960 So well, you kind of admitted that there's problems for that, 1041 00:53:28.519 --> 00:53:32.800 nor did you demonstrate the actually did you demonstrate the 1042 00:53:32.800 --> 00:53:34.639 external world which you said it means. 1043 00:53:37.199 --> 00:53:41.039 I said that in order for us to have existence, 1044 00:53:41.039 --> 00:53:42.880 we have to exist in some type of thing. 1045 00:53:43.000 --> 00:53:46.800 Have you demonstrated that you demonstrate that? We know, you 1046 00:53:46.840 --> 00:53:49.199 said an external world. What if we live in a 1047 00:53:49.280 --> 00:53:51.960 mental world. You haven't proven that it's the external, material, 1048 00:53:51.960 --> 00:53:54.480 physical world that we have necessarily, you haven't proven that. 1049 00:53:54.519 --> 00:53:55.320 You've just asserted it. 1050 00:53:55.320 --> 00:53:57.719 The mind cannot the mind cannot exist without a material 1051 00:53:57.760 --> 00:53:58.360 How do you know that? 1052 00:53:58.400 --> 00:54:00.480 You just assert this. What's the justification for this? 1053 00:54:02.039 --> 00:54:07.440 Well, so the justification for how reason or consciousness comes 1054 00:54:07.480 --> 00:54:07.679 to be. 1055 00:54:08.800 --> 00:54:11.519 You keep asserting all kinds of metaphysical claims like that 1056 00:54:11.559 --> 00:54:14.679 there's immaterial realities, and you've not justified any of these. 1057 00:54:15.440 --> 00:54:18.000 We do exist in some form of existence, right, Let's 1058 00:54:18.079 --> 00:54:19.079 let's take into account. 1059 00:54:20.039 --> 00:54:24.039 I mean we exist in existence is basically a meaningless phrase. 1060 00:54:24.159 --> 00:54:29.079 Yeah, yeah, I'm going through it. Right, So we exist? 1061 00:54:29.239 --> 00:54:32.719 We could exist by your your you're asserting, what if 1062 00:54:32.719 --> 00:54:36.880 we exist in the frame of the mind. We would 1063 00:54:36.920 --> 00:54:43.639 then have to note that an existence must have some 1064 00:54:43.760 --> 00:54:46.039 form of identity specific. 1065 00:54:47.119 --> 00:54:49.239 How do we know that maybe it? Maybe it does. 1066 00:54:49.320 --> 00:54:52.280 Maybe we're all schizophrenic and our schema in our minds 1067 00:54:52.320 --> 00:54:53.880 don't match up to anything in the next wal world. 1068 00:54:53.920 --> 00:54:55.280 We just interpret it like it does. 1069 00:54:56.159 --> 00:54:58.880 Yees. So if if you deny the law of identity, 1070 00:54:59.079 --> 00:55:01.800 then then this our conversation is meaning so but wait. 1071 00:55:01.639 --> 00:55:04.320 A minute, you said that existence exists doesn't rely on 1072 00:55:04.360 --> 00:55:07.039 the law of identity earlier, Well. 1073 00:55:06.920 --> 00:55:09.840 We're moving, we moved past existence. What do you mean. 1074 00:55:10.559 --> 00:55:13.440 No, you're we're still talking about it. So you're saying 1075 00:55:13.480 --> 00:55:15.280 it does. It does rely on the law of the 1076 00:55:15.360 --> 00:55:16.039 law of identity. 1077 00:55:16.920 --> 00:55:19.800 If if the law of identity is no, I'm saying 1078 00:55:20.000 --> 00:55:23.480 that I'm moving from existence exists and then making. 1079 00:55:23.480 --> 00:55:26.679 That's a proposition that relies on the law of identity. 1080 00:55:26.760 --> 00:55:30.519 Obviously I'm making a separate claim, which is essentially that 1081 00:55:30.559 --> 00:55:31.320 the law of I didn't. 1082 00:55:33.000 --> 00:55:35.280 Okay, how do we know that the laws like that 1083 00:55:35.360 --> 00:55:37.719 and the classical Ristilian laws are the case and that 1084 00:55:37.760 --> 00:55:39.280 they apply and by the. 1085 00:55:39.199 --> 00:55:42.159 Way we perceive we perceive existence. 1086 00:55:41.800 --> 00:55:44.920 Perceiving existence, You don't understand that, you don't understand why 1087 00:55:45.000 --> 00:55:49.280 that doesn't answer that question. You're basically just saying you're 1088 00:55:49.280 --> 00:55:50.360 basically I'm. 1089 00:55:50.199 --> 00:55:53.880 Sorry, ahead, no, no, you go ahead. It's fine. 1090 00:55:54.679 --> 00:55:57.760 You're basically just saying that my position is the case, 1091 00:55:57.880 --> 00:56:00.519 because if you look at my position, it's that this 1092 00:56:00.679 --> 00:56:02.840 is the case, and that's what the words mean my position. 1093 00:56:05.880 --> 00:56:10.360 No. No, what I'm saying is that we again premise 1094 00:56:10.400 --> 00:56:13.360 one or action one I guess would be existences we 1095 00:56:13.400 --> 00:56:16.760 exist in some that to argue for. 1096 00:56:19.480 --> 00:56:20.119 How do you know that? 1097 00:56:20.320 --> 00:56:22.679 Is because of the negation. You can't argue against your 1098 00:56:22.719 --> 00:56:27.800 own existence. Do so presupposes existence, It's impossible, But you 1099 00:56:27.840 --> 00:56:28.360 have to exist. 1100 00:56:28.960 --> 00:56:31.719 I'm making the argument right now. And what if our 1101 00:56:31.960 --> 00:56:35.119 conceptual schema just seems to be the case in our 1102 00:56:35.199 --> 00:56:39.239 minds but doesn't apply to an actual external ontological existence. 1103 00:56:39.360 --> 00:56:41.119 How do we know? That is the question? And you 1104 00:56:41.119 --> 00:56:42.679 can you can say that because it has to be 1105 00:56:42.719 --> 00:56:45.199 that way, But that doesn't answer the objection or the defeater. 1106 00:56:45.760 --> 00:56:47.679 No, I'm saying that if you make the argument that 1107 00:56:47.800 --> 00:56:50.159 existence doesn't exist, fall into contradiction. 1108 00:56:50.320 --> 00:56:53.800 No, that's not the argument argument. The argument is that 1109 00:56:53.880 --> 00:56:58.400 existence exists necessarily applies to some external physical world. You 1110 00:56:58.400 --> 00:57:01.360 have not demonstrated the external world yet, and thus it's 1111 00:57:01.400 --> 00:57:04.880 not axiomatic because it relies on other positions and other beliefs. 1112 00:57:05.639 --> 00:57:08.679 Well, it's well, the first axiom is existence exists. Once 1113 00:57:08.719 --> 00:57:12.000 we recognize that one must exist in some capacity. 1114 00:57:12.280 --> 00:57:15.079 Then when you say one, you're just assuming the existence 1115 00:57:15.119 --> 00:57:16.800 of the self. Have you not read a critique of 1116 00:57:16.800 --> 00:57:17.519 the code. 1117 00:57:17.239 --> 00:57:19.599 Celf Well, of course, of course I'm assuming the existence 1118 00:57:19.639 --> 00:57:19.800 of this. 1119 00:57:20.039 --> 00:57:21.639 Well, then thank you. Then it's not self evident. It 1120 00:57:21.679 --> 00:57:24.199 assumes other things exactly, No. 1121 00:57:24.119 --> 00:57:25.559 It's the individual. 1122 00:57:26.000 --> 00:57:27.880 Does it assume the existence of the self. 1123 00:57:29.760 --> 00:57:31.960 It is the self that makes the argument? Is it not? 1124 00:57:32.199 --> 00:57:34.559 So? Is it assuming it is? The proposition? 1125 00:57:34.800 --> 00:57:38.400 To me? Would you okay, we'll put another axiom before it. 1126 00:57:38.519 --> 00:57:41.280 The self exists, an existence. 1127 00:57:40.800 --> 00:57:44.559 Exists, but you have no Now you're adding the moving 1128 00:57:44.599 --> 00:57:46.920 the goalpost to add another proposition ahead. 1129 00:57:46.760 --> 00:57:48.800 Adding the goal post. I'm saying that's fine. 1130 00:57:48.559 --> 00:57:51.920 I'll okay. Then if the second proposition exists, then it's 1131 00:57:51.920 --> 00:57:55.480 no longer self evident because it relies on another proposition. Obviously, 1132 00:57:56.559 --> 00:57:56.920 so the. 1133 00:57:56.880 --> 00:58:00.760 Self exists, right, you just agree that the self exit. 1134 00:58:01.000 --> 00:58:03.960 No, I'm saying it doesn't matter how you construct it. 1135 00:58:03.960 --> 00:58:07.599 It's no longer self evident because you're adding other propping 1136 00:58:07.679 --> 00:58:10.239 up beliefs. So if you look, if you study this, 1137 00:58:10.360 --> 00:58:11.360 it's it's no, it. 1138 00:58:11.320 --> 00:58:13.920 Is, it's self evident because the self is the one 1139 00:58:13.920 --> 00:58:14.760 that argues if. 1140 00:58:14.679 --> 00:58:19.760 Someone that's a category error, that's a category error talking 1141 00:58:19.800 --> 00:58:22.760 about the self does not make it self evident. That's 1142 00:58:22.840 --> 00:58:24.599 that's amazing mistake. Man. 1143 00:58:24.719 --> 00:58:28.159 No, No, it's not a category when when when I 1144 00:58:28.199 --> 00:58:31.280 say that something is the unavoidable axiom, what I'm saying 1145 00:58:31.320 --> 00:58:34.880 is that one a person that attempts to argue a self, 1146 00:58:34.920 --> 00:58:39.199 that attempts to argue against existence, is incapable of doing 1147 00:58:39.239 --> 00:58:42.599 so because they exist. They must exist in. 1148 00:58:42.639 --> 00:58:46.039 Order I know what says. I'm giving it the classic 1149 00:58:46.119 --> 00:58:46.800 critique of it. 1150 00:58:46.920 --> 00:58:50.920 A non an entity that doesn't exist can't make an 1151 00:58:51.039 --> 00:58:52.280 argument against. 1152 00:58:52.679 --> 00:58:54.239 You know, you're missing the point. 1153 00:58:54.280 --> 00:58:56.199 It's not they don't exist that you're. 1154 00:58:56.039 --> 00:58:58.639 You're not even getting what the point of the objection is. 1155 00:58:58.760 --> 00:59:02.599 It's not an objection about the ontological status of the 1156 00:59:02.679 --> 00:59:05.320 self or whatever. And you could go that route. It's 1157 00:59:05.360 --> 00:59:09.280 more fundamental than that that something axiomatic or what's called 1158 00:59:09.480 --> 00:59:17.679 dosastic or properly basic, cannot rest on any other assumptions, principles, 1159 00:59:17.760 --> 00:59:20.119 or things that have not yet been proven or else. 1160 00:59:20.159 --> 00:59:24.840 It is no longer doxastically basic, is no longer self evident. 1161 00:59:25.239 --> 00:59:27.920 And so every time you tackle on these other explanations, 1162 00:59:28.119 --> 00:59:30.920 you're just proving my point that it doesn't matter whether 1163 00:59:30.920 --> 00:59:34.880 you say, uh, the cogito or whether you say existence exists, 1164 00:59:35.280 --> 00:59:37.800 It doesn't answer the objection that I'm laying out That 1165 00:59:38.440 --> 00:59:38.719 is no. 1166 00:59:38.920 --> 00:59:47.639 So the argument, the argument for the for objective reality is. 1167 00:59:45.519 --> 00:59:50.079 I don't care about that objective route. You're saying one action, 1168 00:59:50.239 --> 00:59:52.880 asking me to justify you know, whether Christy, let me 1169 00:59:52.880 --> 00:59:53.199 ask you this. 1170 00:59:53.599 --> 00:59:59.719 You're asking me, you're asking me to justify this external reality. Okay, 1171 01:00:00.199 --> 01:00:04.400 and you were saying that an external reality comes from that, 1172 01:00:04.400 --> 01:00:08.559 that that this existence exists, you know, presupposes this external reality. 1173 01:00:08.800 --> 01:00:11.480 What I'm saying is is that existence exists is one 1174 01:00:11.760 --> 01:00:14.239 axiom of of of. 1175 01:00:14.360 --> 01:00:16.559 It doesn't matter that you say that it's one that 1176 01:00:16.639 --> 01:00:21.199 doesn't It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because that. 1177 01:00:21.400 --> 01:00:23.480 In order to justify object reality, I. 1178 01:00:23.440 --> 01:00:27.159 Don't think you know what entity and consciousness, Well, you 1179 01:00:27.159 --> 01:00:29.119 would need those things. But that's the point is that 1180 01:00:29.159 --> 01:00:30.960 you've not yet demonstrated those things. 1181 01:00:32.039 --> 01:00:32.280 Yeah. 1182 01:00:32.360 --> 01:00:35.679 So because if you say yes, if you say yes, 1183 01:00:36.119 --> 01:00:39.840 then you've admitted my point that it's not self evident, it. 1184 01:00:39.880 --> 01:00:42.280 Is existence exists is self evidence. 1185 01:00:42.480 --> 01:00:44.199 It's no, it is not. 1186 01:00:44.440 --> 01:00:44.800 Nor is. 1187 01:00:47.280 --> 01:00:49.880 Again. You keep saying it is that. You keep saying 1188 01:00:49.920 --> 01:00:52.119 it is that. But I've given you multiple reasons why 1189 01:00:52.159 --> 01:00:54.519 it doesn't get you to the justification for why you 1190 01:00:54.559 --> 01:00:55.039 say that. 1191 01:00:56.039 --> 01:01:01.840 No, what it gets existence exists again is one axiom? 1192 01:01:02.400 --> 01:01:04.519 Does it rely on other things? Does it rely on 1193 01:01:04.559 --> 01:01:06.559 other things? Does it rely on other things? 1194 01:01:08.000 --> 01:01:10.320 Does the existence exist rely on other things? No, it 1195 01:01:10.320 --> 01:01:12.480 doesn't rely on anything it is? 1196 01:01:12.639 --> 01:01:15.159 Does it rely Does the proposition rely on grammar? 1197 01:01:17.360 --> 01:01:20.800 You being able to communicate? That argument is not the same. 1198 01:01:20.639 --> 01:01:23.079 Thing as the truth value of the proposition. Does it 1199 01:01:23.119 --> 01:01:25.440 rely on grammar? To say it? 1200 01:01:25.519 --> 01:01:27.880 That's that's not an argument, It is an argument. 1201 01:01:27.920 --> 01:01:30.639 It's a classic critique. Does it rely on grammar? 1202 01:01:30.719 --> 01:01:33.679 If you say God is real and then someone just 1203 01:01:33.800 --> 01:01:38.320 changes the definition of God, well then then then that's 1204 01:01:38.360 --> 01:01:39.800 a failure of communication. 1205 01:01:40.039 --> 01:01:43.159 No, it's not. It's a classic critique of foundationalism. If 1206 01:01:43.159 --> 01:01:44.760 you knew the if you knew what I'm talking about, 1207 01:01:44.800 --> 01:01:45.079 you know that. 1208 01:01:45.360 --> 01:01:50.039 Critique to say that it relies on our ability to communicate. 1209 01:01:50.119 --> 01:01:51.519 Oh so wait a minute, so now it relies on 1210 01:01:51.559 --> 01:01:52.559 communication skills. 1211 01:01:53.519 --> 01:01:56.280 That's what you're saying, not me you're saying that language 1212 01:01:56.800 --> 01:01:58.039 is required so that we. 1213 01:01:57.960 --> 01:02:00.679 Know what the word correct. Propositions that are that have true, 1214 01:02:01.039 --> 01:02:06.239 propositions that have truth value require language. Right, assuming do 1215 01:02:06.280 --> 01:02:09.760 your propositions do they do they rely on language? 1216 01:02:11.960 --> 01:02:12.159 Yes? 1217 01:02:12.280 --> 01:02:14.840 Of course, argument, then they're not self evident. Thank you. 1218 01:02:15.320 --> 01:02:16.800 That's so stupid. 1219 01:02:17.280 --> 01:02:20.039 No, it's not the whole This is like you want 1220 01:02:20.039 --> 01:02:23.119 to go read J. Jay Wood's epistemology book where he 1221 01:02:23.119 --> 01:02:25.079 makes this very argument that you think is stupid. 1222 01:02:25.760 --> 01:02:29.599 I think it's absolutely How is it that this is 1223 01:02:29.639 --> 01:02:30.159 a word. 1224 01:02:31.079 --> 01:02:33.920 No, you don't know about linguistic philosophy. I'm pointing out 1225 01:02:33.960 --> 01:02:35.840 to you what a grad student would point out to 1226 01:02:35.880 --> 01:02:39.559 somebody who's in a sophomore philosophy that you don't realize 1227 01:02:39.599 --> 01:02:42.320 the assumptions that are being made. Right, just like when 1228 01:02:42.320 --> 01:02:47.079 Concretius Koge, when Concritique to Kog to listen. 1229 01:02:46.920 --> 01:02:51.039 We both realize, we both realize that language is a 1230 01:02:51.079 --> 01:02:52.199 tool of communicating. 1231 01:02:52.320 --> 01:02:54.920 You can call it that is, how does that? It 1232 01:02:54.960 --> 01:02:59.639 doesn't matter it's relying on communication and language, then it's 1233 01:02:59.639 --> 01:03:05.320 not off evidence if it relies on another thing, whether 1234 01:03:05.360 --> 01:03:10.840 it's time, determination, predication, grammar, linguistic structure, all of those 1235 01:03:10.880 --> 01:03:15.000 things negate the idea that it is self evident. Because 1236 01:03:15.000 --> 01:03:17.400 it is relying on other things, it is no longer 1237 01:03:17.400 --> 01:03:18.119 properly proper? 1238 01:03:18.559 --> 01:03:21.639 Can it be? Can it? Being of non existence? Green language? 1239 01:03:21.760 --> 01:03:23.920 That has nothing to do with answering this critique? 1240 01:03:24.719 --> 01:03:26.800 Can a being of can it? Being of non existence? 1241 01:03:26.840 --> 01:03:30.039 Has nothing to do being of non language? 1242 01:03:30.480 --> 01:03:35.039 A being of none existence, a being of a being 1243 01:03:34.480 --> 01:03:38.039 of non I don't know what language. 1244 01:03:38.519 --> 01:03:40.280 Do you know what a being of non existence is? 1245 01:03:40.920 --> 01:03:41.360 I don't know. 1246 01:03:42.079 --> 01:03:46.199 You seem a being of non existence is something incoherent. 1247 01:03:46.920 --> 01:03:53.119 Right because existence exists? Thank you? It is incoherent to being. 1248 01:03:53.280 --> 01:03:55.039 I mean, this is I'm trying to be. 1249 01:03:56.039 --> 01:03:58.880 So finally we've gotten to the point where you're accepting 1250 01:03:58.920 --> 01:04:00.280 existence exists. 1251 01:04:00.880 --> 01:04:04.800 I have Do you understand that you're not understanding what 1252 01:04:04.840 --> 01:04:07.840 the debate is? It's different accounts of that phrase. I 1253 01:04:07.880 --> 01:04:10.440 have no problem with the truth value. 1254 01:04:10.880 --> 01:04:13.719 The debate is tag and you're just fucking tag. 1255 01:04:13.880 --> 01:04:17.320 Is about worldview apologetics. That's the whole point and the thing. 1256 01:04:17.639 --> 01:04:19.639 Do you know what I mean? Look, when I say 1257 01:04:19.679 --> 01:04:22.360 something is when I say something is theory? Layden? Do 1258 01:04:22.360 --> 01:04:25.960 you know what I'm saying? Uh? 1259 01:04:26.000 --> 01:04:29.000 Well, according to according in epistemology. 1260 01:04:29.039 --> 01:04:31.840 Man, you keep saying, according to me, just in modern epistemology. 1261 01:04:31.960 --> 01:04:33.079 Do you know what I mean when I say that 1262 01:04:34.639 --> 01:04:35.280 that it uh? 1263 01:04:35.440 --> 01:04:38.000 If it's theory laden, I would I believe it's like 1264 01:04:39.920 --> 01:04:45.000 that there are ideas that predicate the concept. No, I'm 1265 01:04:45.039 --> 01:04:46.719 not without looking at it. 1266 01:04:46.719 --> 01:04:49.480 It's best, okay. So are you familiar with Kuon and paradigms? 1267 01:04:51.559 --> 01:04:54.719 Not? Not recently? I'm fucking I like my the last 1268 01:04:54.719 --> 01:04:57.920 time I took philosophy classes, like ten years ago, I've. 1269 01:04:57.760 --> 01:05:01.719 Forgotten a lot, right, So plain it's so. The whole 1270 01:05:01.719 --> 01:05:07.320 point of Kuhn's paradigm is that in the world, in 1271 01:05:07.400 --> 01:05:12.360 social discourse, in philosophy, people don't realize that their whole set, 1272 01:05:12.519 --> 01:05:15.800 their whole set of beliefs are actually based on a 1273 01:05:15.800 --> 01:05:18.760 web of beliefs or an entire paradigm, and that all 1274 01:05:18.840 --> 01:05:23.480 these things are interlinked and interconnected. Against the term epistemic wholeism, 1275 01:05:23.960 --> 01:05:27.199 And it's kind of it's kind of similar to coherence theory. 1276 01:05:27.239 --> 01:05:29.719 It's not identical to coherence theory, but it's the idea 1277 01:05:29.760 --> 01:05:33.519 that there's no self evident basic non theory laid in 1278 01:05:33.599 --> 01:05:36.119 propositions are truths, and language is another example of this 1279 01:05:36.239 --> 01:05:39.519 because language, for example, a single word usually comes with 1280 01:05:39.639 --> 01:05:43.079 a other set of words that help inform that word, 1281 01:05:43.519 --> 01:05:46.800 and there's nothing okay, so in the same way, same thing. 1282 01:05:46.840 --> 01:05:47.880 It's kind of like the same thing. 1283 01:05:48.119 --> 01:05:53.719 Deed constantly are well, I'm not a postmodernist, but Dereda 1284 01:05:54.000 --> 01:05:56.559 asked some of these questions. But more so relevant is 1285 01:05:56.599 --> 01:05:59.679 Wickenstein because when he talked about language games, he didn't 1286 01:05:59.719 --> 01:06:02.519 mean that just playing games. What he meant was that 1287 01:06:03.079 --> 01:06:06.519 language is a funny thing because the way language works 1288 01:06:06.599 --> 01:06:10.239 is that, yes, it's flexible, and yes it can be 1289 01:06:10.360 --> 01:06:12.880 you know, you can use different symbols to denote the 1290 01:06:12.880 --> 01:06:15.840 same idea. But the point is rather that it is 1291 01:06:15.960 --> 01:06:19.400 systemic and it's it's a holistic thing. 1292 01:06:19.519 --> 01:06:21.199 So how does how does this apply to? 1293 01:06:21.840 --> 01:06:24.800 Because what it shows because then listen because in the 1294 01:06:24.840 --> 01:06:28.079 history of the debate about self evident axioms, like the 1295 01:06:28.119 --> 01:06:31.960 way that Descartes, for example, said you know, I think right. 1296 01:06:32.039 --> 01:06:35.480 So if Descartes says this, what happens is that later 1297 01:06:35.599 --> 01:06:39.360 philosophy critiques it on many different grounds. For example, you 1298 01:06:39.400 --> 01:06:42.239 get cont saying that the problem with this being self 1299 01:06:42.280 --> 01:06:46.639 evident is that it presupposes time and space determination. Right, 1300 01:06:46.719 --> 01:06:49.679 because to say that I exist is to say that 1301 01:06:49.719 --> 01:06:52.159 I'm existing right now, which is a right now, is 1302 01:06:52.199 --> 01:06:56.079 a time determinant at the moment, at this instant. Okay, 1303 01:06:56.159 --> 01:07:00.360 but but the argument has not proven time as a 1304 01:07:00.400 --> 01:07:03.880 metaphysical concept or reality yet. And so Kant had a 1305 01:07:03.920 --> 01:07:09.000 good critique that if it's properly basic, it cannot rely 1306 01:07:09.159 --> 01:07:12.000 on another proposition or another principle or another belief that 1307 01:07:12.039 --> 01:07:14.679 has not yet been demonstrated. That's the point. Then you 1308 01:07:14.760 --> 01:07:18.719 get people saying it also is hold on. There's a 1309 01:07:18.280 --> 01:07:21.760 couple more critiques that you get bertrand Russell saying it's 1310 01:07:21.760 --> 01:07:25.119 a non sequitor. The fact that you say that you're 1311 01:07:25.159 --> 01:07:27.559 an eye does not prove that you exist in some 1312 01:07:27.760 --> 01:07:30.280 metaphysical reality. We don't know that yet. Maybe you do, 1313 01:07:30.440 --> 01:07:33.480 but how do we know that. It necessarily follows that 1314 01:07:33.719 --> 01:07:37.320 you have some sort of ontological existence in this world. 1315 01:07:37.760 --> 01:07:40.880 We don't know that yet. So we all agree, yeah, 1316 01:07:40.960 --> 01:07:42.719 we do exist in this world, and I agree with you. 1317 01:07:42.800 --> 01:07:44.280 But the point is that we got to have a 1318 01:07:44.360 --> 01:07:48.239 good account of these principles. You can't just give an 1319 01:07:48.239 --> 01:07:50.679 account that is arbitrary and at hawk. And that's why 1320 01:07:50.719 --> 01:07:54.880 I reject all classical foundationalists of pistemology. 1321 01:07:55.639 --> 01:07:58.719 So how do is so the problem that I'm having 1322 01:07:58.800 --> 01:08:06.679 here or whatever is I don't see it's it seems 1323 01:08:06.760 --> 01:08:12.599 you're saying, how do you justify existence exist when it 1324 01:08:12.639 --> 01:08:16.880 presupposes concept I guess, right, So that's. 1325 01:08:16.680 --> 01:08:18.720 Kind of not just concepts, But I mean, I don't 1326 01:08:18.720 --> 01:08:19.399 know what kind. 1327 01:08:19.239 --> 01:08:21.239 Of simplify that steel I'm trying to steal. Man. 1328 01:08:21.439 --> 01:08:23.880 It presupposes a lot of things, and I've listened a 1329 01:08:23.880 --> 01:08:25.359 bunch of them, and I mean, I don't think those 1330 01:08:25.399 --> 01:08:28.840 things are just conceptual. I think they're actual ontological structures 1331 01:08:28.840 --> 01:08:30.720 and things that exist. But if you want to call 1332 01:08:30.760 --> 01:08:31.720 them concepts. 1333 01:08:31.319 --> 01:08:38.279 Sure, right. But the issue that I have is in 1334 01:08:38.359 --> 01:08:41.359 almost all of those we we get to this position 1335 01:08:41.399 --> 01:08:45.560 where it's, well, how can those things be posited by 1336 01:08:45.880 --> 01:08:47.359 a being of non existence? 1337 01:08:48.000 --> 01:08:49.479 What does that mean? I don't know what you mean 1338 01:08:49.479 --> 01:08:50.880 by you about God. 1339 01:08:52.359 --> 01:08:54.520 I don't know, because you're you're the one that is 1340 01:08:54.960 --> 01:08:58.000 saying that that that there is this hole, there's this issue, 1341 01:08:58.000 --> 01:09:00.680 there's this possibility of exist since. 1342 01:09:00.640 --> 01:09:04.399 Not existing or I never said that. I said uncreated 1343 01:09:04.439 --> 01:09:07.159 existence is what God is and we are created existence. 1344 01:09:07.199 --> 01:09:08.760 I never said non existence. 1345 01:09:09.000 --> 01:09:11.199 By the virtue of arguing I know you're doing an 1346 01:09:11.239 --> 01:09:14.439 internal critique. I'm not necessarily leaking this claim down, right, 1347 01:09:14.479 --> 01:09:16.800 But what I mean is that if one is attempting 1348 01:09:16.840 --> 01:09:22.159 to argue that existence exists is false, then they must 1349 01:09:22.199 --> 01:09:22.600 believe it. 1350 01:09:22.800 --> 01:09:25.159 I didn't argue that no exist. I didn't argue it's false. 1351 01:09:26.079 --> 01:09:28.560 I argued that you have not given an account of 1352 01:09:28.600 --> 01:09:33.520 the proposition in an epistemic sense, right. 1353 01:09:33.439 --> 01:09:37.479 But this is the argument would be that if it 1354 01:09:37.520 --> 01:09:41.399 is impossible to argue against, then it must be true. 1355 01:09:42.920 --> 01:09:45.119 But you have not shown that it's impossible to argue against. 1356 01:09:45.119 --> 01:09:47.800 And that's why I gave the kantient retort, which is 1357 01:09:47.840 --> 01:09:51.239 that just because it seems impossible to me does not 1358 01:09:51.359 --> 01:09:53.119 mean that it is ontologically the case. 1359 01:09:54.520 --> 01:09:56.520 Yeah, I mean, if we're trying to, like, if we're 1360 01:09:56.520 --> 01:09:59.079 trying to make an argument from like a asmology or something, 1361 01:09:59.119 --> 01:10:01.840 I totally agree, right, Like we could we could go 1362 01:10:01.880 --> 01:10:05.000 out and observe reality and make a claim, is this 1363 01:10:05.119 --> 01:10:08.279 is true? And you know, we have imperfect knowledge and 1364 01:10:08.359 --> 01:10:11.720 there is at some point, you know, a paradigm something, 1365 01:10:11.920 --> 01:10:14.359 so like it's not it's not necessarily proven to be true. 1366 01:10:14.359 --> 01:10:17.319 It's like a balance of probabilities that we assume to 1367 01:10:17.359 --> 01:10:20.439 be true so that we can function. The argument isn't 1368 01:10:20.800 --> 01:10:23.920 a pistemologically saying. So what I'm saying is that it's 1369 01:10:23.960 --> 01:10:28.840 impossible for one to argue against and that is you 1370 01:10:28.880 --> 01:10:32.920 against existence, because one must exist in order. 1371 01:10:33.239 --> 01:10:36.399 You're missing the whole of what you're missing. The point 1372 01:10:36.479 --> 01:10:39.600 of the retorts to things like the Kogito, the point 1373 01:10:39.600 --> 01:10:42.079 of the retorts is not to deny them. The point 1374 01:10:42.079 --> 01:10:43.840 of the retorts is to point out that you need 1375 01:10:43.920 --> 01:10:47.600 good reasons for why that's the case. I believe it 1376 01:10:47.640 --> 01:10:51.359 is the case. Right, You could say, you know, we 1377 01:10:51.760 --> 01:10:53.920 I believe in the self. I believe in identity over time. 1378 01:10:53.960 --> 01:10:56.039 I believe in you know, the external world. I believe 1379 01:10:56.079 --> 01:10:58.439 in causation. I believe in all these things. It's just 1380 01:10:58.479 --> 01:11:01.880 that my account of those things, and hence justification is 1381 01:11:01.920 --> 01:11:04.880 a different account than the account that you're giving. So 1382 01:11:04.920 --> 01:11:08.800 when I use it, So let's and that's what justification 1383 01:11:08.880 --> 01:11:09.239 is about. 1384 01:11:09.319 --> 01:11:11.960 Let's let's let's let's just say we're at an impasse. 1385 01:11:12.039 --> 01:11:17.560 You don't believe that my arguments are sustasion justify. Its fine, 1386 01:11:18.039 --> 01:11:19.399 I'm okay with that. I don't want to I don't 1387 01:11:19.439 --> 01:11:22.520 want to beat that for so long that everyone is 1388 01:11:22.560 --> 01:11:26.319 fucking annoyed, which they probably already are. It's fine. So 1389 01:11:26.840 --> 01:11:30.239 and you believe that an external world exists, So moving 1390 01:11:30.279 --> 01:11:32.840 on those moving on to that, let's move into your 1391 01:11:32.920 --> 01:11:36.279 worldview and why you believe that you have an appropriate 1392 01:11:36.319 --> 01:11:41.479 account of those things that my uh that my grounding fails. 1393 01:11:44.199 --> 01:11:46.960 Right. So, if God exists, then we have a world 1394 01:11:47.000 --> 01:11:52.680 where there is a basis for metaphysical principles, epistemic principles, 1395 01:11:52.760 --> 01:11:57.199 laws of logic, critical thinking, moral absolute, ethical claims. Because 1396 01:11:57.239 --> 01:11:59.199 man has made the image of God, the world operates 1397 01:11:59.199 --> 01:12:02.720 on a regular fact and that it has divine providence 1398 01:12:02.720 --> 01:12:05.800 which assures the you know, regularity of nature, which is 1399 01:12:05.800 --> 01:12:11.640 the basis of all science and empirical sense data. I 1400 01:12:11.680 --> 01:12:14.399 have a reasoning faculty, which I have by virtue of 1401 01:12:14.399 --> 01:12:16.359 being made in the image of God. And so I'm 1402 01:12:16.399 --> 01:12:18.479 a little g God who can reason about the world 1403 01:12:18.479 --> 01:12:21.960 and make decisions and do things, create things. Right, I'm 1404 01:12:21.960 --> 01:12:24.960 a little creator because God is a creator. So for me, 1405 01:12:25.239 --> 01:12:28.720 the divine the existence of God and his self, disclosure 1406 01:12:28.760 --> 01:12:32.359 about who he is, and divine revelation is itself the 1407 01:12:32.399 --> 01:12:37.039 basis for how things like the preconditions or categories for 1408 01:12:37.079 --> 01:12:39.760 the possibility of knowledge are the case. So because God 1409 01:12:39.800 --> 01:12:43.239 is omniscient, because he has intentionality as being a person 1410 01:12:43.279 --> 01:12:47.079 and not an impersonal force, and because the world is 1411 01:12:47.119 --> 01:12:50.359 external to him and it's not identical to him, I 1412 01:12:50.399 --> 01:12:53.000 can have the ability to make these kinds of distinctions 1413 01:12:53.039 --> 01:12:56.680 and set boundaries. I can make, you know, I can 1414 01:12:56.720 --> 01:12:59.800 do things in the world because of that being made 1415 01:13:00.039 --> 01:13:04.039 bind image and also the way that I go about predicating. Uh, 1416 01:13:04.079 --> 01:13:10.000 you know, sentences, structure, language structure, grammar, universals, numbers, those 1417 01:13:10.039 --> 01:13:14.640 things exist outside of the mere human empirical individual sense 1418 01:13:14.760 --> 01:13:18.600 data examples because they are grounded in a divine mind. 1419 01:13:18.720 --> 01:13:27.399 This is called divine conceptualism, which itself is omniscient, omnipresent, eternally. No, 1420 01:13:27.560 --> 01:13:31.119 he's an idealist and an empiricist idealist. I'm not arguing 1421 01:13:31.119 --> 01:13:33.239 that at all. I'm arguing the transcendental argument. 1422 01:13:34.960 --> 01:13:38.640 Okay, I thought he was the guy like God. It's 1423 01:13:38.680 --> 01:13:40.880 the observers, so it's that problem or whatever. 1424 01:13:42.000 --> 01:13:44.560 He's an empirical idealist. He thinks that God is the 1425 01:13:44.600 --> 01:13:48.159 great mind and that the rest of us are just 1426 01:13:48.520 --> 01:13:51.560 other minds observing other ideas. 1427 01:13:51.560 --> 01:13:53.319 So he believes thought that, Yeah, I thought. 1428 01:13:54.119 --> 01:13:55.920 No, No, I'm not saying that all reality is that it 1429 01:13:56.119 --> 01:13:56.760 is right. 1430 01:13:57.439 --> 01:13:57.720 Okay. 1431 01:13:57.880 --> 01:14:00.319 So now I'm not an empirical idealist like Berkeley. I'm 1432 01:14:00.399 --> 01:14:04.720 arguing for Christian theism that there's a creator and there's 1433 01:14:04.760 --> 01:14:08.560 the creative. So fundamental reality fundamentally is two different things, 1434 01:14:08.600 --> 01:14:09.640 created and uncreated. 1435 01:14:11.199 --> 01:14:18.399 Okay, So, so things exist outside of the mind. You're 1436 01:14:18.439 --> 01:14:21.159 You're not You're not like a Berkeley like you we 1437 01:14:21.159 --> 01:14:22.119 we we agree. 1438 01:14:21.880 --> 01:14:26.000 That there's an external world substances, substances of course. 1439 01:14:26.680 --> 01:14:34.439 Okay, okay, So why is it you're saying God is necessary? 1440 01:14:34.640 --> 01:14:37.720 Where where are you making that? I heard a lot 1441 01:14:37.760 --> 01:14:38.319 of God. God. 1442 01:14:38.319 --> 01:14:41.960 I would say God is these things. God is necessary 1443 01:14:42.039 --> 01:14:45.199 in the sense that he's the only He's the necessary 1444 01:14:45.399 --> 01:14:51.000 justification for the transcendental categories that make knowledge possible. Only 1445 01:14:51.039 --> 01:14:55.760 that type of a being could ground things like universals. 1446 01:14:57.239 --> 01:15:00.039 So, and I'm not trying to be an asshole. I 1447 01:15:00.720 --> 01:15:03.079 I'm just I'm genuinely trying to get your position here. 1448 01:15:03.479 --> 01:15:05.640 How is this not like a God of the gaps ar? 1449 01:15:06.119 --> 01:15:07.239 How is this not just? 1450 01:15:07.960 --> 01:15:08.640 Well? 1451 01:15:08.840 --> 01:15:13.279 I believe God exists because only God could fix all 1452 01:15:13.319 --> 01:15:16.960 of these problems that I see in the philosophy. Therefore 1453 01:15:17.680 --> 01:15:18.840 you know, one and done. 1454 01:15:18.720 --> 01:15:21.000 We're good. Because it's a much stronger than a claim 1455 01:15:21.039 --> 01:15:23.239 than God of the gaps. It's actually saying that any 1456 01:15:23.439 --> 01:15:28.600 possible predication assumes transcendental categories, and transcendental categories assume God, 1457 01:15:28.640 --> 01:15:30.960 so it's much strong. It's not just saying that wherever 1458 01:15:31.000 --> 01:15:33.239 I see a gap, I'm gonna stick God in. It's 1459 01:15:33.279 --> 01:15:36.119 actually saying that you couldn't make a sentence in a 1460 01:15:36.199 --> 01:15:38.479 coherent justph all the way without God's existence. 1461 01:15:39.520 --> 01:15:41.840 How so where are you getting that? Where you're getting 1462 01:15:41.840 --> 01:15:42.159 that from? 1463 01:15:42.199 --> 01:15:43.159 That? 1464 01:15:45.000 --> 01:15:48.319 No? No, no, no, yeah, I'm saying like where, well, sure, 1465 01:15:48.359 --> 01:15:50.279 like you know, I can, we can all make verguments 1466 01:15:50.880 --> 01:15:54.439 true false. So my ax, I'm saying, when you say 1467 01:15:54.479 --> 01:15:58.800 that God is necessary for any transcendental category, where are 1468 01:15:58.800 --> 01:15:59.800 you getting that from? 1469 01:16:00.159 --> 01:16:03.199 Because there is no other being that could justify the 1470 01:16:03.239 --> 01:16:06.000 transcendental categories by definition by what they are. 1471 01:16:06.760 --> 01:16:08.359 So how does God justify those? 1472 01:16:09.399 --> 01:16:13.039 Because He's the only being that could ground them by 1473 01:16:13.079 --> 01:16:14.880 the y virtue of who and what he is I 1474 01:16:14.920 --> 01:16:18.640 listed earlier, Because he's omniscient, because of the omnies, because 1475 01:16:18.680 --> 01:16:23.279 he's excuse me, omnipresent, because he has personal person, not 1476 01:16:23.399 --> 01:16:26.000 an intentionality that gives us a basis for things like 1477 01:16:26.439 --> 01:16:29.920 tilos in the world uh, and also things like causation. 1478 01:16:30.159 --> 01:16:33.159 So without God's existence, you couldn't have a justification for 1479 01:16:33.920 --> 01:16:38.399 universal telos teleology, nor could you have a justification for causation. 1480 01:16:41.720 --> 01:16:45.119 But I still haven't. You haven't answered my question out. 1481 01:16:45.800 --> 01:16:46.159 You haven't. 1482 01:16:46.199 --> 01:16:50.840 You've just said is because of because of the impossibility 1483 01:16:50.840 --> 01:16:53.760 of the contrary, which is the internal critique of the 1484 01:16:53.840 --> 01:16:56.960 other world views or your world worldview, and the other 1485 01:16:57.359 --> 01:17:01.159 the other argument, the other half of it is earlier on. 1486 01:17:01.279 --> 01:17:03.119 You said earlier that that's not an argument. 1487 01:17:03.239 --> 01:17:07.800 You can't just the other part of the the other correct. 1488 01:17:08.039 --> 01:17:10.520 And that's why if I only had an internal critique, 1489 01:17:10.520 --> 01:17:13.479 I would agree with you that my position wouldn't achieve justification. 1490 01:17:13.600 --> 01:17:16.119 That's why you also have to give the positive case 1491 01:17:16.600 --> 01:17:19.840 for why the trinitarian deity is the one that does 1492 01:17:20.039 --> 01:17:23.479 justifying ground them right within that paradigm, within the Christian paradigm, 1493 01:17:23.520 --> 01:17:28.399 it makes sense why there would be rationality like that. 1494 01:17:29.159 --> 01:17:30.880 Can you make that argument because as of right now 1495 01:17:30.920 --> 01:17:31.920 we're kind of on equal. 1496 01:17:31.680 --> 01:17:35.840 Footing the argument right because in the Christian paradigm, right 1497 01:17:35.920 --> 01:17:38.880 where God exists, it's a trinity. He creates man in 1498 01:17:38.920 --> 01:17:41.600 his image. I'm saying that the world view of Christianity 1499 01:17:42.399 --> 01:17:46.119 makes a coherent sense of why there would be things 1500 01:17:46.159 --> 01:17:50.159 like universals, because for in this case, God is omniscient 1501 01:17:50.319 --> 01:17:53.159 and there are divine ideas, and the universals are grounded 1502 01:17:53.159 --> 01:17:55.439 in the divine mind. If you don't have a divine mind, 1503 01:17:55.640 --> 01:17:58.159 there's no basis for universals, and thus there's no basis 1504 01:17:58.159 --> 01:17:58.800 for predication. 1505 01:18:01.560 --> 01:18:03.600 Yeah, I'm not, but I'm not actually hearing. You're just 1506 01:18:03.600 --> 01:18:05.760 saying the Christian doctrine says so. 1507 01:18:06.479 --> 01:18:09.840 No, it's a paradigm argument, and that's the argument, is 1508 01:18:09.880 --> 01:18:11.920 that it's a comparison of one paradigm versus the other. 1509 01:18:12.000 --> 01:18:14.880 If my paradigm gives an account for it and yours doesn't, 1510 01:18:15.000 --> 01:18:16.800 then this paradigm is correct. 1511 01:18:17.359 --> 01:18:19.640 Well, I'm asking for the account like you're just you're 1512 01:18:19.680 --> 01:18:21.479 just restating the account. 1513 01:18:21.800 --> 01:18:25.560 Is the Christian paradigm compared to your paradigm, that's the account. 1514 01:18:26.560 --> 01:18:28.840 But we can't be compared to my paradigm. 1515 01:18:28.439 --> 01:18:32.159 Because of course the argument is the argument is comparison. 1516 01:18:32.640 --> 01:18:35.199 Like the same reason that you said that mine is. 1517 01:18:35.039 --> 01:18:38.239 Not the argument. No, it's not you're missing the point. 1518 01:18:38.279 --> 01:18:41.560 So you're assuming that the argument for the argumentation at 1519 01:18:41.560 --> 01:18:43.479 a paradigm level is not the same thing. It's the 1520 01:18:43.560 --> 01:18:46.680 argumentation on a mundane first order level. So this is 1521 01:18:46.720 --> 01:18:49.000 a meta level argument. So it's an argument about the 1522 01:18:49.039 --> 01:18:52.319 possibility of arguments. So if my position can give an 1523 01:18:52.359 --> 01:18:56.239 account for within its paradigm, how it's possible to have 1524 01:18:56.560 --> 01:19:00.800 laws of logic, universals, metaphysical categories, et cetera, all the 1525 01:19:00.800 --> 01:19:03.279 things I've been listing, and your position doesn't give an 1526 01:19:03.279 --> 01:19:05.399 account for it, then my position is correct. 1527 01:19:07.600 --> 01:19:11.439 So you're what is given an accounting, so that there 1528 01:19:11.520 --> 01:19:12.920 is one? What is the argument? 1529 01:19:13.039 --> 01:19:16.520 The argument is that I need universals, I need these categories. 1530 01:19:16.600 --> 01:19:19.560 God is the only possible being in Christian revelation has 1531 01:19:19.680 --> 01:19:24.079 given that disclosure as to who God is. Divine conceptualism 1532 01:19:24.119 --> 01:19:26.000 grounds the universal categories. How's that? 1533 01:19:27.960 --> 01:19:30.359 But again it gets suspected, like the God of the gaps. 1534 01:19:30.439 --> 01:19:32.800 It's not God of the gaps. It's a God of 1535 01:19:33.760 --> 01:19:36.479 The argument is all predication, not God of the gaps. 1536 01:19:36.520 --> 01:19:38.359 That's what you're missing. So God of the gaps is 1537 01:19:38.399 --> 01:19:40.720 this idea that whenever there's a problem, I can just 1538 01:19:40.760 --> 01:19:43.159 kind of stick God in there. This is a way 1539 01:19:43.199 --> 01:19:47.119 stronger claim that all predication requires a certain type of 1540 01:19:47.239 --> 01:19:51.079 world and certain types of transcendental categories. And I'm saying 1541 01:19:51.079 --> 01:19:54.079 that to have the transcendental categories requires some kind of 1542 01:19:54.479 --> 01:19:58.399 metaphysical justification and grounding itself. The only type of being 1543 01:19:58.479 --> 01:20:01.960 who could possibly ground those in a coherent way is 1544 01:20:02.039 --> 01:20:02.560 our God. 1545 01:20:02.880 --> 01:20:06.119 That's the argument, my my argument, And I want you 1546 01:20:06.199 --> 01:20:09.239 to tell me why what I'm saying is false so 1547 01:20:09.279 --> 01:20:13.880 that I can better understand, which is this sence exists 1548 01:20:14.199 --> 01:20:17.479 because it's impossible to argue against it. Right that a being, 1549 01:20:18.079 --> 01:20:22.079 a being you know, making argumentation, exists in some pass 1550 01:20:22.600 --> 01:20:26.680 to argue against their own existence, would would would negate, 1551 01:20:26.720 --> 01:20:28.399 it would be false, like it would just be false, 1552 01:20:28.479 --> 01:20:32.199 it would be it would be like a performative contradiction minimum. 1553 01:20:32.479 --> 01:20:36.239 And then your argument is when I'm asking you, like, 1554 01:20:36.279 --> 01:20:39.840 how do you justify that God solves this problem? Is 1555 01:20:39.920 --> 01:20:43.319 that it's impossible to argue against it because you need 1556 01:20:43.359 --> 01:20:46.119 these other categories. Sounds like we're making the exist. 1557 01:20:46.159 --> 01:20:51.600 If I again, if I only did, if I only 1558 01:20:51.640 --> 01:20:53.760 did an internal critique, I would agree with you. That 1559 01:20:53.800 --> 01:20:56.359 doesn't necessarily mean that my position is correct, but if 1560 01:20:56.359 --> 01:20:59.960 I also offer a counter worldview to you which does 1561 01:21:00.159 --> 01:21:03.640 ground and give an account for universal categories, et cetera, 1562 01:21:03.760 --> 01:21:07.359 all those things that I listed, then that's the positive side, 1563 01:21:07.359 --> 01:21:08.800 and that's where it gets a justification. 1564 01:21:11.079 --> 01:21:13.560 But but but I can do the same thing, right, 1565 01:21:13.640 --> 01:21:16.479 which is what if existence exists identity? 1566 01:21:17.000 --> 01:21:19.159 No, you didn't. You didn't give a justification. You didn't 1567 01:21:19.159 --> 01:21:20.199 give any kind of justification. 1568 01:21:20.520 --> 01:21:23.720 You just asserted, well, we we got bogged down, and 1569 01:21:23.760 --> 01:21:25.000 existence exists quite a bit. 1570 01:21:25.640 --> 01:21:28.119 I never heard a justification argument at all. 1571 01:21:28.279 --> 01:21:32.039 So existence exists would be like axiom one, axiom two 1572 01:21:32.119 --> 01:21:33.359 would be the law. 1573 01:21:33.640 --> 01:21:36.199 You didn't prove your axioms on. 1574 01:21:37.920 --> 01:21:40.600 Oh, you haven't proven yours. You're just saying God exists. 1575 01:21:40.640 --> 01:21:42.600 Yeah, but I'm not a classical foundationalist. You're trying to 1576 01:21:42.600 --> 01:21:44.720 hold me to your standards. I don't have that same system. 1577 01:21:45.840 --> 01:21:48.399 Just just God. Must God adhere to logic? Or can 1578 01:21:48.439 --> 01:21:49.239 God be logical? 1579 01:21:49.359 --> 01:21:52.239 God is the basis for logic, is my argument. 1580 01:21:52.800 --> 01:21:54.600 So so can God contradict? 1581 01:21:55.039 --> 01:21:55.239 No? 1582 01:21:56.439 --> 01:21:59.720 Okay, so if God can't contradict, then we agree regardless 1583 01:21:59.720 --> 01:22:01.399 of what Ever, that. 1584 01:22:01.359 --> 01:22:04.960 Doesn't mean the account is so Again, you keep confusing 1585 01:22:05.039 --> 01:22:10.279 agreement with account of the agreement. I have a different agreement. 1586 01:22:09.560 --> 01:22:11.319 So we can move forward in the argument. 1587 01:22:11.399 --> 01:22:14.479 But it doesn't work because you're missing. But the reason 1588 01:22:14.520 --> 01:22:17.239 that doesn't work to move forward is that you're not understanding. 1589 01:22:17.239 --> 01:22:20.079 It's two rival paradigms trying to give an account for 1590 01:22:20.159 --> 01:22:23.039 the same types of things. And my argument is that 1591 01:22:23.399 --> 01:22:26.399 my paradigm can give an account and your paradigm cannot. 1592 01:22:26.560 --> 01:22:29.079 And not only can your paradigm, not your paradigm cannot 1593 01:22:29.119 --> 01:22:31.840 make knowledge possible. It's even stronger than God of the Gaps. 1594 01:22:33.079 --> 01:22:35.840 How the fuck? How is knowledge impossible under my. 1595 01:22:35.800 --> 01:22:39.520 Paradigm because you cannot give a justification for the assertions. 1596 01:22:39.720 --> 01:22:43.159 That's the point. If you don't get the justification, then 1597 01:22:43.159 --> 01:22:45.960 you don't get the assertions given to you. That's what 1598 01:22:46.000 --> 01:22:46.840 philosophy does. 1599 01:22:47.960 --> 01:22:50.640 Okay, so it's import well, I mean obviously knowledge. 1600 01:22:50.640 --> 01:22:54.199 It's again you keep saying obviously, and I don't grant 1601 01:22:54.239 --> 01:22:56.720 you any of those things. You have not you've not 1602 01:22:56.800 --> 01:23:00.039 yet proven that anything is self evident. You just asserted, Okay. 1603 01:23:01.079 --> 01:23:03.119 This is what happens when you interrupt people, so that 1604 01:23:03.279 --> 01:23:04.039 you start. 1605 01:23:03.800 --> 01:23:07.279 To start That's because the whole argument was continually based 1606 01:23:07.319 --> 01:23:10.319 on you just asserting and believing in self evident principles, 1607 01:23:10.359 --> 01:23:12.079 and I mean I can give you. Do you want 1608 01:23:12.079 --> 01:23:12.960 to go into another. 1609 01:23:13.279 --> 01:23:15.960 With your own argument of tag? Your own argument of tag. 1610 01:23:16.680 --> 01:23:18.640 It's not a classical foundational. 1611 01:23:18.479 --> 01:23:21.119 Necessary conditions, right, So that's. 1612 01:23:20.960 --> 01:23:26.319 Not what self evidence is. That's not what you even by. Okay, brother, 1613 01:23:26.560 --> 01:23:29.039 that's not what self evidence is. So you're trying to 1614 01:23:29.039 --> 01:23:32.439 hold me to a criteria external to my worldviewer system. 1615 01:23:32.479 --> 01:23:33.159 And it doesn't work. 1616 01:23:34.319 --> 01:23:36.840 I said knowledge exists, and then you jump down my throat. 1617 01:23:36.960 --> 01:23:39.319 I don't grant you that. So again, what is that 1618 01:23:39.960 --> 01:23:43.600 you don't understand that it doesn't that doesn't apply to 1619 01:23:43.600 --> 01:23:43.880 the men. 1620 01:23:44.479 --> 01:23:46.279 You won't even agree with your own argument. 1621 01:23:46.399 --> 01:23:50.000 No, I have a different account. It's a different account. Actually, 1622 01:23:51.039 --> 01:23:52.239 it's a different account. 1623 01:23:52.239 --> 01:23:57.039 Man, does or does not your argument hinge upon the 1624 01:23:57.079 --> 01:24:01.000 fact that there are that knowledge, all these. 1625 01:24:00.840 --> 01:24:04.640 Things, but those all of those words, these are necessary, 1626 01:24:04.720 --> 01:24:08.079 All of those words are conditioned by my paradigm and 1627 01:24:08.199 --> 01:24:08.840 not your parents. 1628 01:24:09.359 --> 01:24:11.279 How am I supposed to have a conversation? 1629 01:24:11.680 --> 01:24:14.159 The point is that you can't have It's not it's 1630 01:24:14.159 --> 01:24:16.319 a debate, and that's why you're being held to the 1631 01:24:16.359 --> 01:24:18.960 standards of critical things on logic, and you don't get 1632 01:24:19.000 --> 01:24:19.800 to assert things. 1633 01:24:20.000 --> 01:24:23.199 Hold on, Hold on, relax. How am I supposed to 1634 01:24:23.239 --> 01:24:27.720 have any meaningful debate if you if I make a 1635 01:24:27.760 --> 01:24:31.199 statement and you immediately interrupt said statement, and that statement 1636 01:24:31.279 --> 01:24:32.960 is even part of your own. 1637 01:24:32.960 --> 01:24:37.640 Argument, because come on, because it's not getting to an 1638 01:24:37.720 --> 01:24:40.279 understanding the point of what the debate is. You don't 1639 01:24:40.359 --> 01:24:43.840 understand the difference between Like I. 1640 01:24:43.840 --> 01:24:46.960 Said, obviously knowledge exists. I said three words. 1641 01:24:47.000 --> 01:24:50.000 I don't agree. Again, you don't understand part of your 1642 01:24:50.000 --> 01:24:53.119 own argos. It doesn't matter because I have a different account. 1643 01:24:53.399 --> 01:24:55.119 So understand that this is like the word. Remember when 1644 01:24:55.159 --> 01:24:56.000 we're talking about the words. 1645 01:24:56.039 --> 01:24:58.680 You mean a different account, a different account. 1646 01:24:59.159 --> 01:25:01.039 It's it doesn't matter matter how many words it is, 1647 01:25:01.479 --> 01:25:05.039 it's a totally different account, no matter what, no matter what, yes, 1648 01:25:05.239 --> 01:25:11.279 everything in the paradigm. I said that you haven't given 1649 01:25:11.319 --> 01:25:13.760 a justification, which I don't think you understand what the 1650 01:25:13.800 --> 01:25:22.199 word means. Still for the assertions of self evidence, and 1651 01:25:22.279 --> 01:25:25.359 my position does not believe in self evidence or ad 1652 01:25:25.399 --> 01:25:28.359 hoc assertions. So you have the burden of proof on 1653 01:25:28.439 --> 01:25:31.880 you if you start your position and your system with that, 1654 01:25:31.920 --> 01:25:34.840 with self evidence and things being properly basic. 1655 01:25:35.560 --> 01:25:38.399 We I'm not allowed to apparently make my. 1656 01:25:38.520 --> 01:25:41.760 Arg what you We've been talking fine for the last hour. 1657 01:25:41.800 --> 01:25:42.239 What do you mean? 1658 01:25:43.600 --> 01:25:45.600 I keep trying to get through it and you keep 1659 01:25:45.760 --> 01:25:49.000 just going back to existence exists. We've hifted over to yours, 1660 01:25:49.039 --> 01:25:55.800 but you never just I'm trying again, So I'm shifting 1661 01:25:55.840 --> 01:25:58.279 over to yours. We can do an internal critique of yours, and. 1662 01:25:58.279 --> 01:26:01.800 I'm trying, but you're in eternal partique is not internal. 1663 01:26:01.880 --> 01:26:08.439 It's your system. Brother, You're asking me, you're you're critiquing 1664 01:26:08.439 --> 01:26:11.359 me from classical foundationalism, and that's not my system. It 1665 01:26:11.359 --> 01:26:11.920 doesn't work. 1666 01:26:12.720 --> 01:26:17.880 Oh listen, I'm trying to I'm I am. I am 1667 01:26:17.920 --> 01:26:21.680 here genuinely listening to you as you lay out large 1668 01:26:21.800 --> 01:26:25.079 arguments trying to steal man your You're not giving me 1669 01:26:25.119 --> 01:26:28.399 the same grace it's making just being able to even have. 1670 01:26:28.319 --> 01:26:29.680 A debate or okay, there you go. 1671 01:26:30.960 --> 01:26:35.000 Right. So I'm trying to understand right where it is 1672 01:26:35.039 --> 01:26:39.840 that why it is that when you plug God into 1673 01:26:39.920 --> 01:26:42.520 the equator, all that sticks. 1674 01:26:42.279 --> 01:26:45.359 Is not just plugging God in, it's pointing out that 1675 01:26:45.640 --> 01:26:49.680 the paradigm itself is coherent, consistent, has explanatory power, and 1676 01:26:49.720 --> 01:26:53.000 gives a justification for human knowledge, because it's a paradigm 1677 01:26:53.079 --> 01:26:56.720 level argument. I am not plugging in. This is why 1678 01:26:56.960 --> 01:26:59.720 I can already tell where the error is and what 1679 01:26:59.720 --> 01:27:03.039 you're assessing. You're assessing that my position is God of gaps, 1680 01:27:03.600 --> 01:27:06.479 And for the third time, it's a much stronger argument 1681 01:27:06.520 --> 01:27:09.439 than God of the gaps, which is that all predication 1682 01:27:09.560 --> 01:27:13.840 and knowledge requires the transcendental categories my position. I know 1683 01:27:13.880 --> 01:27:15.960 you don't accept the argument or believe that what I'm 1684 01:27:15.960 --> 01:27:18.840 saying is necessarily the case, but the argument is that 1685 01:27:19.760 --> 01:27:24.119 in my worldview or paradigm, there is a coherent, sensible 1686 01:27:24.640 --> 01:27:27.800 account of why there would be the self, the external 1687 01:27:27.880 --> 01:27:32.840 world logic, et cetera. That is contrasted to your entire 1688 01:27:33.000 --> 01:27:36.840 worldview and system in paradigm, which cannot give an account 1689 01:27:37.079 --> 01:27:41.439 for even the transcendental categories themselves. That's the force of 1690 01:27:41.479 --> 01:27:42.000 the argument. 1691 01:27:43.159 --> 01:27:44.920 I'm genuinely not trying to accuse you. 1692 01:27:45.279 --> 01:27:48.319 It's a it's a meta level argument, and you're trying 1693 01:27:48.319 --> 01:27:50.479 to argue on a non meta level. That's the point. 1694 01:27:50.520 --> 01:27:51.359 That's the problem we're having. 1695 01:27:52.600 --> 01:27:56.000 My problem is that and you say that it's somehow 1696 01:27:56.039 --> 01:27:59.760 false to say you plug gotten, But maybe I'm. 1697 01:27:59.560 --> 01:28:02.079 Just dumb, like you know what a meta level argument 1698 01:28:02.199 --> 01:28:03.720 versus a first order argument. 1699 01:28:03.800 --> 01:28:09.640 Is I mean, like meta would be the meta would 1700 01:28:09.640 --> 01:28:12.880 be like the thing of itself, as opposed to like 1701 01:28:12.960 --> 01:28:13.680 the minute ship. 1702 01:28:15.000 --> 01:28:17.159 Right, So, in other word, like logic itself, how is 1703 01:28:17.199 --> 01:28:20.159 logic itself logical? Or how do we know that it works? 1704 01:28:20.239 --> 01:28:20.399 Right? 1705 01:28:20.520 --> 01:28:24.399 Versus you know, a more mundane claim like and you're correct? 1706 01:28:24.439 --> 01:28:24.760 I agree? 1707 01:28:24.840 --> 01:28:24.960 Right? 1708 01:28:25.000 --> 01:28:26.880 So, like if I said, well, you know, does Bill 1709 01:28:26.920 --> 01:28:28.640 Cosby live next door to me? I don't know. I'll 1710 01:28:28.640 --> 01:28:33.279 have to go, you know, empirically investigate it, right, Debating 1711 01:28:33.319 --> 01:28:36.760 the status of logic itself is way more devastating and 1712 01:28:36.800 --> 01:28:41.079 important and more fundamental to my worldview. No, I agree, okay, 1713 01:28:41.079 --> 01:28:44.399 So that's why this debate is a meta level worldview 1714 01:28:44.479 --> 01:28:45.079 level debate. 1715 01:28:45.319 --> 01:28:48.279 I didn't, I didn't. I didn't disagree with you on that. 1716 01:28:48.359 --> 01:28:50.960 Okay. So then the torchs that you're giving are not 1717 01:28:51.199 --> 01:28:55.640 understanding that in my system, God is the justification for 1718 01:28:55.720 --> 01:28:58.680 the transceital categories, because he's the only possible being who 1719 01:28:58.680 --> 01:29:00.960 could ground them. And you're saying, how do we know that? 1720 01:29:00.960 --> 01:29:04.359 What's the justification? The system itself in terms of revealed 1721 01:29:04.399 --> 01:29:08.079 theism is the justification in my paradigm, so you could say, well, 1722 01:29:08.079 --> 01:29:09.840 I don't accept that. That's fine, but. 1723 01:29:10.359 --> 01:29:12.439 Yeah, I just like I just I'm trying to see 1724 01:29:12.640 --> 01:29:15.920 I'm trying. So I said, if you plug God in, 1725 01:29:16.119 --> 01:29:16.920 and you took. 1726 01:29:17.600 --> 01:29:21.800 It's not plugging God in. It's stronger than for the 1727 01:29:21.840 --> 01:29:25.359 third time, the reason you said God of the gaps twice, 1728 01:29:25.439 --> 01:29:28.119 and I'm pointing out that it's way stronger argument or 1729 01:29:28.159 --> 01:29:30.960 claim than God of the gaps. God of the Gap says, 1730 01:29:30.960 --> 01:29:32.920 where I see a problem, I stick God in there 1731 01:29:32.960 --> 01:29:34.960 to try to make sense of it. This is more 1732 01:29:34.960 --> 01:29:38.199 fundamental than that. This is saying all human knowledge and 1733 01:29:38.199 --> 01:29:42.640 predication requires the existence of our God, who grounds the 1734 01:29:42.680 --> 01:29:43.560 transl categories. 1735 01:29:44.359 --> 01:29:46.239 How are we justifying that. 1736 01:29:48.000 --> 01:29:51.319 Necessary by the impossibility of the opposing worldview not even 1737 01:29:51.359 --> 01:29:53.479 being able to give an account for anything. It's a 1738 01:29:53.520 --> 01:29:56.359 disjunctive argument, but. 1739 01:29:56.439 --> 01:29:58.840 The only way that so the way that you're you're 1740 01:29:58.880 --> 01:30:04.079 able to say knowledge to exist because and I had 1741 01:30:04.159 --> 01:30:05.279 I don't have this God to. 1742 01:30:06.039 --> 01:30:09.800 Solve that, to solve the basis for the transcentional categories. 1743 01:30:10.520 --> 01:30:13.840 So you appeal to things like being is being, existence 1744 01:30:13.880 --> 01:30:16.119 is existence, things that are just supposed to be self evident. 1745 01:30:16.560 --> 01:30:19.159 And that's why I went through deconstructing how that's not 1746 01:30:19.199 --> 01:30:19.800 self evident? 1747 01:30:22.079 --> 01:30:25.279 Well, I don't, I disagree. I'm trying to. I'm I'm 1748 01:30:25.279 --> 01:30:26.880 trying to get to a point where we can where 1749 01:30:26.880 --> 01:30:28.720 we can have this conversation. But I feel like we're 1750 01:30:28.760 --> 01:30:31.199 kind of just at a point where we just disagree versions. 1751 01:30:31.359 --> 01:30:37.000 I mean, this is so I disagree that like just 1752 01:30:37.079 --> 01:30:40.720 plugging in this concept that like, oh, well God justifies 1753 01:30:40.760 --> 01:30:44.039 everything and therefore you know if there are any issues, so. 1754 01:30:44.039 --> 01:30:46.600 Your answer is just existence exists. 1755 01:30:47.560 --> 01:30:49.680 My yeah, I mean like that would be the fundamentals. 1756 01:30:50.279 --> 01:30:53.520 So can I say, could I say so if I 1757 01:30:53.560 --> 01:30:54.479 come to it's. 1758 01:30:54.159 --> 01:30:55.239 The exact same argument. 1759 01:30:55.279 --> 01:30:59.520 No, it's not my argument. Your argument is your argument was. 1760 01:30:59.680 --> 01:31:04.239 On on My argument is existence exists. And we go, well, 1761 01:31:04.319 --> 01:31:07.079 you can't justify that, and I say, well, it's impossible 1762 01:31:07.079 --> 01:31:11.920 to arguement. And then your argument is God exists, and 1763 01:31:12.000 --> 01:31:14.279 I say, well can you justify that? And say, well, 1764 01:31:14.319 --> 01:31:16.479 you can't argue against that because all of the. 1765 01:31:16.399 --> 01:31:20.000 Things I said twice, I said twice, you're not listening. 1766 01:31:20.000 --> 01:31:22.199 I said twice that if I only gave an in, 1767 01:31:23.039 --> 01:31:25.399 if I only gave an internal critique, you would be correct. 1768 01:31:25.399 --> 01:31:28.720 I already said this twice. That's why you also counter 1769 01:31:29.039 --> 01:31:33.399 with the positive case explaining the paradigm in the worldview, 1770 01:31:33.800 --> 01:31:37.119 because you're debating, we're debating things like logic and existence 1771 01:31:37.159 --> 01:31:39.319 in this language and this kind of stuff that are 1772 01:31:39.479 --> 01:31:42.000 within the paradigm, within the system, so they're going to 1773 01:31:42.000 --> 01:31:46.000 be conditioned by the systems. That's why the transcendental argument 1774 01:31:46.159 --> 01:31:50.079 is literally saying that all argumentation at this level, at 1775 01:31:50.119 --> 01:31:53.520 this fundamental level, is a paradigm level argument because there 1776 01:31:53.600 --> 01:31:56.000 is no self evident principle. So every time you try 1777 01:31:56.000 --> 01:31:59.840 to critique me on your classical foundationalist basis, you're proving 1778 01:31:59.840 --> 01:32:04.319 my point and not understanding that within the paradigm justification 1779 01:32:04.520 --> 01:32:07.840 makes sense because God literally is the only being who 1780 01:32:07.840 --> 01:32:11.000 could ground those things. For example, let's let's make it 1781 01:32:11.079 --> 01:32:13.680 let's make it clear. How could I put this into 1782 01:32:13.720 --> 01:32:17.800 an either or either the world Either the world is 1783 01:32:17.960 --> 01:32:23.920 at a universal sense disteleological, or there is tellos, there 1784 01:32:23.960 --> 01:32:28.760 is purpose, there is teleology operant in the world. And 1785 01:32:29.279 --> 01:32:31.600 maybe you could come up with some mixed third position 1786 01:32:31.640 --> 01:32:33.199 where it's a little bit of both or something if 1787 01:32:33.199 --> 01:32:36.960 you had. But in this disjunctive there's only two and 1788 01:32:37.000 --> 01:32:41.560 perhaps three options for an entire worldview. If you if 1789 01:32:41.600 --> 01:32:44.439 you answer either way on this, you're gonna be led 1790 01:32:44.479 --> 01:32:47.119 to my position. And that's the that's the force of 1791 01:32:47.159 --> 01:32:51.960 the transcendental argument. You can take anything causation, teleology, pencils, 1792 01:32:52.000 --> 01:32:54.760 predication and make the transcendental argument. 1793 01:32:57.680 --> 01:33:00.640 How am I so, well, then let's walk Mut's make 1794 01:33:00.680 --> 01:33:03.439 it super simple. Either blue T shirts exist or blue 1795 01:33:03.439 --> 01:33:04.439 T shirts don't exend. 1796 01:33:04.640 --> 01:33:09.079 You know, I gave it this theological versus a teleological world, right, 1797 01:33:10.760 --> 01:33:11.560 that was my exams. 1798 01:33:12.119 --> 01:33:14.479 So either meaning exists or meaning doesn't exist. 1799 01:33:14.680 --> 01:33:16.960 Well, it's purpose in the world at a at a 1800 01:33:17.000 --> 01:33:19.880 grand scale, or there is no purpose in a grand scale. 1801 01:33:20.760 --> 01:33:25.520 Okay, I was using meaning and purpose, you know, simplify 1802 01:33:25.600 --> 01:33:29.000 the argument, right, like, so either meaning exists or meaning 1803 01:33:29.039 --> 01:33:30.800 doesn't exit. And you're saying that. 1804 01:33:30.760 --> 01:33:33.279 If at a at a universal level, not at a 1805 01:33:33.319 --> 01:33:34.199 subjective level. 1806 01:33:35.640 --> 01:33:39.000 Okay, So then yes, so I would so meaning at 1807 01:33:39.000 --> 01:33:42.920 a universal level doesn't exit. We'll take that. We'll take that. 1808 01:33:43.520 --> 01:33:47.560 My argument would be meaning does not exist at a 1809 01:33:47.720 --> 01:33:50.479 universal level for for all all beings. 1810 01:33:50.479 --> 01:33:53.119 Thank you. Then how do I then if that's the 1811 01:33:53.239 --> 01:33:57.600 universal status of that proposition or claim. If that is 1812 01:33:57.640 --> 01:34:00.960 the case, then every particular case her status of so 1813 01:34:01.000 --> 01:34:04.720 called meaning is also encapsulated under the ultimate non meaning. 1814 01:34:04.800 --> 01:34:07.760 So every argument you make is based on meaninglessness. 1815 01:34:11.359 --> 01:34:13.359 And how does God? How does? How does how does 1816 01:34:13.399 --> 01:34:17.000 the existence of a non or uncreated existence? 1817 01:34:17.479 --> 01:34:21.520 Because God is because God is personal and intentional, and 1818 01:34:21.640 --> 01:34:25.279 intentionality means that there is a meaningful world at a universal, 1819 01:34:25.359 --> 01:34:26.079 grand scale. 1820 01:34:27.680 --> 01:34:33.119 Okay, So so essentially where it's like a sart No. 1821 01:34:33.119 --> 01:34:36.079 It's not at all, it's not. It's not. It's a 1822 01:34:36.119 --> 01:34:38.680 transcendental argument for teleology. 1823 01:34:39.520 --> 01:34:42.640 Why do you know I was saying, So it's it's 1824 01:34:42.760 --> 01:34:46.720 it's similar to like if God doesn't exist in everything's permitted. 1825 01:34:49.319 --> 01:34:51.960 I mean, that's a boil down ethical version of it. 1826 01:34:52.000 --> 01:34:54.319 But I'm making another. I'm making more of a metaphysical 1827 01:34:54.399 --> 01:34:57.720 argument about purpose and teleology and intentionality that the universe 1828 01:34:57.760 --> 01:35:01.399 does not at a grand scale have that then than 1829 01:35:01.439 --> 01:35:04.119 what we're The only other option is what's called accidentalism 1830 01:35:04.319 --> 01:35:07.920 or dysteleology. And if that's the case, then hold on. 1831 01:35:08.000 --> 01:35:10.600 If that's the case, then knowledge is no longer possible. 1832 01:35:11.720 --> 01:35:13.840 Why is knowledge? Because let's stick to me. 1833 01:35:14.239 --> 01:35:18.760 Because now everything is accidental. Now everything is accidental. I'm 1834 01:35:18.760 --> 01:35:21.560 going to answer question. Because everything is now accidental, including 1835 01:35:21.640 --> 01:35:24.920 every action of knowledge is an accident. And thus there's 1836 01:35:25.000 --> 01:35:29.039 no laws of thought or laws of reasoning which are 1837 01:35:29.079 --> 01:35:33.560 necessary for the possibility of meaningful discourse. You would negate 1838 01:35:33.600 --> 01:35:34.760 the possibility laws you. 1839 01:35:34.680 --> 01:35:36.640 Don't need you don't need it. You don't need a 1840 01:35:36.680 --> 01:35:38.039 god for that exist. 1841 01:35:38.079 --> 01:35:41.920 There are no immaterial laws. You keep saying that, But 1842 01:35:41.960 --> 01:35:46.319 there's what's the justification for immaterial laws? If everything is 1843 01:35:46.359 --> 01:35:47.000 an accident? 1844 01:35:48.119 --> 01:35:51.039 I So first, let's let's go buy this piece PIPI. 1845 01:35:51.640 --> 01:35:55.680 So I recognize that people want to discover meaning in 1846 01:35:55.720 --> 01:35:56.119 their life. 1847 01:35:56.840 --> 01:36:00.159 But okay, hold. 1848 01:36:00.079 --> 01:36:05.199 On, why is it that meaning is a necessary condition 1849 01:36:05.399 --> 01:36:08.720 for the universe? Why must the universe have meaning? 1850 01:36:08.880 --> 01:36:15.520 Because to have justified knowledge you need intentionality, purpose and 1851 01:36:15.840 --> 01:36:19.560 laws of thought and grammar, and those things cannot exist 1852 01:36:19.640 --> 01:36:23.159 in a world that is ultimately, purely and totally accidental. 1853 01:36:24.720 --> 01:36:32.119 So well yeah, well okay, so if if if if 1854 01:36:32.159 --> 01:36:35.560 things have identities right, like a like a like a 1855 01:36:35.640 --> 01:36:38.960 rabbiting system, and that is, you know, rabbit naings, that 1856 01:36:39.000 --> 01:36:42.840 thing has it's we can describe what it is. Why 1857 01:36:43.000 --> 01:36:48.640 is God a necessary element or conscious being able? 1858 01:36:48.840 --> 01:36:53.479 Because if the total existence is because because it's not 1859 01:36:53.840 --> 01:36:55.399 justified that's why let me. 1860 01:36:55.399 --> 01:36:58.600 Finished, let me finds. So why is it that I 1861 01:36:58.680 --> 01:37:01.800 can see, like, why is God a necessary element for 1862 01:37:02.000 --> 01:37:05.640 me to see a rabbit that is named Steve and 1863 01:37:05.880 --> 01:37:09.720 perceive the behaviors that the rabbit. Again, it's the things 1864 01:37:09.840 --> 01:37:10.520 the rabbit does. 1865 01:37:11.800 --> 01:37:14.560 The fact that you have the knowledge does not equate 1866 01:37:14.600 --> 01:37:17.439 to you justifying the knowledge. That's what this whole debate 1867 01:37:17.479 --> 01:37:21.079 has been about. Justification is not pragmatism. It's not you 1868 01:37:21.239 --> 01:37:23.159 just having it. It's not you asserting it. It's not 1869 01:37:23.199 --> 01:37:26.479 you believing in self evident assertions. It's you giving an 1870 01:37:26.520 --> 01:37:29.800 account for the things that make it possible. So you 1871 01:37:29.840 --> 01:37:31.439 can say, well, I have. 1872 01:37:33.119 --> 01:37:34.760 So it wouldn't be able to justify them. 1873 01:37:34.760 --> 01:37:37.359 That's correct. So if you say, well, I believe that 1874 01:37:37.399 --> 01:37:40.840 I've found meaning and predicating about my pet rabbits, and 1875 01:37:40.880 --> 01:37:43.960 it gives me the solace I get warm feelies over it. 1876 01:37:44.479 --> 01:37:47.640 In the grand scheme, In the grand scheme, when you 1877 01:37:47.720 --> 01:37:51.319 die and you go into the nothingness, that is gone, 1878 01:37:51.479 --> 01:37:55.000 and so it has no relevance or reference to the 1879 01:37:55.079 --> 01:37:57.920 universe as a whole. And so ultimately, even though you 1880 01:37:58.000 --> 01:38:00.920 might have subjectively felt like there was me, there there 1881 01:38:00.960 --> 01:38:05.079 is no meaning beyond your own personal subjective creating of meaning. 1882 01:38:05.119 --> 01:38:06.800 So there is no Tels in your position? 1883 01:38:07.000 --> 01:38:08.119 Right, But why does that matter? 1884 01:38:08.920 --> 01:38:13.000 Because knowledge can no longer be epistemically justified if the 1885 01:38:13.119 --> 01:38:15.600 universe is accidental and disteleological. 1886 01:38:16.199 --> 01:38:18.800 If I live a life, and how does that get 1887 01:38:18.800 --> 01:38:23.439 you justification? Hold on, if I live a life and right, 1888 01:38:23.479 --> 01:38:25.720 and then the world moves on without me for a 1889 01:38:25.760 --> 01:38:29.920 million years? Right, whatever my actions are had some effect 1890 01:38:29.920 --> 01:38:33.239 on the world. But why does like why what? What 1891 01:38:33.359 --> 01:38:37.159 is this you're you're positing that a grand vision or 1892 01:38:37.239 --> 01:38:38.239 meaning is necessary. 1893 01:38:38.279 --> 01:38:41.720 It's called accidentalism disteleological. Right, this is actually a fa 1894 01:38:42.279 --> 01:38:47.600 a famous argument. Right, If the universe at a grand 1895 01:38:47.640 --> 01:38:54.960 scale is accidental and distillological, then by necessity, every particular person, object, 1896 01:38:55.279 --> 01:38:59.439 and thing within is also accidental, and thus there is 1897 01:38:59.520 --> 01:39:04.319 no base this for logic knowledge in a just victory sense, 1898 01:39:04.479 --> 01:39:07.199 because there are no laws of thought because they are 1899 01:39:07.239 --> 01:39:10.399 also accidental and dissiological and with no purpose. 1900 01:39:13.520 --> 01:39:14.159 Okay, So. 1901 01:39:16.159 --> 01:39:21.039 If the grand scale universal is purposeless, all the particular 1902 01:39:21.039 --> 01:39:22.119 parts are purposeless. 1903 01:39:26.000 --> 01:39:28.760 But it doesn't it doesn't actually answer the question you're 1904 01:39:28.800 --> 01:39:31.439 just saying, because it doesn't have propose like we can 1905 01:39:31.479 --> 01:39:31.840 we can. 1906 01:39:31.760 --> 01:39:33.920 Look at again for the third time, to have the 1907 01:39:34.039 --> 01:39:36.359 laws of no hold on for the laws of thought. No, 1908 01:39:36.760 --> 01:39:39.279 I'm not interrupting for having the laws of thought. Let 1909 01:39:39.279 --> 01:39:42.159 me explain it. Let me explain it. For having You 1910 01:39:42.199 --> 01:39:45.279 can't have language without the laws of thought. 1911 01:39:45.359 --> 01:39:48.199 Oh my god, Oh my god, oh my god. Brother, 1912 01:39:49.199 --> 01:39:52.239 I'm letting you make your full argument and then taking 1913 01:39:52.239 --> 01:39:53.199 that argument. 1914 01:39:53.479 --> 01:40:02.399 You can't have language is very law. Come on, man, Okay. 1915 01:40:02.439 --> 01:40:06.920 So I'm trying to like, I'm not like, I'm not. 1916 01:40:07.479 --> 01:40:09.920 I'm asking you a question and I'm not getting an answer. 1917 01:40:10.159 --> 01:40:14.319 What I'm getting is that what I'm getting is you're 1918 01:40:14.479 --> 01:40:20.079 appealing to the people's desire. No, I didn't for purpose 1919 01:40:20.119 --> 01:40:24.000 and meaning, I'm asking. 1920 01:40:22.600 --> 01:40:24.880 Where did I ever say where did I ever say that? 1921 01:40:24.880 --> 01:40:27.319 That's totally not true? I said, you're not You're not. 1922 01:40:27.760 --> 01:40:29.399 I said, you're doing. 1923 01:40:29.479 --> 01:40:32.279 By not actually answering the question, which is why. 1924 01:40:32.119 --> 01:40:34.800 The very beginning point was about the universe as a 1925 01:40:34.800 --> 01:40:40.840 whole having either a teleological intentionality purpose behind it or 1926 01:40:40.920 --> 01:40:43.800 it's purely accidental at a grand scale. That was what 1927 01:40:43.880 --> 01:40:45.960 I said, very clear, And there's only two options here, 1928 01:40:46.079 --> 01:40:47.319 Or if you want to say there's a mix, you 1929 01:40:47.319 --> 01:40:49.760 could have a third option. And you said, well, but 1930 01:40:49.800 --> 01:40:52.479 how does that mean I can't justify knowledge? And I said, 1931 01:40:52.520 --> 01:40:56.439 because if the universe is purely accidental, all the so 1932 01:40:56.680 --> 01:41:00.159 called laws within it, including the laws of thought, the 1933 01:41:00.239 --> 01:41:06.479 laws of logic, mathematical laws, are also thus accidental and 1934 01:41:06.600 --> 01:41:11.359 have no purpose. And so your arguments right now have 1935 01:41:11.600 --> 01:41:13.920 no purpose by your own admission. 1936 01:41:20.279 --> 01:41:25.720 If so, you're saying that purpose and meaning is required 1937 01:41:25.720 --> 01:41:26.239 for let's. 1938 01:41:26.039 --> 01:41:31.359 Saying a world with no purpose and no meaning cannot 1939 01:41:31.359 --> 01:41:34.000 give rise to universal. 1940 01:41:34.319 --> 01:41:36.720 Maybe I need a better definition of what you mean 1941 01:41:37.840 --> 01:41:42.359 when you're making the arguments like teleology, purpose meaning, et cetera. 1942 01:41:42.520 --> 01:41:45.159 Like what you mean in this regards the universe as 1943 01:41:45.159 --> 01:41:47.960 a whole in all of its parts have a directed, 1944 01:41:48.079 --> 01:41:50.119 intentional purpose or they do not. 1945 01:41:52.039 --> 01:41:54.760 Okay, Well, like a heart pumps blood. The purpose of 1946 01:41:54.800 --> 01:41:57.920 the heart is to pump blood. Why is God necessary 1947 01:41:58.239 --> 01:42:00.000 for the For the heart to pump blood? 1948 01:42:04.359 --> 01:42:09.399 The justification for tilos in a universal sense requires some 1949 01:42:09.760 --> 01:42:12.680 universal being or thing to ground it and justify it. 1950 01:42:12.720 --> 01:42:13.479 That's the argument. 1951 01:42:13.640 --> 01:42:16.159 So okay, well, why is God necessary for that? 1952 01:42:16.840 --> 01:42:19.119 God is the only being who could give an account 1953 01:42:19.159 --> 01:42:22.079 for that. 1954 01:42:22.079 --> 01:42:23.239 That's not answering my question. 1955 01:42:23.319 --> 01:42:25.199 It is just you don't like to answer. But what 1956 01:42:25.239 --> 01:42:25.920 other being could? 1957 01:42:26.000 --> 01:42:27.840 Why is God necessary? 1958 01:42:28.239 --> 01:42:31.079 Because he's the only type of being who could give 1959 01:42:31.079 --> 01:42:32.079 an account? 1960 01:42:33.159 --> 01:42:35.800 I can give it a I can give an account of. 1961 01:42:36.079 --> 01:42:39.880 But you already admit it because your account, your account 1962 01:42:40.000 --> 01:42:44.159 is not Your account is not universally Your accounts is subjective. 1963 01:42:44.840 --> 01:42:48.560 Your account is subjective and not universally true. That's the point. 1964 01:42:50.279 --> 01:42:53.119 So you're saying that another person could have an interpretation 1965 01:42:53.199 --> 01:42:53.600 of the heart. 1966 01:42:53.720 --> 01:42:57.880 No, I'm asking about your assertion of universals now, and 1967 01:42:57.920 --> 01:42:59.880 you don't have a justification for how there's universe. 1968 01:43:07.119 --> 01:43:08.840 I would depend it would depend upon what we mean 1969 01:43:08.880 --> 01:43:11.439 when we're talking about like the purpose of inanimate objects? 1970 01:43:11.479 --> 01:43:14.840 Right, No, you said that this is Is it true? 1971 01:43:15.039 --> 01:43:16.159 Is it universally true? 1972 01:43:17.720 --> 01:43:21.239 That that the if we're talking about the specific identity? Yes, 1973 01:43:21.279 --> 01:43:22.319 it is universally true. 1974 01:43:22.640 --> 01:43:25.359 How do you have knowledge of the universal? How do 1975 01:43:25.399 --> 01:43:30.359 you have knowledge of universals as a individual, finite empirical being. 1976 01:43:31.199 --> 01:43:33.600 I have consciousness. Consciousness gives me. 1977 01:43:33.680 --> 01:43:36.840 How does having consciousness prove the existence of universals? 1978 01:43:38.199 --> 01:43:43.399 Well, consciousness is alitional. It's not what it's volitional, it's intentional. 1979 01:43:43.520 --> 01:43:46.000 It's like it's it's like the consciousness. 1980 01:43:46.039 --> 01:43:49.479 Okay, you keep what is the proof of the justification 1981 01:43:49.520 --> 01:43:53.560 that you have these things? You keep asserting it. We 1982 01:43:54.920 --> 01:43:56.279 have to Can I come to the debate and just 1983 01:43:56.319 --> 01:43:58.960 say God just Can I come to the debate and 1984 01:43:58.960 --> 01:43:59.720 say God just is? 1985 01:44:00.800 --> 01:44:02.239 I feel like that's kind of what you're doing. No. 1986 01:44:02.319 --> 01:44:04.439 I made a transcend in argument which you just don't understand, 1987 01:44:04.439 --> 01:44:06.359 and you're coming to bet and saying what existence just is? 1988 01:44:06.479 --> 01:44:07.520 And it just is? 1989 01:44:09.199 --> 01:44:13.600 Well, you're I fail to see the distinction between I 1990 01:44:13.640 --> 01:44:16.359 really do, but you'll just say that it's like I'm 1991 01:44:16.399 --> 01:44:17.600 dumb or something. It's fine. 1992 01:44:18.159 --> 01:44:20.880 Again, the distinction is that you're not justifying all of 1993 01:44:20.920 --> 01:44:23.239 these assertions and beliefs and dog you have a bunch 1994 01:44:23.239 --> 01:44:28.600 of dogmas that you've not justified. You on your paradigm, 1995 01:44:29.600 --> 01:44:33.920 on your paradigm. That okay, well, so is everything. You said, 1996 01:44:33.960 --> 01:44:37.680 everything is an accident, everything is without purpose. And you said, 1997 01:44:37.680 --> 01:44:39.279 but in my personal life, I can say that the 1998 01:44:39.319 --> 01:44:41.880 heart beats, okay, And then you said that that's universe. 1999 01:44:41.920 --> 01:44:44.159 That's you said, that's universally true. You don't have a 2000 01:44:44.279 --> 01:44:48.720 justification for universals because universals are No, it's not you 2001 01:44:48.760 --> 01:44:51.319 can say that, but you've contradicted it by saying that 2002 01:44:51.359 --> 01:44:54.079 the universe as a whole is also purposeless. That means 2003 01:44:54.079 --> 01:44:56.119 that your universal claims are also purposeless. 2004 01:44:57.159 --> 01:44:59.680 Again, this is why I asked you to clarify on 2005 01:44:59.760 --> 01:45:02.720 your meanings of like purposeless purposefulness. 2006 01:45:02.840 --> 01:45:07.039 There's no purpose he lows to anything. That means your 2007 01:45:07.199 --> 01:45:08.800 arguments are no have no. 2008 01:45:08.760 --> 01:45:12.359 Purpose when we take you're so frustrated. 2009 01:45:12.760 --> 01:45:15.760 Because you're losing at this point, it's a very obvious points. 2010 01:45:16.560 --> 01:45:20.279 If everything is meaninglessness, then your arguments are meaningless. 2011 01:45:20.319 --> 01:45:23.399 Brother, brother, for the loves God whining? 2012 01:45:23.479 --> 01:45:25.199 Do we don't care about your whining? 2013 01:45:26.279 --> 01:45:27.920 I know that you don't care about my learning. It's 2014 01:45:27.920 --> 01:45:30.560 because you're a rude right regardless. 2015 01:45:30.600 --> 01:45:34.960 So everything is purposelessness, everything is meaningless, purposelesslessness, but your 2016 01:45:35.159 --> 01:45:37.560 universal truth. You said that, Yes, you did. You said 2017 01:45:37.600 --> 01:45:41.439 the universe was purposeless. You said that you are. You 2018 01:45:41.479 --> 01:45:44.079 said at a grand scale, it was you gave. 2019 01:45:44.399 --> 01:45:47.720 You gave an argument that said there's optional option, be 2020 01:45:48.000 --> 01:45:50.279 potentially a mixed You said that too, I said, And 2021 01:45:50.399 --> 01:45:54.680 you said that these will necessitate God when we follow 2022 01:45:54.720 --> 01:45:55.119 them through. 2023 01:45:55.199 --> 01:45:57.960 So I said, sure, I said you right, And you 2024 01:45:58.079 --> 01:45:58.720 said that. 2025 01:45:58.720 --> 01:46:02.479 I'm saying the universe purposefuls, it's meaningless or whatever. 2026 01:46:02.560 --> 01:46:17.640 Right, but there's only two options on this question. Bad faith, dude, 2027 01:46:17.680 --> 01:46:18.640 nobody's buying. 2028 01:46:18.439 --> 01:46:20.680 Your bullshit bad faith. 2029 01:46:20.720 --> 01:46:23.239 When you say, if there's only two options, then that 2030 01:46:23.319 --> 01:46:25.880 must be your positions, right, I say, let's all. 2031 01:46:25.880 --> 01:46:28.279 Right, let's pick one and let's follow your logic. 2032 01:46:28.600 --> 01:46:31.039 Is that not your positions? Is it not your position? 2033 01:46:31.199 --> 01:46:33.039 I don't know that. I don't I would, I would 2034 01:46:33.199 --> 01:46:35.760 genuinely and honestly have to think about it. 2035 01:46:36.039 --> 01:46:37.800 Okay, then you're not in a position to give a 2036 01:46:37.880 --> 01:46:40.119 justification for universal claims by that admission. 2037 01:46:42.760 --> 01:46:46.479 I'm not in a position to give universal claims because 2038 01:46:46.520 --> 01:46:49.000 I don't know whether or not one specific claim. 2039 01:46:49.079 --> 01:46:53.159 Something because of the no, because of intentionality and tilos. 2040 01:46:53.520 --> 01:46:57.479 If the universe is universally purposeless and meaningless, and now 2041 01:46:57.479 --> 01:46:59.680 you're saying, well, I don't actually believe that, then you 2042 01:46:59.720 --> 01:47:00.880 are arguing in bad faith. 2043 01:47:01.880 --> 01:47:04.039 How am I arguing in bad faith just because I 2044 01:47:04.039 --> 01:47:04.600 don't like? 2045 01:47:04.640 --> 01:47:07.159 I would say like, because there's only two options in 2046 01:47:07.159 --> 01:47:09.880 this question, for there's only two options for anyone. 2047 01:47:09.880 --> 01:47:10.119 No, No. 2048 01:47:10.800 --> 01:47:15.119 The whole chat is you're over, you are this is 2049 01:47:15.800 --> 01:47:21.640 shush me, this is I'm gonna know you. Nobody's buying 2050 01:47:21.640 --> 01:47:25.159 the bullshit man, and you're I'm not lying. You literally 2051 01:47:25.159 --> 01:47:26.399 contradicted yourself again. 2052 01:47:26.560 --> 01:47:30.199 No, listen again. Your claim now is that it is 2053 01:47:30.600 --> 01:47:31.560 talk about meta car. 2054 01:47:32.079 --> 01:47:34.439 You said the universe's purpose. Listen, nest, and now you're 2055 01:47:34.439 --> 01:47:37.039 walking it back because you got repeated. You're walking it 2056 01:47:37.079 --> 01:47:38.760 back because you got repeated again. 2057 01:47:39.920 --> 01:47:43.000 No, I can't. Who is the two options? I said, 2058 01:47:43.079 --> 01:47:45.560 let's explore this option. It is not bad. 2059 01:47:45.840 --> 01:47:47.119 There's only two options. 2060 01:47:48.079 --> 01:47:48.840 There's only time. 2061 01:47:50.439 --> 01:47:53.479 You're cooked, You're done, you're melting down, your spurging out. 2062 01:47:54.640 --> 01:48:05.079 Oh my gosh, s dude, brother, Yeah, I'm just I'm 2063 01:48:05.199 --> 01:48:08.279 I'm I will I guess I will finish with this. 2064 01:48:09.000 --> 01:48:12.840 The idea that you call someone bad faith because. 2065 01:48:12.680 --> 01:48:14.479 You're the one who bitched about me being bad face 2066 01:48:14.560 --> 01:48:15.239 the entire time. 2067 01:48:18.720 --> 01:48:21.560 Okay, so we're starting the idea that you would call 2068 01:48:21.640 --> 01:48:26.359 someone bad fake because you present an argument and the 2069 01:48:26.439 --> 01:48:29.800 person listens to it, takes notes. 2070 01:48:29.520 --> 01:48:31.680 On it, and then walks it back when they see 2071 01:48:31.680 --> 01:48:36.279 a problem. Correct, that's bad faith. Yeah, you affirmed, you 2072 01:48:36.319 --> 01:48:39.199 affirmed universal meaninglessness. We can, we can, we can do 2073 01:48:39.239 --> 01:48:41.680 this where. 2074 01:48:41.520 --> 01:48:43.159 You eventually act like an adult. 2075 01:48:43.760 --> 01:48:47.199 You affirmed universal meaninglessness on a possible in a position 2076 01:48:47.279 --> 01:48:49.960 that only has two options. And now you're saying I 2077 01:48:49.960 --> 01:48:52.800 don't necessarily agree with that, Well, then do you accept 2078 01:48:52.800 --> 01:48:55.479 that there is universal meetings? We're No, I'm not lying. 2079 01:48:55.840 --> 01:48:58.199 I don't have to lie in a person who has 2080 01:48:58.319 --> 01:49:00.760 bombed an entire debate for two hours. Why would I 2081 01:49:00.800 --> 01:49:04.119 have to lie? You have crashed and burned, dude, I'm 2082 01:49:04.119 --> 01:49:07.159 not lying about you. You're a terrible debater objectively. 2083 01:49:08.760 --> 01:49:11.560 I get it that this is a debate game for you. 2084 01:49:11.640 --> 01:49:14.840 No, it's not a game. You crashed and burned miserably. 2085 01:49:15.880 --> 01:49:19.119 But I entertained the entire discussion because I'm happy to 2086 01:49:19.159 --> 01:49:23.119 explain the arguments to you. Oh my gosh, Oh my gosh, 2087 01:49:23.439 --> 01:49:27.199 Oh my gosh. Can you just make your arguments without whiny, 2088 01:49:27.399 --> 01:49:28.800 you whining bitch this whole time? 2089 01:49:30.039 --> 01:49:32.520 Yes, that is that is true. I have complained quite 2090 01:49:32.560 --> 01:49:32.760 a lot. 2091 01:49:33.000 --> 01:49:36.640 Yes, whining and bitching because you can't deal with the arguments. 2092 01:49:36.680 --> 01:49:39.079 You would rather whine and bitch about actually deal arguments. 2093 01:49:44.119 --> 01:49:50.359 No, it's just because and it's so difficult to. 2094 01:49:50.319 --> 01:49:52.159 Have a conversation while you're in a feminist swine man. 2095 01:49:52.199 --> 01:49:53.880 So I'm gonna be I'm gonna be childish with you. 2096 01:49:54.359 --> 01:49:55.000 So how's that. 2097 01:49:56.680 --> 01:50:07.039 I'm I'm sure, brother, whatever, whatever, okay, ok I am yeah. 2098 01:50:07.079 --> 01:50:11.520 So again I did not say any. Again, I will reaffirm, 2099 01:50:11.960 --> 01:50:13.840 you know, I don't know. I'd have to think about 2100 01:50:14.760 --> 01:50:16.399 many of the concept. 2101 01:50:16.840 --> 01:50:19.000 Maybe in a debate to say that I don't know. 2102 01:50:19.680 --> 01:50:23.000 I don't know. Is that a good sign in the debate, 2103 01:50:23.079 --> 01:50:25.720 to be like, I don't know, let me walk it back, 2104 01:50:25.760 --> 01:50:26.239 I don't know. 2105 01:50:27.119 --> 01:50:29.000 Actually, I think I think that's a really good sign 2106 01:50:29.000 --> 01:50:32.319 of someone that's actually being good faith as opposed to you, oh, 2107 01:50:32.720 --> 01:50:34.920 that you're you're searching for a dub as opposed to so. 2108 01:50:34.960 --> 01:50:37.560 I don't know. Let me debate a topic. Let me 2109 01:50:37.640 --> 01:50:39.319 walk it back and admit that I don't know. 2110 01:50:39.720 --> 01:50:41.399 I'll walk back anything. 2111 01:50:41.640 --> 01:50:45.359 You affirmed that, you affirmed that the universe is purposeless. 2112 01:50:45.800 --> 01:50:47.319 Everybody heard you, So I asked. 2113 01:50:47.359 --> 01:50:50.000 I did an internal critique. I said, why must there 2114 01:50:50.079 --> 01:50:50.560 be purposes? 2115 01:50:50.640 --> 01:50:53.279 No? No, no, Now you're alive because you did explicitly 2116 01:50:53.359 --> 01:50:55.560 verbally say fine, as purposeless. I'll go with that. 2117 01:50:56.720 --> 01:50:59.560 Yes, fine, I'll go with that. Yes, that is saying 2118 01:50:59.640 --> 01:51:02.560 for the any for the for the sake of continuing the. 2119 01:51:02.640 --> 01:51:04.680 Argument for it it doesn't matter that you walk it 2120 01:51:04.680 --> 01:51:06.520 back and say that it's not your position, which would 2121 01:51:06.520 --> 01:51:08.640 mean it's in bad faith. If there's only two options. 2122 01:51:08.720 --> 01:51:10.319 Dude, I I I. 2123 01:51:12.520 --> 01:51:19.000 The whole chat you lost. I I you're done walking back. 2124 01:51:20.760 --> 01:51:24.039 Everyone heard you affirm discilology. Everyone heard you affirm it. 2125 01:51:29.479 --> 01:51:32.359 I don't. I don't know how to continue this conversation right, 2126 01:51:32.359 --> 01:51:36.079 because you crash exactly. It's not a matter of crashing 2127 01:51:36.119 --> 01:51:38.800 and burning. I made the mistake. I find it engaged 2128 01:51:38.840 --> 01:51:41.720 honestly with a piece with a piece of right. 2129 01:51:41.800 --> 01:51:44.119 So now it's all personally. When I keep it on 2130 01:51:44.159 --> 01:51:46.000 the topic, you make it personal. All you do this 2131 01:51:46.000 --> 01:51:47.680 whole time was wine until at the end I said, 2132 01:51:47.680 --> 01:51:50.720 you're a soy man. You talk non stop ship about me, 2133 01:51:50.760 --> 01:51:53.119 calling me a pussy. I bring you on here. You 2134 01:51:53.159 --> 01:51:55.760 crash and burn and have a meltdown because you can't 2135 01:51:55.760 --> 01:52:02.159 answer basic philosophical questions. Man, I agree that that is 2136 01:52:02.159 --> 01:52:05.439 your interpretation of No, that's just everyone's interpretation, because that's 2137 01:52:05.479 --> 01:52:06.039 what happened. 2138 01:52:07.359 --> 01:52:09.079 Fair enough. You know, you win some, you lose some. 2139 01:52:09.279 --> 01:52:12.000 Maybe one day I can, you know, learn more about 2140 01:52:12.039 --> 01:52:14.760 the more, learn more about these arguments and debated with 2141 01:52:14.760 --> 01:52:15.640 somebody that's interest. 2142 01:52:15.760 --> 01:52:17.920 So you're admitting that you don't know the topic. That's 2143 01:52:17.920 --> 01:52:19.319 a good admission. I appreciate that. 2144 01:52:20.760 --> 01:52:23.399 Well. I well, obviously I would admit that there are 2145 01:52:23.399 --> 01:52:26.560 aspects of any argumentation from other people that you don't know, 2146 01:52:26.680 --> 01:52:28.079 Like what kind of narcissism? 2147 01:52:28.239 --> 01:52:31.199 No, I mean actual, I mean basically, I mean basically, 2148 01:52:31.319 --> 01:52:34.279 you've had three debates now with people on our side 2149 01:52:34.279 --> 01:52:38.239 of this, and you've not done any work to understand epistemology. 2150 01:52:38.279 --> 01:52:42.680 You've done nothing, So you're not the typical lazy libertarian 2151 01:52:43.279 --> 01:52:47.560 kumer man who doesn't actually study the positions. You haven't 2152 01:52:47.600 --> 01:52:51.880 progressed against. After Andrew, after Jim, Bob and me, you've 2153 01:52:51.920 --> 01:52:54.359 made no progress at all in this topic. 2154 01:52:54.880 --> 01:52:57.920 This is so silly. I attempt to know my ability, 2155 01:52:58.600 --> 01:52:59.960 you know, to to bring for the argument. 2156 01:53:00.119 --> 01:53:03.880 All you have is to call name. No. I let 2157 01:53:03.880 --> 01:53:08.399 you talk for hours on end here today fair enough, 2158 01:53:08.800 --> 01:53:11.119 And you made a bunch of bad arguments, and you're 2159 01:53:11.159 --> 01:53:14.359 whining and melting down because your arguments are piss poor. 2160 01:53:15.000 --> 01:53:17.319 They're sophomore level I have. 2161 01:53:17.600 --> 01:53:20.279 I think that that is silly for you to say 2162 01:53:20.279 --> 01:53:22.840 that I'm whining because my arguments are bad. 2163 01:53:22.960 --> 01:53:26.920 It's a reflection technique and a person's crashing that they 2164 01:53:27.000 --> 01:53:28.920 start whining and bitching about the other person. 2165 01:53:30.079 --> 01:53:32.800 No, I'm just I'm I just can't get my arguments 2166 01:53:32.840 --> 01:53:33.880 out like it took me. 2167 01:53:34.000 --> 01:53:37.159 You got, you got a lot of bullshit out. We 2168 01:53:37.199 --> 01:53:39.199 heard all, we heard your stuff, and we know after 2169 01:53:39.239 --> 01:53:40.800 two hours is not going to get much better. 2170 01:53:41.800 --> 01:53:44.760 Fair enough, fair enough, Well, I appreciate the opportunity to 2171 01:53:44.920 --> 01:53:47.960 come here. Regardless of whether or not I will, I 2172 01:53:48.000 --> 01:53:52.399 will recant my position that you are fully and holy 2173 01:53:52.960 --> 01:53:55.960 you know, a pussy or a coward in terms of debating, 2174 01:53:56.560 --> 01:54:00.960 which I had said earlier, because it felt very fucked 2175 01:54:01.039 --> 01:54:03.760 up that you have not brought on actual libertarians and 2176 01:54:03.960 --> 01:54:05.279 only discussed. 2177 01:54:06.399 --> 01:54:08.720 Nobody cares what you think an actual libertarian is and 2178 01:54:08.800 --> 01:54:11.680 no true scotsman, so we don't care about that. Well, 2179 01:54:11.720 --> 01:54:13.439 I mean you at very least, I don't know who 2180 01:54:13.520 --> 01:54:15.399 you I don't care who you think is real. 2181 01:54:15.800 --> 01:54:17.840 I know, I know, I know without God, words have 2182 01:54:17.920 --> 01:54:18.359 no meaning. 2183 01:54:18.800 --> 01:54:20.840 No, I just don't care what you think a real 2184 01:54:20.840 --> 01:54:22.520 libertarian is. Who's the lorilla libertarian? 2185 01:54:22.520 --> 01:54:27.520 You? Anyone anyone that legitimately and fully follows through on 2186 01:54:27.560 --> 01:54:30.199 the non aggression principles. 2187 01:54:29.640 --> 01:54:31.720 Which is not an at claim to be even though 2188 01:54:31.760 --> 01:54:33.560 it is an all to be right, which is an AT, 2189 01:54:33.600 --> 01:54:35.319 but it's not an not because it's an axiom, but 2190 01:54:35.359 --> 01:54:39.039 it's also an a right exactly you want to do 2191 01:54:39.119 --> 01:54:39.960 super chats or not. 2192 01:54:41.399 --> 01:54:44.319 No, No, I'm good, but I again, like I said, 2193 01:54:44.399 --> 01:54:46.119 I'll about out now, but I just wanted to say 2194 01:54:46.359 --> 01:54:48.520 thank you for bringing me on and again, if you'll 2195 01:54:48.600 --> 01:54:51.039 let me get it out, I do recant my position 2196 01:54:51.119 --> 01:54:54.039 that you were able to see it and that yeah, 2197 01:54:54.119 --> 01:54:57.680 you had pissed me off, but not bringing on. Obviously 2198 01:54:58.039 --> 01:55:01.880 you do. So they're is that I'm Fambi in Liberty. 2199 01:55:01.960 --> 01:55:04.000 You can find me pretty much, and I've got his 2200 01:55:04.079 --> 01:55:06.479 channel linked in the chat in the show description. If 2201 01:55:06.479 --> 01:55:10.079 anybody wants to check out his material, even if we 2202 01:55:10.159 --> 01:55:12.479 have a heated disagreement in debate, I'm gonna give you 2203 01:55:12.640 --> 01:55:14.560 the links to the people so you can follow him