1
00:00:09,640 --> 00:00:19,440
Speaker 1: A boy, oh boy, bouck us about us out hookups.

2
00:01:43,719 --> 00:01:47,480
Speaker 2: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome back to the Crucible.

3
00:01:47,519 --> 00:01:49,719
I'm your host, Andrew Wilson. It's been a long time

4
00:01:50,799 --> 00:01:53,280
since we've hosted a debate on this channel. Remember we

5
00:01:53,359 --> 00:01:56,400
cut our teeth doing that years ago. It's a lot

6
00:01:56,439 --> 00:01:57,640
of fun for me to do. I still do it

7
00:01:57,719 --> 00:02:00,200
by special request here and there if somebody asked, and

8
00:02:00,239 --> 00:02:03,319
I have the time, I have this world's dumbest look

9
00:02:03,319 --> 00:02:05,799
at the how stupid this coffee cup is. It's way

10
00:02:05,840 --> 00:02:08,840
too small. Wait, it's like one of those you can

11
00:02:08,840 --> 00:02:11,120
only get one finger through it. It's just a stupid

12
00:02:11,199 --> 00:02:15,080
coffee cup. Anyway, Tonight, head to head, we have nostic

13
00:02:15,159 --> 00:02:17,719
Conformant up against Jay Dyer.

14
00:02:18,879 --> 00:02:20,439
Speaker 1: Rules for the debate are as follows.

15
00:02:21,120 --> 00:02:23,800
Speaker 2: There's going to be ten minute opening statements for each

16
00:02:24,360 --> 00:02:26,360
for the first hour, and then it's going to be

17
00:02:26,400 --> 00:02:29,800
followed by ten minute rebuttals followed by ten minute closings,

18
00:02:29,840 --> 00:02:32,120
and then we're going to get into an hour of

19
00:02:32,280 --> 00:02:35,439
open debate followed by super chats and callers.

20
00:02:35,719 --> 00:02:37,960
Speaker 1: It's going to be a banger. You guys know you

21
00:02:38,039 --> 00:02:39,759
want to see it. It's going to be a banger.

22
00:02:41,360 --> 00:02:43,520
Speaker 2: And said, for those of you who are new here,

23
00:02:43,919 --> 00:02:46,879
of which there are many, I just want to point

24
00:02:46,919 --> 00:02:50,919
out that we always had the coolest music for the debates,

25
00:02:51,120 --> 00:02:52,840
and so we'll give you one of the throwbacks this

26
00:02:53,000 --> 00:02:54,800
evening before we bring our debaters on.

27
00:03:08,280 --> 00:03:11,800
Speaker 3: The cans do.

28
00:03:12,639 --> 00:03:26,759
Speaker 4: Things they constn do that cons the kids of dot.

29
00:03:27,360 --> 00:03:46,199
Speaker 3: Dot dot dot dot.

30
00:03:46,479 --> 00:04:33,600
Speaker 2: Do you hear that hard cut off? Nobody liked the

31
00:04:33,639 --> 00:04:36,639
hard cut off. Everybody was always upset that the gus hard,

32
00:04:36,800 --> 00:04:38,399
just like I had that really hard.

33
00:04:38,759 --> 00:04:39,040
Speaker 1: I don't know.

34
00:04:39,120 --> 00:04:41,959
Speaker 2: People are always pitching about something. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome

35
00:04:42,000 --> 00:04:46,120
back to the Crucible. That's fine evening. Welcome to uh well,

36
00:04:46,480 --> 00:04:50,279
perhaps the debate of the month. Jay Dyer, welcome back.

37
00:04:50,399 --> 00:04:53,360
Nice to see you. Take a brief moment, introduce yourself

38
00:04:53,480 --> 00:04:55,519
to everybody, tell them a little bit about yourself.

39
00:04:56,920 --> 00:04:57,199
Speaker 1: Thank you.

40
00:04:58,319 --> 00:05:01,120
Speaker 5: Yeah, jayder of Jason also stock come, also host of

41
00:05:01,319 --> 00:05:03,680
the fourth hour of the Alex Jong Show most Fridays,

42
00:05:04,399 --> 00:05:07,279
and been on the Crucible for several debates back in

43
00:05:07,319 --> 00:05:10,199
the past. Glad to be back, Glad to be sitting

44
00:05:10,240 --> 00:05:13,199
here with Gnostic informant. And you can find me on

45
00:05:13,240 --> 00:05:15,160
Twitter and you can find me on YouTube under my name.

46
00:05:15,959 --> 00:05:17,160
Speaker 1: All right, I appreciate that.

47
00:05:17,600 --> 00:05:19,680
Speaker 2: Before we get over to you, Neil, I just want

48
00:05:19,720 --> 00:05:21,920
to let the atheists who are supporters of yours in

49
00:05:21,959 --> 00:05:23,759
the audience know. I just want to let you guys

50
00:05:23,800 --> 00:05:26,639
know you may think that because I'm an Orthodox Christian,

51
00:05:26,639 --> 00:05:28,839
I'm going to treat you like shit, and you would

52
00:05:28,879 --> 00:05:31,920
be correct. But you can remedy that by sending in

53
00:05:32,120 --> 00:05:35,000
tons and tons of super chats in order to support

54
00:05:35,199 --> 00:05:38,720
Neil this evening. I will give him fair moderation. Go ahead, Neil,

55
00:05:38,959 --> 00:05:40,800
tell everybody a little bit about yourself where they can

56
00:05:40,839 --> 00:05:41,439
find you as well.

57
00:05:42,079 --> 00:05:44,680
Speaker 1: Yeah, my name's Neil Nostic Informant. I have a YouTube

58
00:05:44,720 --> 00:05:48,279
channel with about two hundred and thirty thousand subs. We

59
00:05:48,360 --> 00:05:53,519
get into topics like ancient history, ancient mythology, early Christianity, Gnosticism,

60
00:05:53,680 --> 00:05:59,639
especially different sects of Christianity, the heretics, Tyroneus and Hypolitis.

61
00:05:59,759 --> 00:06:04,720
That's stuff justin Martr Marcion Valentinis. If you're into that

62
00:06:04,839 --> 00:06:07,120
type of stuff, come to my channel. I'm also on

63
00:06:07,439 --> 00:06:09,199
X but I just kind of shit talk there. So

64
00:06:09,319 --> 00:06:11,040
if you like shit talking, you follow me there too.

65
00:06:11,480 --> 00:06:14,279
Speaker 2: That's funny because that's what I do on X. It's

66
00:06:14,319 --> 00:06:17,079
my favorite thing is to ship post on X. Anyway,

67
00:06:17,160 --> 00:06:19,560
ladies and gentlemen, without any more ado, I'm going to

68
00:06:19,920 --> 00:06:23,240
let Jay go ahead with his opening statement, Jay, die,

69
00:06:23,319 --> 00:06:24,639
you got ten minutes on the clock.

70
00:06:25,000 --> 00:06:27,519
Speaker 1: Go ahead when you're ready. Yeah.

71
00:06:27,519 --> 00:06:29,480
Speaker 5: I want to start by saying that the argument here

72
00:06:29,600 --> 00:06:34,240
is about the coherency and the worldview that makes the

73
00:06:34,319 --> 00:06:37,920
best sense of reality, and between us, we will be

74
00:06:38,040 --> 00:06:41,279
arguing two different paradigms that have radically different accounts of

75
00:06:41,560 --> 00:06:42,639
the nature of reality.

76
00:06:43,360 --> 00:06:44,639
Speaker 1: For my argument, I.

77
00:06:44,639 --> 00:06:47,879
Speaker 5: Will be arguing from a divine revelation position that I

78
00:06:47,959 --> 00:06:50,519
believe sets forth. What I would say is an Orthodox

79
00:06:50,639 --> 00:06:55,120
Christian paradigm, namely that the basic fundamentals of a worldview,

80
00:06:55,959 --> 00:06:59,920
my worldview, anybody's world would be metaphysics, epistemology, and ethic,

81
00:07:00,120 --> 00:07:03,360
and those fundamental categories would point us in the direction

82
00:07:03,560 --> 00:07:05,639
of a worldview that makes sense of and gives an

83
00:07:05,680 --> 00:07:08,439
account of those things. It just so happens that within

84
00:07:08,480 --> 00:07:12,439
the Christian paradigm, specifically the Orthodox Christian paradigm, all of

85
00:07:12,519 --> 00:07:17,199
those three elements of philosophy of a worldview makes sense

86
00:07:17,360 --> 00:07:20,759
with the God that created this world, that providentially guides

87
00:07:20,839 --> 00:07:23,639
this world, that gives this world a telos or a purpose,

88
00:07:24,240 --> 00:07:26,480
and has also structured this world with a kind of

89
00:07:26,600 --> 00:07:31,759
logos or a logi that is a foundational organizing principle.

90
00:07:32,279 --> 00:07:35,600
The Greek philosophers talked about the logos, and if you

91
00:07:35,680 --> 00:07:37,519
go back to those Greek philosophers, even all the way

92
00:07:37,519 --> 00:07:40,519
back to the pre Socratics, they spoke about this logos

93
00:07:40,560 --> 00:07:44,759
as a universal organizing principle. Other philosophers like Plato or

94
00:07:44,759 --> 00:07:48,279
Aristotls talked about the logi or the logos being something

95
00:07:48,319 --> 00:07:51,399
that is an explanation or a definition. When we work

96
00:07:51,439 --> 00:07:54,680
through these ancient philosophers, we notice that they don't really

97
00:07:54,720 --> 00:07:57,920
give much of an explanation other than conflicting amongst themselves

98
00:07:57,959 --> 00:08:00,680
as to who or what this actually is. It's fine

99
00:08:00,720 --> 00:08:03,000
to say that it's a law, it's a principle, but

100
00:08:03,199 --> 00:08:05,839
that doesn't tell us very much. And also it conflicts

101
00:08:06,360 --> 00:08:09,839
the Stoic idea, conflicts with later Neoplatonic ideas as to

102
00:08:09,920 --> 00:08:13,319
what the logos actually is. The Hebrew wisdom tradition, and

103
00:08:13,439 --> 00:08:15,600
I can give many scholars if we need to hear,

104
00:08:16,639 --> 00:08:20,879
was not primarily drawing from the Greek ideas. Certainly Philo

105
00:08:21,000 --> 00:08:24,240
and other Jewish scholars were influenced by Hellenism, and they

106
00:08:24,360 --> 00:08:27,519
used the terminology of the logos that was coming out

107
00:08:27,560 --> 00:08:30,480
of the Sceptuage and other translations of the Old Testament

108
00:08:30,600 --> 00:08:31,720
text during the second century.

109
00:08:32,240 --> 00:08:35,519
Speaker 1: But the idea according to Hebrew.

110
00:08:35,279 --> 00:08:39,519
Speaker 5: Scholar or excuse me a Biblical scholar, the Orthodox excuse me.

111
00:08:39,600 --> 00:08:42,759
From the Oxford Guide to the Bible. It notes that

112
00:08:42,840 --> 00:08:46,399
the Johannen logos is strongly parallel to the concept of

113
00:08:46,519 --> 00:08:50,440
wisdom and Hellenic Jewish thought. But wisdom was already associated

114
00:08:50,480 --> 00:08:53,679
with the attribute of God in Wisdom of Solomon nine

115
00:08:53,799 --> 00:08:56,879
one through two. In the Hebrew Bible, the word of

116
00:08:56,919 --> 00:08:59,759
God is both creative and active Genesis one in Isaiah

117
00:08:59,759 --> 00:09:03,960
fifth eleven, and in Greek logos meant spoken word or

118
00:09:04,000 --> 00:09:08,519
pervading principle. Stoic philosophy saw this as the guiding meaning

119
00:09:08,679 --> 00:09:12,600
or layer that ordered the universe. However, this meaning is

120
00:09:12,679 --> 00:09:15,679
not a direct background for John's logos that was already

121
00:09:15,759 --> 00:09:18,639
drawn out of as we're saying the Hebrew wisdom tradition.

122
00:09:19,399 --> 00:09:23,120
In Genesis one, we have God's word there president as

123
00:09:23,159 --> 00:09:26,320
an active means by which the world comes to be.

124
00:09:26,960 --> 00:09:29,320
As we progress throughout the Torah, and we're going to

125
00:09:29,360 --> 00:09:31,240
probably get to that later. I'm going to stick to

126
00:09:31,279 --> 00:09:33,320
the Torah all though, as many examples in the Psalms

127
00:09:33,360 --> 00:09:36,240
and the minor prophets and historical books, there's many examples

128
00:09:36,279 --> 00:09:41,360
of this voice, this angel, this form, this theophany, having

129
00:09:41,399 --> 00:09:44,840
a personality being distinct from Yahweh, but also being Yahweh,

130
00:09:44,879 --> 00:09:46,240
also being divine.

131
00:09:46,159 --> 00:09:49,320
Speaker 1: Also having the same characteristics to redeem, to save, et cetera.

132
00:09:49,639 --> 00:09:53,159
Speaker 5: The reason this is important important is that, as I understand,

133
00:09:53,320 --> 00:09:55,960
he tends to argue my opponent that the idea of

134
00:09:56,039 --> 00:10:00,200
the Trinity, these ideas are cribbed from Greek philosophers. They

135
00:10:00,240 --> 00:10:03,080
don't exist in the first three centuries of Christianity. I've

136
00:10:03,080 --> 00:10:06,159
heard him claim, well, I'm ready to counter all of

137
00:10:06,200 --> 00:10:08,879
those claims, and we'll get to those later. But there's

138
00:10:08,919 --> 00:10:12,720
about twenty pre nice seen references that I have amongst dozens.

139
00:10:12,399 --> 00:10:14,600
Speaker 1: More ready to go to prove than know.

140
00:10:14,679 --> 00:10:17,039
Speaker 5: In fact, the early Church fathers of the first, second,

141
00:10:17,080 --> 00:10:19,320
and third century were consistent not just with the New

142
00:10:19,399 --> 00:10:20,799
Testament passages.

143
00:10:20,360 --> 00:10:22,840
Speaker 1: About the deed of Christ and the Trinity. For example,

144
00:10:22,840 --> 00:10:23,000
in the.

145
00:10:23,039 --> 00:10:26,600
Speaker 5: Gospel of John, every chapter refers to either the deed

146
00:10:26,639 --> 00:10:30,360
of Christ or to the triad, and some passages have

147
00:10:30,600 --> 00:10:34,320
both in that chapter. And that's in continuity with the

148
00:10:34,399 --> 00:10:36,240
Old Testament, where you have all of these Old Testament

149
00:10:36,279 --> 00:10:38,960
passages again not just in the Torah, but we're going

150
00:10:39,039 --> 00:10:41,320
to focus on the Torah when we get to that.

151
00:10:41,440 --> 00:10:43,559
In some of the rebuttals, the point there is that

152
00:10:43,840 --> 00:10:48,399
the Bible teaches this God, this theology, Old and New Testament.

153
00:10:48,679 --> 00:10:52,759
It's not cribbed from the Greeks. Even though there's similar terminology.

154
00:10:53,320 --> 00:10:56,799
The terminology of logos is really dependent upon the system

155
00:10:56,919 --> 00:11:00,960
and the person using it. So, for example, Logos by

156
00:11:02,000 --> 00:11:05,720
Marcus Aurelius, as it comes up in his meditations, it's

157
00:11:05,759 --> 00:11:07,720
all over the place and what it means. It's a

158
00:11:07,799 --> 00:11:11,200
universal guiding principle, it's something innate within him. It's all reality.

159
00:11:11,679 --> 00:11:15,759
It's a pantheistic conception. It's the embodiment of the Roman

160
00:11:15,759 --> 00:11:19,039
Empire itself. So it's so elastic as to be almost

161
00:11:19,080 --> 00:11:22,120
everything and nothing. And that's really nothing in common with

162
00:11:22,480 --> 00:11:24,279
what John is doing in John one when he argues

163
00:11:24,320 --> 00:11:28,519
that the logos is actually the parallel to the Voice

164
00:11:28,720 --> 00:11:31,879
of Genesis one. John one is a parallel to Genesis one.

165
00:11:31,919 --> 00:11:34,440
Genesis one is a creation of the world and created light.

166
00:11:35,159 --> 00:11:37,840
John one is a parallel that plays on that with

167
00:11:38,559 --> 00:11:41,559
uncreated light and the person of the logos identified as

168
00:11:41,960 --> 00:11:44,799
the second person of the Godhead. But I want to

169
00:11:44,840 --> 00:11:47,360
go back to philosophy for a second, because what's really

170
00:11:47,440 --> 00:11:49,799
at root between he and I will be conflicting and

171
00:11:49,879 --> 00:11:53,200
competing world views. What I laid out is that revelational

172
00:11:53,279 --> 00:11:55,679
position of my theology in general and some of the

173
00:11:55,759 --> 00:11:58,879
sources and texts. I understand that he doesn't believe these texts,

174
00:11:58,919 --> 00:12:01,559
and many of the audience don't believe the texts, And

175
00:12:01,639 --> 00:12:03,679
when we have competing ideas about the text, that means

176
00:12:03,720 --> 00:12:05,519
we have to go to other areas where we find

177
00:12:06,039 --> 00:12:08,639
common authority or common ground, and that would be the

178
00:12:08,720 --> 00:12:12,200
realm of debate. Debate functions around principles like logic, the

179
00:12:12,320 --> 00:12:15,159
laws of logic, the three basic laws.

180
00:12:15,519 --> 00:12:17,799
Speaker 1: Excluded middle non contradiction law at any.

181
00:12:17,799 --> 00:12:21,200
Speaker 5: Those basic laws lay out how we would argue and

182
00:12:21,360 --> 00:12:25,559
then suss out contradictions between worldviews. If his world view

183
00:12:25,600 --> 00:12:28,519
is unable to give a fundamental account of those three

184
00:12:28,600 --> 00:12:32,480
basic areas of philosophy, epistemology out of physics, and ethics,

185
00:12:32,919 --> 00:12:36,200
then it's going to be undercutting his ability even to debate.

186
00:12:36,639 --> 00:12:38,240
So that he showed up shows that he has to

187
00:12:38,360 --> 00:12:42,240
recognize the laws of thought, critical thinking or to not

188
00:12:42,480 --> 00:12:45,120
engage in fallacious reasoning. And we're going to be having

189
00:12:45,159 --> 00:12:46,519
to pay a lot of attention to make sure that

190
00:12:46,600 --> 00:12:48,240
he doesn't engage in and rely on a lot of

191
00:12:48,519 --> 00:12:51,360
fallacious argumentation. Now, how do I get from what I'm

192
00:12:51,440 --> 00:12:54,720
arguing to my Christian conception? Well, as I said, if

193
00:12:54,759 --> 00:12:57,039
the world was created by God, and it's the God

194
00:12:57,080 --> 00:12:59,320
that I'm arguing for, then it would make sense why

195
00:12:59,360 --> 00:13:03,519
there's regular already in nature because God is providential. He

196
00:13:03,639 --> 00:13:07,879
providentially guides history. History has meaning. History is not something

197
00:13:07,919 --> 00:13:10,360
to flee from, as if we were a gnostic or

198
00:13:10,360 --> 00:13:13,159
perhaps even a Neoplatonist to try to return to the

199
00:13:13,240 --> 00:13:14,639
One or whatever his view might be.

200
00:13:15,080 --> 00:13:17,279
Speaker 1: It's not something to go away from. It's actually a

201
00:13:17,360 --> 00:13:17,759
good thing.

202
00:13:17,919 --> 00:13:22,080
Speaker 5: So history, it's reality itself is fundamentally declared to be good.

203
00:13:22,679 --> 00:13:25,360
And it's good because it has this logos organized and

204
00:13:25,440 --> 00:13:29,600
instructuring principle within it. It's not identical to the world,

205
00:13:29,679 --> 00:13:32,159
and we're going to see I think many fallacies and

206
00:13:33,440 --> 00:13:38,960
kill shots with his position a priorism, and that's compared

207
00:13:39,000 --> 00:13:42,120
to a position where we don't have priority monism or

208
00:13:42,120 --> 00:13:45,120
any of these weird ideas about metaphysics with no justification.

209
00:13:45,720 --> 00:13:48,159
We have justification for the idea of an external world,

210
00:13:48,360 --> 00:13:50,320
for the idea of regularity in nature, the idea of

211
00:13:50,399 --> 00:13:53,600
objective ethics, because we're made in the image of a

212
00:13:53,759 --> 00:13:56,440
good God, a holy God who has a requirement a

213
00:13:56,519 --> 00:13:57,559
lot of the Ten Commandments of.

214
00:13:57,559 --> 00:13:59,679
Speaker 1: How we ought to live. Two minutes share.

215
00:14:00,120 --> 00:14:03,120
Speaker 5: Position of neoplatonism or in the position of priority moanism,

216
00:14:03,360 --> 00:14:06,360
we're going to notice that there's no real basis for

217
00:14:06,639 --> 00:14:09,559
good and evil. In fact, we might argue, or we

218
00:14:09,639 --> 00:14:12,919
might ask, does evil have ontological existence? In a situation

219
00:14:13,080 --> 00:14:17,559
where all things are essentially parts of the one? We

220
00:14:17,679 --> 00:14:21,799
might ask why would we prioritize one over many? And

221
00:14:21,879 --> 00:14:23,559
we're gonna think We're gonna see I think that when

222
00:14:23,559 --> 00:14:26,960
he answers those types of questions, it relies on unjustified assumptions.

223
00:14:27,039 --> 00:14:29,799
That's why epistemology has to come into play. We have

224
00:14:29,879 --> 00:14:33,279
to figure out what are the justifications for the assertions

225
00:14:33,320 --> 00:14:35,200
that we have, and do we have good reasons for

226
00:14:35,360 --> 00:14:38,799
our beliefs, not just any old reasons, but good reasons.

227
00:14:39,240 --> 00:14:41,919
So I'm going to argue that the logos this personal

228
00:14:42,080 --> 00:14:44,879
God that we have a relationship with, who's not just

229
00:14:45,000 --> 00:14:49,600
an unknown unitarian, far off Platonic idea or monad, but

230
00:14:49,759 --> 00:14:51,759
is a personal god who has a relationship with us

231
00:14:51,879 --> 00:14:54,519
that gives us ethics, that gives us life and meaning,

232
00:14:54,799 --> 00:14:57,440
and gives us an end goal of purpose. The universe

233
00:14:57,480 --> 00:15:01,840
has intentionality. Even within the Neelblek conception or the Monus conception.

234
00:15:02,159 --> 00:15:04,759
It's hard to figure out exactly why an immaterial one

235
00:15:04,840 --> 00:15:08,600
or an immaterial universal impersonal force or principle would in

236
00:15:08,720 --> 00:15:12,000
anyway give us purpose or tilos in a grand scheme.

237
00:15:12,919 --> 00:15:15,639
Speaker 1: In fact, all of reality is sort of an eternal generation.

238
00:15:15,960 --> 00:15:18,399
Speaker 5: If you follow the neoplatonists argumentation, maybe he doesn't have

239
00:15:18,519 --> 00:15:21,279
to see, but regardless, there's going to be many fundamental

240
00:15:21,360 --> 00:15:25,720
problems that aren't fundamental problems in a Christian paradigm. His

241
00:15:26,039 --> 00:15:29,960
paradigm will be totally different and undercut the possibility not

242
00:15:30,200 --> 00:15:32,879
just of his metaphysical speculations.

243
00:15:32,600 --> 00:15:35,399
Speaker 1: But reality itself and knowing reality.

244
00:15:35,039 --> 00:15:39,440
Speaker 5: Itself again, having a justified, true belief about reality that

245
00:15:39,600 --> 00:15:43,120
you can make sense of without relying upon it's just

246
00:15:43,200 --> 00:15:46,039
what I feel, bro, This is the easiest answer.

247
00:15:46,519 --> 00:15:50,000
Speaker 1: It's parsimonious. All of those things are unjustified reasons and

248
00:15:50,039 --> 00:15:53,639
assumption as to why his worldview should be true, when

249
00:15:53,879 --> 00:15:55,799
really what's at stake here is which world you can

250
00:15:55,840 --> 00:15:59,919
give an account for the preconditions and the possibilities of knowledge,

251
00:16:00,200 --> 00:16:04,759
ethics and metaphysics. All right, and that's time, right on time.

252
00:16:04,919 --> 00:16:07,120
Speaker 2: In fact, I just want to point out over five

253
00:16:07,240 --> 00:16:11,039
thousand on YouTube, seven thousand between all platforms. Appreciate all

254
00:16:11,080 --> 00:16:13,240
of you guys coming in this evening to watch this debate,

255
00:16:13,639 --> 00:16:14,720
Gnostic and formant.

256
00:16:14,799 --> 00:16:17,039
Speaker 1: You have ten minutes on the clock. Go ahead when

257
00:16:17,039 --> 00:16:20,600
you're ready. So I guess I heard some arguments there

258
00:16:20,799 --> 00:16:24,480
of why his worldview is coherent and accounts for these

259
00:16:24,519 --> 00:16:27,519
things he said, the logos is personal. There's a few

260
00:16:27,519 --> 00:16:29,879
things in there, but mostly what I heard was my

261
00:16:30,000 --> 00:16:32,519
opponent needs to do this, needs to do this, needs

262
00:16:32,519 --> 00:16:34,240
to do this, needs to do this, worrying about what

263
00:16:34,279 --> 00:16:37,000
I'm going to say when that should be for the

264
00:16:37,080 --> 00:16:39,480
next round. You should be giving an argument for your worldview,

265
00:16:40,080 --> 00:16:42,840
which I'll be doing right now. My worldview, which I

266
00:16:43,720 --> 00:16:49,480
call apoloist monism. It's metaphysically priority monism, and I'll explain

267
00:16:49,519 --> 00:16:52,080
why I call it apoloist monism. A second, it is

268
00:16:52,320 --> 00:16:56,080
basically priority monism as described by the neo Platonist philosophers.

269
00:16:56,440 --> 00:17:00,919
So it's starting off with a it's called the hierarchical hypostasis,

270
00:17:01,480 --> 00:17:05,720
the the One, the good is, the the the ArKade,

271
00:17:05,799 --> 00:17:09,920
the beginning. It's all perfect, all knowing, all powerful, and

272
00:17:10,799 --> 00:17:16,599
the one emanates from this the noose, which is represented

273
00:17:16,680 --> 00:17:20,200
in different ways by different philosophers. I use Apollo because

274
00:17:20,240 --> 00:17:26,599
Apollo is is a form intellect, logos, reason, perfection. The

275
00:17:26,759 --> 00:17:29,400
Sun we can we can tell we can use the

276
00:17:29,519 --> 00:17:34,000
sun as an example of the brightest, brightest light that

277
00:17:34,079 --> 00:17:36,799
we can see in our in our presence world right now.

278
00:17:37,200 --> 00:17:40,039
It also gives off the most radiation heat in life

279
00:17:40,200 --> 00:17:43,160
and life sustaining. Doesn't mean I believe the Sun is

280
00:17:43,200 --> 00:17:45,839
the monad. It's a representation. It's a model that we

281
00:17:45,880 --> 00:17:50,079
can use to sort of explain the metaphysics. And then

282
00:17:50,119 --> 00:17:53,119
there's and then also there's a triad at play because

283
00:17:53,160 --> 00:17:56,759
the next emanation, which is the first emanation, which is

284
00:17:56,799 --> 00:18:01,160
the noose, is the brightest emanation. It's almost identical to

285
00:18:01,559 --> 00:18:04,440
the one itself. It's the closest thing you're going to

286
00:18:04,519 --> 00:18:09,640
get from perfection. The third emanation is psyche or soul,

287
00:18:10,359 --> 00:18:15,720
and this is the mediator between the all the numbers

288
00:18:15,759 --> 00:18:18,720
that come after all the plurality that comes after, the

289
00:18:19,000 --> 00:18:23,720
mediator between the physical and sensible emotions and feelings. I

290
00:18:23,960 --> 00:18:27,799
use Dionysus as a way to describe the whirling of

291
00:18:27,839 --> 00:18:33,440
the cosmos, and from this triad, and from this triad

292
00:18:34,079 --> 00:18:37,119
emanations go all the way down to the physical world

293
00:18:37,480 --> 00:18:40,319
of matter, and the farther away you get from the one,

294
00:18:40,920 --> 00:18:45,200
the less good. There is evil persist in this realm.

295
00:18:46,039 --> 00:18:48,920
Humans are at the top of the lowest realm, but

296
00:18:49,079 --> 00:18:52,279
our main objective is to climb the ladder to get

297
00:18:52,319 --> 00:18:55,119
back to the good. So I'm just giving basic. That's

298
00:18:55,200 --> 00:18:58,079
just the basic under understanding of You can ask me

299
00:18:58,119 --> 00:19:00,640
whatever you want if you want to deeper into it.

300
00:19:00,920 --> 00:19:02,880
But it accounts for all things because it accounts for

301
00:19:03,000 --> 00:19:06,279
the reason, the laws of logic, It accounts for particulars,

302
00:19:06,559 --> 00:19:11,519
It accounts for universals, all the things that you ask for. Now,

303
00:19:13,720 --> 00:19:15,559
it CONTs for the one and many too, because the

304
00:19:15,799 --> 00:19:21,920
emanations allow for the plurality to be distinct, but also

305
00:19:22,200 --> 00:19:25,559
have the essence of the one. So even down to

306
00:19:25,680 --> 00:19:28,680
the lowest form of life, there's a little bit of

307
00:19:28,839 --> 00:19:31,000
essence of the One within it. It doesn't mean that

308
00:19:31,160 --> 00:19:33,319
you and I are the same, that I'm literally your

309
00:19:33,359 --> 00:19:37,400
ear or I'm literally your finger. We are distinct, but

310
00:19:37,519 --> 00:19:40,519
we all come from the emanations of the one. That's

311
00:19:40,559 --> 00:19:43,319
what saves the one of the many. It's a metaphysical argument,

312
00:19:43,880 --> 00:19:46,559
just like you would say the trinities is what accounts

313
00:19:46,559 --> 00:19:53,240
for that. Now, I think your worldview is incoherent. My

314
00:19:53,359 --> 00:19:59,039
worldview isn't because my worldview doesn't have contradictions. My worldview

315
00:19:59,119 --> 00:20:07,200
allows for things Empiricism and modern platness today actually accept

316
00:20:07,279 --> 00:20:10,680
evolution and we accept the age of the earth because

317
00:20:10,680 --> 00:20:13,680
of empiricism. You can even go back and read Aristotle,

318
00:20:13,720 --> 00:20:16,839
who is not an evolutionist, but you can see he

319
00:20:16,960 --> 00:20:20,000
got close because of his empiricist mindset, because of his

320
00:20:20,480 --> 00:20:23,880
discovery of the laws of logic. He got very close.

321
00:20:24,160 --> 00:20:26,319
And I actually have a passes from Aristotle that I

322
00:20:26,400 --> 00:20:29,079
had got got ready from low where he says nature.

323
00:20:29,319 --> 00:20:32,960
This is from History of Animals. He says nature proceeds

324
00:20:33,000 --> 00:20:37,559
from the inanimate to the Oh, I gotta sign back,

325
00:20:37,599 --> 00:20:44,519
and it signed me out. Damn, that's an f minus Neil. Yeah,

326
00:20:44,559 --> 00:20:50,039
that's crazy, minus Neil. I got signed clocked out. I

327
00:20:50,119 --> 00:20:52,200
got clocked out of low. That sucks. I can't find

328
00:20:52,240 --> 00:20:55,519
it now. Well, okay, whatever, I don't have to say.

329
00:20:55,519 --> 00:20:57,119
I'll just you guys can look it up. On animals,

330
00:20:57,160 --> 00:20:59,759
he's he says, basically, he's what he's I'll just describe

331
00:20:59,799 --> 00:21:02,480
what he says. I'll just paraphrase it. He says that

332
00:21:02,680 --> 00:21:05,359
when you look at animals, you can almost see types

333
00:21:05,559 --> 00:21:09,279
going into other types. There's almost like a blend of

334
00:21:09,720 --> 00:21:12,279
different types of animals, Like there's different types of horses

335
00:21:12,359 --> 00:21:15,640
and different types of fish, and there's like a gradient line.

336
00:21:15,720 --> 00:21:18,480
And he he gets close to almost understanding that there's

337
00:21:18,480 --> 00:21:21,000
an evolution going on, but he doesn't. He doesn't get

338
00:21:21,039 --> 00:21:23,400
that far. And a lot of modern Platonists think that

339
00:21:23,519 --> 00:21:25,839
he would have if he would have been around today

340
00:21:25,960 --> 00:21:28,559
and saw the evidence of like when we when we

341
00:21:28,759 --> 00:21:31,240
find fossils, he would have said, oh shit, there's there's

342
00:21:31,319 --> 00:21:34,960
transitional fossils, things like atoms. By the way, I thought

343
00:21:35,000 --> 00:21:37,359
this was the defeater for Platonism, and that's actually not

344
00:21:37,880 --> 00:21:42,000
Werner Heisenberger. Werner Heisenberg, who is the one who discovered

345
00:21:42,000 --> 00:21:47,000
the law of uncertainty. He actually argues that when you

346
00:21:47,079 --> 00:21:52,599
smash atoms together under the atomist Epicurean view Democratius view,

347
00:21:52,960 --> 00:21:55,880
they should get smaller and break apart. But what happens

348
00:21:55,920 --> 00:21:59,680
when you smash atoms together is they actually form mathematical

349
00:21:59,680 --> 00:22:02,880
sinem trees, which is forms. So it actually it actually

350
00:22:03,839 --> 00:22:07,079
it actually favors the Platonist view more so, those type

351
00:22:07,079 --> 00:22:09,039
of things is why I started to become convinced by

352
00:22:09,119 --> 00:22:10,799
this worldview. So I'm just kind of laying this out

353
00:22:10,799 --> 00:22:15,079
for a little bit. But another thing I want to

354
00:22:15,119 --> 00:22:18,079
I want to stress is the concept that Plato talks

355
00:22:18,079 --> 00:22:22,119
about is at pori. So Plato in his dialogues. If

356
00:22:22,160 --> 00:22:24,799
you read Plato's dialogues, you know they don't They never

357
00:22:24,920 --> 00:22:28,000
end on a solution. Socrates is always the best debater,

358
00:22:28,400 --> 00:22:30,559
but he doesn't He never really wins the debate. It's

359
00:22:30,559 --> 00:22:33,559
always left off on like they don't really know the

360
00:22:33,920 --> 00:22:36,559
like we get close to it, but things have to

361
00:22:36,640 --> 00:22:39,720
stay open. We need to have that scientific mind that

362
00:22:39,799 --> 00:22:43,519
we could be wrong. That's just me completely coming to you. Honestly,

363
00:22:43,559 --> 00:22:45,880
I don't have to know all things. I am a

364
00:22:46,279 --> 00:22:52,519
not omniscient being. However, with using the with using empiricism,

365
00:22:53,519 --> 00:22:57,039
laws of logic, you know, not not not falling, not

366
00:22:57,119 --> 00:23:01,000
going against law, non contradiction the law, by identity, you know,

367
00:23:01,160 --> 00:23:04,880
the scientific method. I can know things, and we can

368
00:23:04,960 --> 00:23:08,319
see that Aristotle discovered the laws of logic thousands of

369
00:23:08,440 --> 00:23:11,960
years ago and they still stand up today. So we

370
00:23:12,079 --> 00:23:16,480
can know things almost to a certainty. But the dog

371
00:23:16,640 --> 00:23:19,440
the only dogma that a Playton that should hold is virtue.

372
00:23:20,240 --> 00:23:22,920
If you are doing things that are that are reading virtue,

373
00:23:23,079 --> 00:23:25,079
they are good and you should do them. If you

374
00:23:25,119 --> 00:23:28,079
are doing things that are not bringing virtue, you shouldn't

375
00:23:28,119 --> 00:23:30,440
do them. That's the That's the main dogma that a

376
00:23:30,480 --> 00:23:33,319
Playtons holds, rather than having faith. So it is a

377
00:23:33,440 --> 00:23:37,839
nosis verse faith paradigm. We are disagreeing on that. But

378
00:23:39,039 --> 00:23:42,200
I would argue that the uh, how do we know God?

379
00:23:42,440 --> 00:23:44,440
So he might ask that question, how do I know God?

380
00:23:44,559 --> 00:23:44,680
Speaker 3: Well?

381
00:23:44,799 --> 00:23:49,079
Speaker 1: Through negation? What God not is God doesn't contradict himself.

382
00:23:49,119 --> 00:23:54,519
For for example, God, God doesn't tell you in through

383
00:23:54,599 --> 00:23:58,319
his through his scripture, for example, I have numbers here.

384
00:23:59,160 --> 00:24:01,599
He doesn't tell you that he wants to abort babies,

385
00:24:01,960 --> 00:24:04,599
and then thousands of years later. One of the main

386
00:24:04,680 --> 00:24:07,680
dogs of the church is like no abortions. So in

387
00:24:07,720 --> 00:24:12,319
the Book of Numbers, you have Yahweh telling the high

388
00:24:12,400 --> 00:24:16,720
priest that if you suspect there's any this is numbers

389
00:24:16,799 --> 00:24:20,240
five eleven thirty one. If you suspect that a woman

390
00:24:20,440 --> 00:24:24,160
is being an adulterer, that you should make this potion,

391
00:24:24,559 --> 00:24:27,119
this water from the dust of the tabernacle and give

392
00:24:27,160 --> 00:24:29,680
it to her, and then put a curse on her,

393
00:24:29,799 --> 00:24:32,640
so that the baby and the abdomen will swell and

394
00:24:32,720 --> 00:24:36,039
the womb miscarries. Then the woman is to say, amen,

395
00:24:36,279 --> 00:24:39,519
so be it. So that's a contradiction in your worldview.

396
00:24:39,559 --> 00:24:42,759
You have your own God telling your priest to do abortions,

397
00:24:42,799 --> 00:24:48,920
but you say you're anti abortion. Here's some more premise. One,

398
00:24:49,599 --> 00:24:53,599
a perfect self sustained being lacks nothing and does not

399
00:24:53,720 --> 00:24:59,839
require appeasement. The biblical God commands sacrifices to atone for sins.

400
00:25:01,200 --> 00:25:08,200
Requiring sacrifice implies a need for appeasement or satisfaction. Conclusion, therefore,

401
00:25:08,279 --> 00:25:12,079
Yahweh is not a perfect, all sustained being, not only

402
00:25:12,160 --> 00:25:16,480
that he requires human sacrifice. In the Book of Judges,

403
00:25:16,559 --> 00:25:20,039
Jephtha tells the Lord. He says, if you let me

404
00:25:20,079 --> 00:25:22,440
win this battle. The next person you put in front

405
00:25:22,440 --> 00:25:25,480
of me, I will put on an altar and sacrifice

406
00:25:25,519 --> 00:25:28,000
him to you. What is God? What is God? Put

407
00:25:28,039 --> 00:25:30,799
in front of Jephtha after he wins the battle, his

408
00:25:32,079 --> 00:25:35,519
pre pubescent daughter who's a virgin, and they go on

409
00:25:35,720 --> 00:25:37,559
with the sacrifice and do it. It's not like the

410
00:25:37,640 --> 00:25:40,920
Abraham story where Abraham's tested at the last second the

411
00:25:41,000 --> 00:25:45,039
angel stops him. Jeptha actually sacrifices a human to Yahweh.

412
00:25:45,440 --> 00:25:50,640
This is seen as good Yam Kipor. Leviticus sixteen says

413
00:25:51,000 --> 00:25:56,119
that you can sacrifice goats and bulls for sins every

414
00:25:56,240 --> 00:25:59,359
year at the time of yan Kippor. So what happened?

415
00:25:59,440 --> 00:26:01,400
Did God change his mine and say, wait a minute,

416
00:26:01,400 --> 00:26:04,799
we don't no more yam kippor, We need a human. Actually,

417
00:26:04,920 --> 00:26:09,359
I'll send myself a person of myself who's literally God.

418
00:26:09,640 --> 00:26:12,119
I'll put them in human form to sacrifice them to

419
00:26:12,240 --> 00:26:14,720
myself so I can save all you guys from me.

420
00:26:15,519 --> 00:26:18,680
It doesn't make any sense. It's not logically coherent. So

421
00:26:19,319 --> 00:26:23,680
a perfect being cannot experience emotional states that imply you

422
00:26:23,720 --> 00:26:27,480
got to wrap their security last one or relative change

423
00:26:27,799 --> 00:26:32,640
premise too. The Bible attributes jealousy, repentance, and wrath to Yahweh.

424
00:26:33,240 --> 00:26:37,279
Therefore Yahweh is inconsistent with divine perfection.

425
00:26:39,359 --> 00:26:42,960
Speaker 2: Okay, now, gentlemen, I've always given people this option after

426
00:26:43,000 --> 00:26:45,599
they get past opening statements, if you want to keep

427
00:26:45,640 --> 00:26:48,279
the format, get into rebuttals and then get into closings

428
00:26:48,319 --> 00:26:50,440
before we open it up. We can do that, or

429
00:26:50,519 --> 00:26:52,160
we can open it up right now, which will give

430
00:26:52,160 --> 00:26:55,279
you an extra forty five minutes of open debate. It's

431
00:26:55,359 --> 00:26:57,000
up to you, guys, what do you want to do there?

432
00:26:58,359 --> 00:27:03,359
Keep going okay, awesome, ten minutes in jay for your rebuttal.

433
00:27:03,480 --> 00:27:04,559
Go ahead when you're ready.

434
00:27:05,079 --> 00:27:07,319
Speaker 1: Just sing here, yeah, okay.

435
00:27:07,759 --> 00:27:13,400
Speaker 5: So we heard a whole lot of list of ideas,

436
00:27:13,519 --> 00:27:16,359
almost like you just sort of spat out all the

437
00:27:16,440 --> 00:27:19,599
things that just popped into his head, with little to

438
00:27:19,759 --> 00:27:25,039
know actual refutation or argumentation about anything in the Christian

439
00:27:25,079 --> 00:27:28,319
paradigm other than perhaps going to Reddit and finding a

440
00:27:28,400 --> 00:27:33,559
few of the classic misunderstandings of anthropomorphic language. The argument

441
00:27:33,680 --> 00:27:35,480
that I gave that he said I gave no argument,

442
00:27:35,839 --> 00:27:39,480
was that your worldview is incoherent at a fundamental level

443
00:27:40,000 --> 00:27:43,559
such that it makes the possibility of knowledge impossible.

444
00:27:44,359 --> 00:27:45,519
Speaker 1: You might not like that argument.

445
00:27:45,559 --> 00:27:47,960
Speaker 5: You might not understand that argument, but that's an argument,

446
00:27:48,039 --> 00:27:52,119
that's an internal critique, it's a transcendental argument. He said,

447
00:27:52,119 --> 00:27:57,039
he's an appolished apollost monist. For him, there is a

448
00:27:57,160 --> 00:27:59,880
hierarchical one and monad and that there's an emanation from

449
00:28:00,079 --> 00:28:04,160
this news. The news then produces psyche. There's these gradations.

450
00:28:04,599 --> 00:28:08,359
So there's an ontological diminishment in this worldview. He laid

451
00:28:08,359 --> 00:28:12,960
out this wild neoplatonic story. There's this triad. The things

452
00:28:13,039 --> 00:28:16,440
at the bottom are less good from the things that

453
00:28:16,599 --> 00:28:19,200
the top, which are the highest good, and it's also

454
00:28:19,480 --> 00:28:25,400
more perfect. Now, obviously this is a wild bunch of

455
00:28:25,480 --> 00:28:28,400
metaphysics that he claims to want to be in line

456
00:28:28,480 --> 00:28:32,880
with modern science and scientific data and information and so forth.

457
00:28:33,119 --> 00:28:36,079
And maybe there is some reconciliation there. But if you

458
00:28:36,160 --> 00:28:39,240
want to appeal to modernity, ninety nine point nine percent

459
00:28:39,319 --> 00:28:42,079
of modern academics, scientists and all the people that he

460
00:28:42,160 --> 00:28:45,839
wants to perhaps appease or be in good cahoots with,

461
00:28:46,599 --> 00:28:49,759
would laugh at this worldview and would not believe anything

462
00:28:49,960 --> 00:28:55,440
remotely close to neoplatonism. Neoplatonism died out in the Middle Ages,

463
00:28:55,519 --> 00:28:58,200
in fact, and never really made a resurgence now has

464
00:28:58,240 --> 00:28:59,599
nothing to do with what it's true false.

465
00:28:59,640 --> 00:29:02,119
Speaker 1: But it's just funny to me that there's this desire to.

466
00:29:02,160 --> 00:29:06,759
Speaker 5: Want to be rational and academic and scientific when neoplatonism

467
00:29:06,880 --> 00:29:09,519
is anything but it's one of the most speculative metaphysical

468
00:29:09,599 --> 00:29:13,400
disciplines in the history of Western philosophy. Now he says

469
00:29:13,440 --> 00:29:17,759
that the perfection is up at the top with the one,

470
00:29:18,240 --> 00:29:21,160
and there's gradations down to the triad and then everything

471
00:29:21,200 --> 00:29:23,559
else that comes from the triad. How do we know

472
00:29:23,720 --> 00:29:27,359
this on what basis are we supposed to believe from

473
00:29:27,440 --> 00:29:29,920
his worldview, from his paradigm that there are good reasons

474
00:29:30,000 --> 00:29:35,119
to believe in this impersonal monadic generation that's going on.

475
00:29:35,960 --> 00:29:39,960
Why would the one, if it's perfect, split into many,

476
00:29:40,000 --> 00:29:43,839
which is less perfect? His own argumentation about perfection in

477
00:29:43,960 --> 00:29:47,880
Yahweh would apply to his own monad, that the monad

478
00:29:48,039 --> 00:29:52,359
wasn't able, it wasn't able to keep it from being many,

479
00:29:52,680 --> 00:29:56,519
which then leads to gradations. Think about how silly it

480
00:29:56,599 --> 00:30:00,240
is to say that Yahweh doesn't make sense because.

481
00:30:00,319 --> 00:30:01,759
Speaker 1: He did this and this and this and the Old

482
00:30:01,799 --> 00:30:03,720
Testament and that doesn't make sense to me.

483
00:30:03,839 --> 00:30:06,400
Speaker 5: But then you turn around and say that an impersonal

484
00:30:06,799 --> 00:30:11,039
force or one that's a perne beyond no ability and

485
00:30:11,119 --> 00:30:13,359
existence and any predication at all.

486
00:30:13,839 --> 00:30:17,960
Speaker 1: Just split into two, and then that just split into three.

487
00:30:18,799 --> 00:30:22,160
Speaker 5: It's just arbitrary assertions from the domain of metaphysics that

488
00:30:22,279 --> 00:30:28,440
anyone with an empiricist worldview would laugh at. Neil doesn't

489
00:30:28,480 --> 00:30:33,000
know the difference between empirical sense data and empiricism as

490
00:30:33,039 --> 00:30:36,400
a school, so that was a huge blunder when he

491
00:30:36,480 --> 00:30:39,640
made the conflation between these two things. The gradations of

492
00:30:39,680 --> 00:30:43,079
perfections would be laughed at by any modern philosopher. For one,

493
00:30:43,119 --> 00:30:46,759
because after the Middle Ages, philosophies and metaphysics of perfection

494
00:30:47,039 --> 00:30:51,559
get questioned and they're not believed because there's a Copernican

495
00:30:51,680 --> 00:30:53,799
shift in philosophy after.

496
00:30:53,680 --> 00:30:55,240
Speaker 1: Human cont Why what does that mean?

497
00:30:55,599 --> 00:30:59,279
Speaker 5: It means that instead of having metaphysical assumptions and assertions

498
00:30:59,319 --> 00:31:02,720
that you make, the question then became, well, how do

499
00:31:02,799 --> 00:31:05,200
we know that those assertions and metaphysical things are actually

500
00:31:05,200 --> 00:31:08,400
the case. For example, Hume begins to raise questions about

501
00:31:08,480 --> 00:31:11,759
the regulator of nature. He raises questions about knowing the

502
00:31:11,799 --> 00:31:14,599
external world. Wouldn't you need to know those things before

503
00:31:14,599 --> 00:31:19,279
you tell me about ultimate reality? And metaphysical gradations and

504
00:31:19,400 --> 00:31:22,440
levels beyond reality. Now, in the Christian paradigm, of course,

505
00:31:22,519 --> 00:31:25,680
we believe that there are these other realities. But that's

506
00:31:25,799 --> 00:31:28,039
because we have a divine being that's outside of time,

507
00:31:28,039 --> 00:31:30,640
a space that gives us access to that reality. I

508
00:31:30,720 --> 00:31:33,000
realize that you don't believe that, but I'm saying we're

509
00:31:33,039 --> 00:31:35,599
in a much better position to say how we would

510
00:31:35,839 --> 00:31:38,200
think that that's the case, given the fact that we

511
00:31:38,480 --> 00:31:42,640
believe in divine revelation. If God exists, he could give

512
00:31:42,920 --> 00:31:45,519
revelation about himself and these higher realities or whatever to

513
00:31:45,920 --> 00:31:48,920
created beings. But in Neil's paradigm, the one is an

514
00:31:49,000 --> 00:31:53,680
impersonal modad. It doesn't do anything with intentionality. So notice

515
00:31:54,039 --> 00:31:59,200
there's no purpose actually to our lower bodily reality. Even

516
00:31:59,240 --> 00:32:01,240
when he says our goal is to get back to

517
00:32:01,359 --> 00:32:02,839
the One, how do we know that?

518
00:32:03,000 --> 00:32:04,119
Speaker 1: Why? The One is an.

519
00:32:04,079 --> 00:32:09,559
Speaker 5: Impersonal aper own a beyond being, a being beyond being,

520
00:32:10,039 --> 00:32:12,759
and beyond that being. That's what the operona, or the

521
00:32:13,119 --> 00:32:16,680
negated existence of the one actually is. So Neil has

522
00:32:16,720 --> 00:32:20,759
a position which is purely feedistic and based on faith.

523
00:32:21,319 --> 00:32:23,880
He thought that he would come with rationality and reasoning,

524
00:32:24,240 --> 00:32:27,039
but his position is completely irrational. In fact, he doesn't

525
00:32:27,039 --> 00:32:29,599
even know the difference between empiricism as a school and

526
00:32:29,680 --> 00:32:33,319
empirical sense data. Christians do not reject empirical sense data.

527
00:32:33,880 --> 00:32:36,519
In fact, we believe that God created us as beings

528
00:32:36,680 --> 00:32:38,960
with minds and with senses.

529
00:32:38,640 --> 00:32:41,559
Speaker 1: To learn things about the natural world. We just simply

530
00:32:41,599 --> 00:32:45,359
don't accept the empiricist school, which says that all knowledge

531
00:32:45,440 --> 00:32:48,720
comes from sense data. So again fundamental conflations.

532
00:32:49,359 --> 00:32:52,559
Speaker 5: Thus he made another basic mistake by saying that Aristotle

533
00:32:52,759 --> 00:32:53,720
was an empiricist.

534
00:32:54,079 --> 00:32:56,200
Speaker 1: Certainly, Aristotle was more empirical in.

535
00:32:56,240 --> 00:32:59,960
Speaker 5: His methodology than Plato, but he was not an imperial

536
00:33:00,440 --> 00:33:04,160
as we think of the post Enlightenment philosophers like David

537
00:33:04,240 --> 00:33:10,200
Hume or anybody from the positivist schools of philosophy. So

538
00:33:10,400 --> 00:33:13,279
he says that we can know these things, and we

539
00:33:13,400 --> 00:33:17,440
can know, for example, that there's only one dogma of

540
00:33:17,519 --> 00:33:19,519
a Platonist, and that is virtue.

541
00:33:19,759 --> 00:33:22,160
Speaker 1: How do we know that that's the one dogma?

542
00:33:22,400 --> 00:33:27,599
Speaker 5: He began his whole argumentation from the most outlandish speculations

543
00:33:27,920 --> 00:33:31,240
about the monad and the news and the psyche. But

544
00:33:31,359 --> 00:33:33,240
then he says, but really, the only thing we can

545
00:33:33,480 --> 00:33:37,839
know from Platonism is the virtue is to be virtue,

546
00:33:38,640 --> 00:33:39,319
to be virtuous?

547
00:33:39,880 --> 00:33:41,839
Speaker 1: How do we know what virtue is? If everything is

548
00:33:41,880 --> 00:33:43,000
a manifestation of the One.

549
00:33:43,720 --> 00:33:46,839
Speaker 5: I understand that as a priority monus he recognizes the

550
00:33:46,920 --> 00:33:50,920
reality of particulars and distinctions. But the problem isn't about

551
00:33:51,079 --> 00:33:54,079
recognizing distinctions. The problem is, well, what's the difference between

552
00:33:54,119 --> 00:33:57,119
good and evil? If all reality is fundamentally one thing

553
00:33:57,559 --> 00:34:00,599
monism and a manifestation of the One. Even if there'ss

554
00:34:01,119 --> 00:34:04,279
then what is moral evil? In other words, even if

555
00:34:04,359 --> 00:34:07,319
yahweh were guilty of the things that Neil says, well,

556
00:34:07,359 --> 00:34:10,519
in Neil's paradigm, everything is just a manifestation of the One. Anyway,

557
00:34:11,079 --> 00:34:13,119
Jeff zy McAffrey doing all this stuff on his island,

558
00:34:13,159 --> 00:34:15,639
that's just a manifestation of the One. It might be

559
00:34:15,719 --> 00:34:20,440
a lower manifestation, but it's not an objective evil that

560
00:34:20,599 --> 00:34:24,039
one must oppose because there is no objective standard of

561
00:34:24,119 --> 00:34:27,639
good and evil in Neil's paradigm. That's again another kill shot,

562
00:34:28,119 --> 00:34:30,760
which again Christianity, even if you don't like it, at

563
00:34:30,880 --> 00:34:33,000
least it makes sense and as a coherent cherent basis

564
00:34:33,079 --> 00:34:34,039
to why there would.

565
00:34:33,840 --> 00:34:35,559
Speaker 1: Be good and evil. There's a good God.

566
00:34:36,239 --> 00:34:39,920
Speaker 5: Evil is a negation of privation and a moral infraction

567
00:34:40,119 --> 00:34:43,800
against that God's commands. So the bad parts of the

568
00:34:43,920 --> 00:34:47,960
Bible don't even have any sensibility in his worldview, given

569
00:34:48,000 --> 00:34:49,679
that there is no bad for him.

570
00:34:49,840 --> 00:34:51,239
Speaker 1: The bad is just non being.

571
00:34:51,800 --> 00:34:54,440
Speaker 5: That's the classical chain of being model that we're talking about.

572
00:34:55,599 --> 00:34:58,760
But that's not really bad in a moral sense, it

573
00:34:58,960 --> 00:35:02,079
just lacks being. Now, for the Church Fathers, we agree

574
00:35:02,159 --> 00:35:04,519
in some places that there is a sense in which

575
00:35:04,559 --> 00:35:07,360
evil is a negation. We don't think it has ontological existence,

576
00:35:07,760 --> 00:35:10,519
but we have a basis for moral evils because of

577
00:35:10,599 --> 00:35:13,519
a moral character that God has and tells us not

578
00:35:13,639 --> 00:35:15,840
to do these certain things.

579
00:35:17,400 --> 00:35:18,960
Speaker 1: And thus we were also in print that Being made

580
00:35:19,000 --> 00:35:21,400
his image with a moral sense of good and evil.

581
00:35:21,599 --> 00:35:23,039
That is the law of God has written on our

582
00:35:23,079 --> 00:35:24,239
hearts in the Christian paradigm.

583
00:35:24,320 --> 00:35:26,840
Speaker 5: Now, the passage that he talked about, none of those

584
00:35:26,920 --> 00:35:29,920
teach the necessity of human sacrifice. If you read James

585
00:35:29,960 --> 00:35:33,599
Jordan's book James Jordan's famous commentary on the Book of Judges,

586
00:35:34,280 --> 00:35:38,679
very prominent biblical commentator. He makes a very good argument

587
00:35:38,760 --> 00:35:42,280
that when God tells Jephtha to give up his daughter,

588
00:35:42,840 --> 00:35:45,000
this is in the tradition of the Jews, just like

589
00:35:45,119 --> 00:35:48,480
with Samuel of committing your first born child to go

590
00:35:48,679 --> 00:35:51,119
serve at the temple, and this is a known Jewish practice,

591
00:35:51,239 --> 00:35:53,480
just like why we believe that Mary was committed to

592
00:35:53,599 --> 00:35:56,400
as a young person serve at the temple. You have

593
00:35:56,559 --> 00:36:01,159
that ability in Judaism to give up or you're firstborn

594
00:36:01,280 --> 00:36:02,320
or your daughter even.

595
00:36:02,199 --> 00:36:03,719
Speaker 1: As well, to go serve with the temple.

596
00:36:04,519 --> 00:36:06,320
Speaker 5: And the reason that mattered for the kings at that

597
00:36:06,400 --> 00:36:08,000
time was that meant they might not have a male

598
00:36:08,159 --> 00:36:11,400
errant through that daughter. So it's not just human sacrifice

599
00:36:11,400 --> 00:36:13,800
because remember already we've been told in the Law of

600
00:36:13,880 --> 00:36:16,880
Moses to not have human sacrifice. The point of the

601
00:36:16,960 --> 00:36:20,280
story with Abraham is that God will provide the sacrifice,

602
00:36:20,400 --> 00:36:23,639
not that we that he accepts human sacrifice. In fact,

603
00:36:23,719 --> 00:36:26,880
Neil and misunderstood the anthropomorphic language throughout the Old Testament,

604
00:36:26,960 --> 00:36:32,320
and Jews, Christians, Muslims, almost everybody understands that there's anthropomorphic

605
00:36:32,400 --> 00:36:34,400
language that's used to give us an idea of what

606
00:36:34,519 --> 00:36:35,119
God is like.

607
00:36:35,559 --> 00:36:36,400
Speaker 1: Doesn't mean that God.

608
00:36:36,360 --> 00:36:40,199
Speaker 5: Literally has jealousy, right, he doesn't learn new facts because

609
00:36:40,199 --> 00:36:43,000
he's omnission. But we have words that are used to

610
00:36:43,039 --> 00:36:45,559
help us understand this deity, and we actually believe in

611
00:36:45,639 --> 00:36:48,000
the theology of negation as well. We think that God's

612
00:36:48,079 --> 00:36:51,800
essence is unknowable. We negate what God's essence is. But

613
00:36:51,960 --> 00:36:55,519
God's positive cataphatic attributes are the energies that come down

614
00:36:55,559 --> 00:36:57,400
to us, as the saint Basils says, so we.

615
00:36:57,480 --> 00:36:59,800
Speaker 1: Believe in it both and and again for him.

616
00:37:01,000 --> 00:37:03,320
Speaker 5: You gotta wrap it very quickly, Jay, the world as

617
00:37:03,360 --> 00:37:06,360
it exists has no actual purpose and no actual basis

618
00:37:06,400 --> 00:37:07,719
to understand moral good and evil.

619
00:37:08,519 --> 00:37:11,360
Speaker 2: Thank you for that rebuttal. I appreciate it very much. Neil,

620
00:37:11,840 --> 00:37:13,880
your rebuttal, you have ten minutes on the clock.

621
00:37:14,239 --> 00:37:17,000
Speaker 1: It's funny how you just admitted that you also have

622
00:37:17,199 --> 00:37:20,800
the same doctrine of negation to know God, when for

623
00:37:20,840 --> 00:37:23,519
the last ten minutes before that you're sitting there asking me,

624
00:37:23,599 --> 00:37:25,400
how can I know things like God? When it's all

625
00:37:25,880 --> 00:37:28,960
how do He just had a nonsensical way of just

626
00:37:29,280 --> 00:37:33,239
just speculating basically, And it's not speculation. It's a metaphysical

627
00:37:33,480 --> 00:37:36,440
argument just like you're putting out there. The only difference

628
00:37:36,559 --> 00:37:41,159
is my metaphysical argument doesn't have contradictions like in the Trinity.

629
00:37:41,880 --> 00:37:45,119
For example, the law of non contradiction. The law of

630
00:37:45,599 --> 00:37:49,239
contradiction states that something cannot be both one and many

631
00:37:49,559 --> 00:37:52,719
in the same respect. At the same time, the Trinity

632
00:37:52,840 --> 00:37:56,760
claims that God is one and three. One and three

633
00:37:57,239 --> 00:38:00,400
are numerically contradictory predicated on the same thing in the

634
00:38:00,440 --> 00:38:04,320
same respect. Therefore, the Trinity violates the law of non contradiction.

635
00:38:05,360 --> 00:38:07,800
Also the law of identity. If A equals C and

636
00:38:07,960 --> 00:38:12,800
B equals C, then A equals B transivity and identity.

637
00:38:13,119 --> 00:38:16,360
The Father equals God. Premise too, premis three, the Son

638
00:38:16,480 --> 00:38:20,320
equals God. Conclusion, Therefore, the Son the Father is the Son.

639
00:38:22,119 --> 00:38:25,199
Not it's this that doesn't That doesn't make any sense.

640
00:38:25,239 --> 00:38:27,920
That's a as a fallacy. I know, I know you

641
00:38:28,039 --> 00:38:30,360
have your answers for that. I love to get into that.

642
00:38:30,360 --> 00:38:31,599
I have a back and forth with the Trinity. But

643
00:38:31,639 --> 00:38:35,679
you also mentioned in your first first go around the

644
00:38:35,760 --> 00:38:40,960
Wisdom of Solomon. And it's funny because even Orthodox scholars

645
00:38:41,039 --> 00:38:44,440
admit that the Wisdom of Solomon is dates to like

646
00:38:44,559 --> 00:38:47,679
one hundred to fifty b C. It's a Hellenistic text

647
00:38:48,239 --> 00:38:54,880
drawn heavily from Platonist and Plethagorean metaphysics. It's written in Greek.

648
00:38:54,920 --> 00:38:57,039
First of all, it's not even written in Hebrews, so

649
00:38:57,119 --> 00:38:59,000
I don't know why you think that's some old texts

650
00:38:59,039 --> 00:39:01,519
that goes back to Solomon, and it doesn't. So you

651
00:39:01,599 --> 00:39:03,760
need to show me how you've even got there, when

652
00:39:03,840 --> 00:39:06,719
all even your own scholars will say that it's yeah,

653
00:39:06,760 --> 00:39:11,119
it's definitely hellenistic. You don't even have your churches even

654
00:39:11,159 --> 00:39:13,960
have a position on things like the age of the Earth,

655
00:39:14,440 --> 00:39:17,719
because it can't have a position. It can't say we

656
00:39:17,880 --> 00:39:21,440
think we agree with the empirical data, because then your

657
00:39:21,519 --> 00:39:24,320
your Bible is in contradiction with the empirical data. You

658
00:39:24,400 --> 00:39:27,840
can do the math yourself and go do the genealogies

659
00:39:27,920 --> 00:39:30,159
and figure out that you can go from Jesus back

660
00:39:30,239 --> 00:39:33,159
down to Adam using any of the genealogies, and you'll

661
00:39:33,239 --> 00:39:35,760
end up a world that's six thousand and seven thousand

662
00:39:35,840 --> 00:39:40,400
years old. That is nonsense. And we can do this

663
00:39:40,559 --> 00:39:43,679
through predicted we can tell we could test, we could

664
00:39:43,679 --> 00:39:47,840
test this out and through empirical data predictive success. Every time.

665
00:39:47,960 --> 00:39:50,239
When we when we dig rock layers, we always find

666
00:39:50,719 --> 00:39:54,559
the extinct fossils on the bottom of the layers that

667
00:39:54,800 --> 00:39:58,679
farther down you go, you never find Homo sapiens at

668
00:39:58,719 --> 00:40:01,360
the bottom. You never find dinosaurs at the top. It's

669
00:40:01,480 --> 00:40:05,320
always the same layers for the same time periods every

670
00:40:05,519 --> 00:40:09,039
single time, ninety nine point nine percent every single time.

671
00:40:09,639 --> 00:40:12,519
We know how old the earth is. You can't have

672
00:40:12,599 --> 00:40:14,760
a global flood that wipes everything out if you don't

673
00:40:14,800 --> 00:40:17,199
even have enough water to cover the earth. And not

674
00:40:17,320 --> 00:40:20,360
only that, how did the animals swim across the Atlantic

675
00:40:20,400 --> 00:40:23,079
Ocean around after two thousand BC to two thousand and

676
00:40:23,079 --> 00:40:25,400
seven hundred BC. We never know it was. So you

677
00:40:25,519 --> 00:40:27,159
have problems that you have to deal with that. I

678
00:40:27,280 --> 00:40:32,519
don't have those problems. You also talked about John One

679
00:40:32,599 --> 00:40:34,400
the triad or he said that I don't believe that

680
00:40:34,480 --> 00:40:37,639
the trinity exists or the triad didn't exist after the

681
00:40:37,800 --> 00:40:39,880
third or fourth century. I never said that. I don't

682
00:40:39,880 --> 00:40:42,199
worry why you even brought that up. I actually argue

683
00:40:42,639 --> 00:40:45,119
the triad is in John One. I actually agree with you.

684
00:40:45,360 --> 00:40:49,519
John One is a retailing of Genesis. Logos represents atom,

685
00:40:49,800 --> 00:40:53,360
the new atom, and in him and aute Zoe, which

686
00:40:53,480 --> 00:40:58,800
is the life. There's a triad there Logos, God, Zoe, Tryad. However,

687
00:40:59,480 --> 00:41:04,400
it's not the later triad. It's not the trinitarian nice

688
00:41:04,559 --> 00:41:06,880
and creed triad is what I argue. So n r

689
00:41:06,960 --> 00:41:10,320
K and ho logos, ki ho logos and pros tone

690
00:41:10,400 --> 00:41:13,039
the one. And then it says ki theos and hole

691
00:41:13,119 --> 00:41:17,360
logos that that that phrase ki ki ki theos and

692
00:41:17,519 --> 00:41:21,440
hole logos is the predicate nominative in Greek. It's a

693
00:41:21,559 --> 00:41:25,880
well attested grammatically phenomenon that that that's all over the place.

694
00:41:25,920 --> 00:41:28,639
And if you, if you, if you switch theos with logos,

695
00:41:28,719 --> 00:41:32,559
and it makes it an adjective. So actually, theos is

696
00:41:32,639 --> 00:41:34,960
not equal to logos in this in this verse. I

697
00:41:35,039 --> 00:41:37,280
know your church would disagree, but I'm just going off

698
00:41:37,360 --> 00:41:41,679
what the basic Greek tells me. That the logos is divine.

699
00:41:41,880 --> 00:41:44,320
It's a it's a divine being, but it's separate from

700
00:41:44,320 --> 00:41:47,079
the logos. And that's why it says logos was with God,

701
00:41:47,360 --> 00:41:51,360
not was God, and the logos was divine. That word

702
00:41:51,440 --> 00:41:54,599
theos and the predicate nominative means it's used being used

703
00:41:54,639 --> 00:41:58,039
as an adjective just basic Greek. No, it's not basic Greek.

704
00:41:58,039 --> 00:42:00,480
It's pretty advanced actually, But that's what the best Greek

705
00:42:00,480 --> 00:42:04,079
scholars will agree with me. Logos you say, like it

706
00:42:04,119 --> 00:42:07,280
doesn't have meaning that it bounces around from person to person.

707
00:42:07,320 --> 00:42:11,199
But that's because the word logos has multifaceted, multi purposes.

708
00:42:11,559 --> 00:42:14,400
The word logos can mean reason, it can mean logic,

709
00:42:14,599 --> 00:42:17,679
it can mean word, it could mean letters, it could

710
00:42:17,719 --> 00:42:19,760
mean a lot of different things. So people use the

711
00:42:19,800 --> 00:42:23,840
word logos in different ways. But ultimately, the logos that

712
00:42:23,920 --> 00:42:26,840
we're talking about is the is the function of the

713
00:42:27,000 --> 00:42:30,559
creative reason in the cosmos. It's the news, it's the

714
00:42:31,239 --> 00:42:35,599
it's the brightest emanation from the one. And you, I

715
00:42:36,079 --> 00:42:39,360
would argue that Christian theology is borrowing from our worldview

716
00:42:39,920 --> 00:42:43,960
with the logos to construct John's logos with the logos.

717
00:42:44,599 --> 00:42:49,519
And so also you said Neoplatonism died in the Middle Ages. Well,

718
00:42:50,320 --> 00:42:53,880
Werner Heisenberg was a Platonist. Iris Murdoch is a Platonist.

719
00:42:54,159 --> 00:42:57,159
Thomas Taylor was a Platonist. That's just that's modern to us,

720
00:42:57,199 --> 00:42:59,599
all the way of the twentieth century, twenty firstcent, almost

721
00:43:00,039 --> 00:43:02,280
twenty first century, they live. There's platonists today. Actually, I

722
00:43:02,360 --> 00:43:04,960
just met someone. I was in Athens to the Tonic Academy,

723
00:43:05,440 --> 00:43:06,800
So I don't know, I don't know how you just

724
00:43:06,840 --> 00:43:11,159
thought that Gemestis Plethon was a was the debating Orthodox

725
00:43:11,440 --> 00:43:16,679
Palamites in in Constantinople in the fourteen fifties. He was

726
00:43:16,719 --> 00:43:18,199
a Platonist. What do you mean they died out in

727
00:43:18,239 --> 00:43:20,599
the Middle Ages. That's just that's just wrong. But I

728
00:43:20,800 --> 00:43:22,960
actually I would argue that there's a straight line from

729
00:43:23,000 --> 00:43:25,760
today to Plato. And the reason you might say, where

730
00:43:25,800 --> 00:43:27,719
do they all go? How come they all just look?

731
00:43:28,159 --> 00:43:30,280
First of all, they got kicked out by Justinian. But

732
00:43:30,440 --> 00:43:33,159
second off, we don't want massive people. We want elites.

733
00:43:33,440 --> 00:43:36,199
We want people who can think with reason. That's it's true.

734
00:43:36,639 --> 00:43:38,880
We're not trying to go out and convert people to Platonism.

735
00:43:39,239 --> 00:43:42,119
That's what you do because because it's that's that's what,

736
00:43:42,360 --> 00:43:45,719
that's what. It's a corporation, it's a religion. And so

737
00:43:47,719 --> 00:43:49,599
what else was I gonna say? Okay, so much time I.

738
00:43:49,679 --> 00:43:56,159
Speaker 2: Left right now, it looks like you still have almost

739
00:43:56,239 --> 00:43:59,920
two minutes. Okay, so your just over two minutes.

740
00:44:00,039 --> 00:44:02,079
Speaker 1: Okay, you said, I don't I don't account for the

741
00:44:02,320 --> 00:44:04,599
I don't account for things like the one of the many,

742
00:44:05,000 --> 00:44:09,119
because the one is just uh, it's everything's just you know,

743
00:44:09,280 --> 00:44:11,800
just sending from the one. But I already explained the

744
00:44:11,880 --> 00:44:15,679
emanations solve this, And it's a metaphysical argument that I'm making.

745
00:44:16,119 --> 00:44:19,079
The solution to the one and the many preserves real

746
00:44:19,199 --> 00:44:23,079
unity and plurality without collapsing. And my monism, the many

747
00:44:23,360 --> 00:44:27,039
emanates from the one without being separate from it. So

748
00:44:27,239 --> 00:44:33,280
emanation preserves ontological unity while allowing real structured plurality. Therefore,

749
00:44:34,119 --> 00:44:38,360
the monism that I'm arguing preserves both unity and plurality.

750
00:44:38,719 --> 00:44:40,760
Now the trinity does. To the trinity, you're just saying

751
00:44:40,800 --> 00:44:43,079
it does because you have three heads in one God.

752
00:44:43,559 --> 00:44:46,280
But that's still one thing. You're still talking about one

753
00:44:46,360 --> 00:44:49,440
thing with had properties. So how can one thing that

754
00:44:49,519 --> 00:44:54,280
has properties and needs sacrifices and and and and gives

755
00:44:54,320 --> 00:44:58,320
scripture that has contradictions Like when was Jesus born? I

756
00:44:58,360 --> 00:45:02,880
don't know, Luke says seven eight, Matthew says four BC

757
00:45:03,079 --> 00:45:06,119
when Herod died. Luke's sensus happened in seven a D.

758
00:45:06,320 --> 00:45:10,119
When Corinius was governor. So what you're going this is

759
00:45:10,119 --> 00:45:13,480
what we're dealing with, all just contradictions and contradictions. But

760
00:45:13,719 --> 00:45:16,480
the trinity does not even account for this. It's one

761
00:45:16,880 --> 00:45:19,400
one being one can't equal three. I like to hear

762
00:45:19,480 --> 00:45:22,079
you argue, how one can be three at the same

763
00:45:22,159 --> 00:45:25,159
time when my my emanations actually solves this.

764
00:45:28,920 --> 00:45:32,599
Speaker 2: All right, we've got about pretty close to eight thousand

765
00:45:32,679 --> 00:45:34,800
live viewers this fine, fine evening.

766
00:45:34,920 --> 00:45:36,280
Speaker 1: Appreciate that from everybody.

767
00:45:36,880 --> 00:45:39,960
Speaker 2: We're going to move into the debater's closings and the

768
00:45:40,280 --> 00:45:42,440
hour one section, and then we're going to move into

769
00:45:42,519 --> 00:45:45,880
open debate. Jay Dyer, you have ten minutes on the

770
00:45:45,920 --> 00:45:46,719
clock for your closing.

771
00:45:47,000 --> 00:45:48,039
Speaker 1: Go ahead when you're ready.

772
00:45:50,079 --> 00:45:52,440
Speaker 5: Right, So again, and I think this is kind of

773
00:45:52,480 --> 00:45:55,719
funny because half of what I said he didn't even understand.

774
00:45:55,840 --> 00:45:58,679
First of all, negation in my view, and using negation

775
00:45:59,119 --> 00:46:01,000
doesn't mean that I have the same view of you,

776
00:46:01,800 --> 00:46:04,119
right or as you. So the fact, yeah you did.

777
00:46:04,199 --> 00:46:06,920
You said that, Well, I have negation too. Yeah, But

778
00:46:07,360 --> 00:46:11,880
you don't have the idea of positive energetic presence in

779
00:46:12,000 --> 00:46:15,480
this world of the One. You have the emanations that

780
00:46:15,559 --> 00:46:17,639
are not the one, but you're supposed to but they

781
00:46:17,679 --> 00:46:21,199
supposedly reflect or are in some way perhaps participatory in

782
00:46:21,239 --> 00:46:21,519
the One.

783
00:46:21,840 --> 00:46:22,559
Speaker 1: How do we know that?

784
00:46:23,320 --> 00:46:25,800
Speaker 5: And why should we think that? If the One is perfect,

785
00:46:26,039 --> 00:46:28,639
then why would we think that something that is not

786
00:46:28,880 --> 00:46:33,400
the one and is imperfect somehow reflects or participates in

787
00:46:33,480 --> 00:46:36,760
the one. I don't think you even thought about the

788
00:46:36,960 --> 00:46:40,599
very classic refutations of platonism and neoplatonism that have been

789
00:46:40,599 --> 00:46:43,639
around for centuries and millennium people have been critiquing these positions.

790
00:46:44,159 --> 00:46:45,920
Speaker 1: What I said was that ninety nine.

791
00:46:45,840 --> 00:46:50,960
Speaker 5: Percent of today's academics and scientists laugh at neoplatonism. I

792
00:46:51,039 --> 00:46:54,079
sided Bernard Heisenberg about neoplatonic ideas in my book ten

793
00:46:54,119 --> 00:46:56,039
years ago. I'm well aware of what he said about

794
00:46:56,440 --> 00:47:00,480
fundamental reality bearing and showing geometric structure, and I think

795
00:47:00,519 --> 00:47:01,199
that's interesting.

796
00:47:01,360 --> 00:47:03,159
Speaker 1: And I cite Paul Davies's book.

797
00:47:03,440 --> 00:47:05,000
Speaker 5: Mind of God all the time, where you have people

798
00:47:05,039 --> 00:47:09,239
like Roger Penrose, who's a modern mathematician. Those are mathematicians

799
00:47:09,280 --> 00:47:13,480
and physicists who speculate and believe in something that makes

800
00:47:13,519 --> 00:47:16,440
sense with a Christian paradigm. That fundamental reality is ordered

801
00:47:16,480 --> 00:47:20,840
and structured. But this reality is way less perfect than

802
00:47:20,920 --> 00:47:24,239
the higher reality that you talk about. In fact, again,

803
00:47:25,000 --> 00:47:28,320
why ought we think that there's any similarity between the

804
00:47:28,440 --> 00:47:35,719
perfect monatic unity reality and the imperfect multiplicity becoming flux

805
00:47:35,840 --> 00:47:38,519
reality that we live in. It's almost like you're not

806
00:47:38,599 --> 00:47:42,239
even aware of the basic critique of platonism. How does

807
00:47:42,320 --> 00:47:45,079
the realm of the forms and the perfect idea up

808
00:47:45,119 --> 00:47:49,800
there relate to the imperfect, tainted, destructive chaos realm down

809
00:47:49,840 --> 00:47:54,760
here because they have oppositional characteristics. Now you can say

810
00:47:54,760 --> 00:47:57,599
an assert that they have a similarity and they share

811
00:47:57,599 --> 00:48:00,400
in each other, but you don't have an arguement for

812
00:48:00,519 --> 00:48:02,559
that other than to keep asserting that it is. So

813
00:48:03,519 --> 00:48:06,320
you seem to think that laying out the position of

814
00:48:06,400 --> 00:48:10,079
neoplatonism is an argument. You said, well, it reconciles the

815
00:48:10,159 --> 00:48:12,679
one in the many. It does not reconcile the one

816
00:48:12,679 --> 00:48:14,400
in the many, because, as I just pointed out to you,

817
00:48:15,000 --> 00:48:18,480
the one does not have the characteristics of the many,

818
00:48:18,639 --> 00:48:23,239
because it's perfection at a higher level. If many is imperfect,

819
00:48:23,719 --> 00:48:25,920
then it's not like the one. And if you're going

820
00:48:25,960 --> 00:48:27,719
to say, well, but it's also kind of like the one,

821
00:48:28,320 --> 00:48:30,360
how do we know that's the thing in question? These

822
00:48:30,400 --> 00:48:35,119
are classic critiques of platonism. You say that three and

823
00:48:35,239 --> 00:48:37,239
one cannot there's not a thing that can be three

824
00:48:37,320 --> 00:48:40,239
and one at the same time. Really, you ever seen this?

825
00:48:41,840 --> 00:48:43,400
This is a basic number?

826
00:48:44,400 --> 00:48:48,280
Speaker 1: Is this one or is it three? Oh, it's both

827
00:48:48,320 --> 00:48:51,800
at the same time. Is it more a single number

828
00:48:52,400 --> 00:48:54,599
or more three it's both.

829
00:48:55,320 --> 00:48:58,400
Speaker 5: So even objects in this world, as we've argued countless

830
00:48:58,440 --> 00:49:01,239
times against the Muslims, can be both one and many

831
00:49:01,320 --> 00:49:03,840
at the same time. Furthermore, the way you even laid

832
00:49:03,880 --> 00:49:06,079
it out, something cannot be one and many at the

833
00:49:06,119 --> 00:49:07,239
same time and in the same way.

834
00:49:07,320 --> 00:49:07,800
Speaker 1: Well, guess what.

835
00:49:08,360 --> 00:49:10,840
Speaker 5: The trinity is not one and many at the same

836
00:49:10,920 --> 00:49:13,599
time and in the same way, because the persons are

837
00:49:13,639 --> 00:49:14,320
not the same.

838
00:49:14,159 --> 00:49:15,000
Speaker 1: Thing as the essence.

839
00:49:15,320 --> 00:49:17,559
Speaker 5: So it's not the same thing in the same way,

840
00:49:17,880 --> 00:49:20,079
even according to our doctrine. So again, I don't think

841
00:49:20,119 --> 00:49:22,639
you understand what these arguments actually are about.

842
00:49:23,079 --> 00:49:23,880
Speaker 1: The logical problem.

843
00:49:23,960 --> 00:49:26,079
Speaker 5: The trinity is something that we've also dealt with many

844
00:49:26,119 --> 00:49:28,400
times when it comes to Muslims, and the whole.

845
00:49:28,280 --> 00:49:30,679
Speaker 1: Argument trades on the word God only having one reference.

846
00:49:30,679 --> 00:49:33,239
Speaker 5: But Neil seems to be really adapt at word constant

847
00:49:33,320 --> 00:49:36,199
fallacies by thinking that a word always has a single

848
00:49:36,280 --> 00:49:39,079
same reference. In fact, when I brought up the many

849
00:49:39,159 --> 00:49:43,119
different uses of logos throughout the ancient Greek philosophers, my point,

850
00:49:43,239 --> 00:49:44,920
and you backed that up, was to say, yes, correct,

851
00:49:44,960 --> 00:49:45,840
they all say these different things.

852
00:49:45,880 --> 00:49:47,440
Speaker 1: And then you said, but my position is the right one.

853
00:49:48,400 --> 00:49:50,960
Speaker 5: How do we know that what is the justification for

854
00:49:51,079 --> 00:49:55,039
choosing the neoplatonic idea, or even if it could be

855
00:49:55,039 --> 00:49:59,440
a Neoplatonists. For example, you have Iamblicusts, who's a ritual

856
00:49:59,519 --> 00:50:03,119
magic Platonists, and then you have Platinos, who'se ay. Sit

857
00:50:03,199 --> 00:50:05,159
around and speculate and think your way back to the

858
00:50:05,199 --> 00:50:09,920
one neoplatonists. Which one is the real Neoplatonism, Which one

859
00:50:10,000 --> 00:50:11,840
is the neo Platonism.

860
00:50:12,159 --> 00:50:13,360
Speaker 1: It's the one that you've made up.

861
00:50:13,800 --> 00:50:16,039
Speaker 5: And that's the thing, is that there's no justification for

862
00:50:16,679 --> 00:50:21,920
Neil's Platonism, which is his own made up Neoplatonism.

863
00:50:22,079 --> 00:50:25,039
Speaker 1: Now, Counting by identity versus counting.

864
00:50:25,239 --> 00:50:29,039
Speaker 5: By division is what the early Church fathers and even

865
00:50:29,079 --> 00:50:32,280
many in the ancient world used to distinguish different ways

866
00:50:32,320 --> 00:50:35,239
of counting different types of things. So the divine essence,

867
00:50:35,280 --> 00:50:38,320
for example, is counted by dividing. That's why the Nice

868
00:50:38,360 --> 00:50:41,199
and Creede says one and undivided. That's counting by division,

869
00:50:41,280 --> 00:50:45,719
and many ancient Greek philosophers also counted this way. Counting

870
00:50:45,800 --> 00:50:48,159
by identity is a different way of counting, and certain

871
00:50:48,239 --> 00:50:51,159
types of things that you can't think of as having

872
00:50:51,199 --> 00:50:55,360
any partitions you count by identity. For example, logical sets

873
00:50:56,000 --> 00:50:58,679
or laws of logic. Right, So for example, the law

874
00:50:58,679 --> 00:51:01,280
of non contradiction. There's no half of a law of

875
00:51:01,320 --> 00:51:04,519
non contradiction, right, So it's an abstract object that you

876
00:51:04,559 --> 00:51:08,360
would you have to count by identity. Thus you can't

877
00:51:08,440 --> 00:51:10,760
count by division. And throughout the history of the world,

878
00:51:10,840 --> 00:51:13,360
people have counted different things in different ways. Even in

879
00:51:13,440 --> 00:51:16,239
the Middle Ages. They began to recognize in medieval grammar

880
00:51:16,360 --> 00:51:19,599
texts and mathematical texts how to count different things in

881
00:51:19,639 --> 00:51:22,360
different ways. So they had this distinction by first order

882
00:51:22,360 --> 00:51:24,639
imposition and second order in position even in the Middle

883
00:51:24,639 --> 00:51:25,760
Ages when it came to counting.

884
00:51:25,920 --> 00:51:26,800
Speaker 1: So it's nothing new.

885
00:51:27,320 --> 00:51:30,039
Speaker 5: But what you're saying with the logical problem the trinity

886
00:51:30,440 --> 00:51:32,599
is again something that we've elucidated in all the Muslim

887
00:51:32,599 --> 00:51:34,679
debates when it comes up many many times over. It's

888
00:51:34,719 --> 00:51:37,280
just conflating two different ways of counting. And the funny

889
00:51:37,280 --> 00:51:39,320
thing about that is that in the case of Muslims,

890
00:51:39,519 --> 00:51:42,440
they also counted in various ways. In the ancient world,

891
00:51:42,480 --> 00:51:45,920
they counted by division. For example in Al Gazali. Many

892
00:51:46,000 --> 00:51:49,039
ancient Greek philosophers who I'm sure you actually would like,

893
00:51:49,639 --> 00:51:53,800
also counted by division and counted other things in other

894
00:51:53,840 --> 00:51:57,760
ways by identity. So if you understand that, that really

895
00:51:57,840 --> 00:52:00,719
sort of dissolves the whole issue with counting and the

896
00:52:00,880 --> 00:52:04,159
logical problem the trinity, and also the fact that the

897
00:52:04,199 --> 00:52:07,239
word God doesn't have a single reference in divine revelation.

898
00:52:07,760 --> 00:52:10,880
God can refer to God himself in terms of divine persons,

899
00:52:10,920 --> 00:52:13,119
It conferred to the divine nature, it can refer to

900
00:52:13,199 --> 00:52:16,440
divine operations or attributes, refer to human and it can

901
00:52:16,639 --> 00:52:19,960
refer to angels and demons. Throughout the texts of scripture.

902
00:52:20,639 --> 00:52:23,039
When I said the Wisdom of Solomon, I didn't just

903
00:52:23,159 --> 00:52:26,159
mean the deuterocononical text, which again apparently you're not aware

904
00:52:26,159 --> 00:52:28,559
of this, but there's a bunch of other texts called

905
00:52:28,639 --> 00:52:32,599
proverbs that are dated to the time. Loosely, you could say,

906
00:52:32,599 --> 00:52:33,800
even even take the liberal.

907
00:52:33,599 --> 00:52:34,559
Speaker 1: Dating of Solomon.

908
00:52:34,760 --> 00:52:38,920
Speaker 5: So guess what Proverbs seven, eight, nine, those talk about

909
00:52:39,239 --> 00:52:42,400
the wisdom texts. So you didn't even know that Hebrew

910
00:52:42,559 --> 00:52:45,280
wisdom text is not summed up in the Wisdom of

911
00:52:45,360 --> 00:52:47,880
Syric if you date that to the second century BC.

912
00:52:48,480 --> 00:52:52,360
I'm talking about the totality of wisdom texts, whether it's Syric,

913
00:52:52,639 --> 00:52:55,360
whether it's the Wisdom of Solomon or whether it's proverbs,

914
00:52:55,719 --> 00:52:59,800
they consistently refer to wisdom as a personified character, as

915
00:52:59,800 --> 00:53:02,480
a sponified person, for example, Proverb seven or eight at

916
00:53:02,519 --> 00:53:06,199
the beginning of the creation, participating in the creation of

917
00:53:06,280 --> 00:53:08,920
the world. That's why John one is using that same terminology.

918
00:53:09,000 --> 00:53:12,719
Now you claim that that basic Greek shows you that

919
00:53:13,719 --> 00:53:16,239
John one should be interpreted in your way.

920
00:53:16,320 --> 00:53:17,440
Speaker 1: Do you actually know Greek?

921
00:53:18,079 --> 00:53:21,800
Speaker 5: And then you said the best Greek scholars say this. Okay,

922
00:53:21,960 --> 00:53:23,880
I'd be interested to hear some of your Greek scholars

923
00:53:23,920 --> 00:53:26,480
and what Greek scholars are the best Greek scholars that

924
00:53:26,559 --> 00:53:29,239
say this, Because you gave the impression first, like you

925
00:53:29,400 --> 00:53:31,559
know the Greek, I'm skeptical.

926
00:53:31,639 --> 00:53:33,199
Speaker 1: Maybe you do, Maybe you are a Greek scholar, but

927
00:53:33,239 --> 00:53:35,000
I'm skeptical that you are. Perhaps you are.

928
00:53:35,679 --> 00:53:38,360
Speaker 5: Then you go you went on to say that the

929
00:53:38,519 --> 00:53:43,000
logos that you're talking about is the logos that is

930
00:53:43,400 --> 00:53:45,880
the news and so forth and so on. That's the

931
00:53:45,960 --> 00:53:48,360
one that's the right one out of all these ancient texts,

932
00:53:48,800 --> 00:53:51,440
and there are many uses the variations of the use

933
00:53:51,480 --> 00:53:55,360
of logos, that's the one. Okay, how do we know, Neil,

934
00:53:55,719 --> 00:53:59,320
what is the epistemic justification? You said, there's all these arguments,

935
00:54:00,119 --> 00:54:02,760
but you said the one of the many. Okay, but

936
00:54:02,840 --> 00:54:05,199
the one of the many is a problem in your position,

937
00:54:05,320 --> 00:54:08,119
because why are there many at all? Why would we

938
00:54:08,199 --> 00:54:12,840
think that imperfect things reflect the perfection of the opera

939
00:54:12,880 --> 00:54:13,559
O and the beyond.

940
00:54:17,199 --> 00:54:21,199
Speaker 1: Okay, that's it, Jay, are you yielding your time?

941
00:54:21,239 --> 00:54:22,719
Speaker 2: You still got a couple of minutes left if you

942
00:54:22,719 --> 00:54:24,159
want to take Yeah, if you want to take it,

943
00:54:24,280 --> 00:54:27,440
you still have looks like almost three minutes.

944
00:54:27,679 --> 00:54:29,079
Speaker 1: Okay, I'll keep going going.

945
00:54:29,159 --> 00:54:31,239
Speaker 5: So again, let's go back to what we wanted to

946
00:54:31,280 --> 00:54:35,519
distress when it was an issue with the original I

947
00:54:35,559 --> 00:54:37,519
didn't This are things I didn't get to the original rebuttal.

948
00:54:37,599 --> 00:54:41,880
So again, what I think Neil's not understanding is that

949
00:54:42,039 --> 00:54:45,559
modern science, modern academia, for the most part, I said,

950
00:54:45,639 --> 00:54:48,840
ninety nine point nine percent are not neoplatonists. It doesn't

951
00:54:48,840 --> 00:54:51,360
mean there aren't some outliers, but the majority of academia

952
00:54:51,519 --> 00:54:56,199
who are inmpiricists for the most part, meaning that we

953
00:54:56,320 --> 00:54:59,920
can't really go beyond since data. You've got two different

954
00:55:00,199 --> 00:55:03,639
conflicting situations in your worldview, Neil. On the one hand,

955
00:55:03,679 --> 00:55:07,880
you want this mystical theology that's gradations of reality from

956
00:55:07,920 --> 00:55:10,559
the one. And then you've got this other desire to

957
00:55:10,639 --> 00:55:14,840
fit into modern academia and be scientific. Well, modern scientific

958
00:55:15,039 --> 00:55:18,960
empiricism or positivism or whatever you want to call it

959
00:55:19,920 --> 00:55:22,760
has nothing to do and would totally reject all of

960
00:55:22,840 --> 00:55:23,719
your first presentation.

961
00:55:23,840 --> 00:55:25,840
Speaker 1: Now maybe you've got someone you think you can reconcile it.

962
00:55:25,880 --> 00:55:28,199
Speaker 5: But I'm just curious, like, how are you going to

963
00:55:28,239 --> 00:55:30,239
get from empirical sense data because you said that's what

964
00:55:30,280 --> 00:55:32,920
you want to be rooted in and grounded in and

965
00:55:33,840 --> 00:55:38,400
do science. How does science tell you about the monad

966
00:55:38,480 --> 00:55:41,760
that's beyond experience? How does science tell you about the

967
00:55:41,880 --> 00:55:44,800
news and psyche underneath that? Where does science or the

968
00:55:44,800 --> 00:55:47,639
scientific method tell you that there's gradations of reality from

969
00:55:47,679 --> 00:55:50,679
the one and that the one is more perfect? So

970
00:55:50,800 --> 00:55:54,440
these are all assertions, metaphysical assertions. And I think you

971
00:55:54,559 --> 00:55:57,800
meant Plethon. You mispronounced it. But Plethon was an atheist

972
00:55:57,840 --> 00:56:01,199
platonist in Byzantheum. Yeah, one guy in the Middle Ages.

973
00:56:01,840 --> 00:56:06,400
So what that's again against the point that the majority

974
00:56:06,400 --> 00:56:08,880
of people today are not that. And it actually proves

975
00:56:08,960 --> 00:56:11,239
my argument by by you saying that there was this

976
00:56:11,360 --> 00:56:14,079
guy in a Byzantium Plethon.

977
00:56:14,320 --> 00:56:17,159
Speaker 1: Yeah, one guy in Plethon, so it died out. Or

978
00:56:17,199 --> 00:56:19,000
one one guy was Andrew, so it died out.

979
00:56:19,480 --> 00:56:22,440
Speaker 5: Now, if you read a Synicio Glues book on Plethon,

980
00:56:22,519 --> 00:56:23,960
which came out a couple of years ago, I've got

981
00:56:24,000 --> 00:56:27,159
it right over here. He argues that the tradition of

982
00:56:28,199 --> 00:56:33,719
atheistic Platonism went on into Spinoza and into the Jacobins

983
00:56:34,320 --> 00:56:39,199
and other philosophers of the Renaissance. So I want to

984
00:56:39,320 --> 00:56:43,119
know again, Neil, we've got to understand. Gotta we gotta

985
00:56:43,119 --> 00:56:45,440
hear some kind of reason as to why we ought

986
00:56:45,480 --> 00:56:52,159
to believe this mystical neo platonism. All I heard was, well,

987
00:56:52,239 --> 00:56:56,719
it does this, this, this, and here's problems in the Bible. Okay, fine,

988
00:56:57,320 --> 00:57:01,440
what is the good argument to know from empirical data

989
00:57:01,559 --> 00:57:02,239
and sense data?

990
00:57:02,320 --> 00:57:05,400
Speaker 1: What you rely on that all of these metaphysical things

991
00:57:05,440 --> 00:57:05,800
are true?

992
00:57:06,480 --> 00:57:08,920
Speaker 2: All right, we gotta gotta leave it there. Try not

993
00:57:09,039 --> 00:57:12,480
to interrupt the last portion there, Neil, you have ten

994
00:57:12,519 --> 00:57:14,880
minutes on the clock for your closing statement before we

995
00:57:15,000 --> 00:57:16,960
open up the floor for an open debate.

996
00:57:17,400 --> 00:57:20,079
Speaker 1: Go ahead when you're ready. I didn't actually pronounce his

997
00:57:20,159 --> 00:57:23,840
name wrong. It's playthone. In Greek it's plethone and maybe

998
00:57:24,039 --> 00:57:27,679
some English anglicized version of I'm just you did the

999
00:57:27,679 --> 00:57:28,920
same thing to me when I'll talked to you a

1000
00:57:29,000 --> 00:57:31,559
while ago, when I said do odd, you said diet

1001
00:57:31,679 --> 00:57:34,400
haa Douodd is a word that people use. It's a

1002
00:57:34,440 --> 00:57:37,440
Greek word. We even anglicize it as do in philosophy.

1003
00:57:37,559 --> 00:57:42,719
So I'm surprised some of the master's philosophy didn't know us. I, yeah,

1004
00:57:42,800 --> 00:57:45,119
I do. I don't speak right, and Jay can't. You

1005
00:57:45,199 --> 00:57:48,599
can't interrupt his his closing, go ahead, and Neil, I'm

1006
00:57:48,599 --> 00:57:52,199
a student of Greek, so no more than you do anyways.

1007
00:57:52,239 --> 00:57:55,000
So yeah, well, not to go back to when you

1008
00:57:55,079 --> 00:57:57,039
point pulled you picked up a book with a number

1009
00:57:57,119 --> 00:57:59,239
three on it and said, is this one and three

1010
00:57:59,320 --> 00:58:02,519
at the same time, it's one book with the letter

1011
00:58:02,760 --> 00:58:05,119
with the number three on it. Doesn't mean anything. You didn't.

1012
00:58:05,119 --> 00:58:07,280
You didn't you didn't show me anything. You didn't demonstrate

1013
00:58:07,360 --> 00:58:08,960
that it can one something, give you one and three

1014
00:58:09,000 --> 00:58:11,280
at the same time. You just you just picked up

1015
00:58:11,280 --> 00:58:13,639
a book with the number three on it, and that

1016
00:58:13,760 --> 00:58:15,719
all that is to me is that's a book. That's

1017
00:58:15,800 --> 00:58:18,960
one book with a number three on it. That was

1018
00:58:19,000 --> 00:58:21,239
like mind blowing when I saw that. That was hilarious.

1019
00:58:23,079 --> 00:58:25,519
But yeah, you want to know why, why why should

1020
00:58:25,519 --> 00:58:27,440
I believe your world? You? Why should I care? Well,

1021
00:58:27,679 --> 00:58:29,360
first of all, I never said that I'm trying to

1022
00:58:29,400 --> 00:58:31,559
get modern science to be grounded in all these I

1023
00:58:31,639 --> 00:58:33,719
want everyone to be a Platonist and all believe in

1024
00:58:33,800 --> 00:58:37,920
my stuff. These are metaphysical arguments. Is there metaphysical arguments

1025
00:58:37,960 --> 00:58:41,039
that account for things just as you're doing? The difference

1026
00:58:41,159 --> 00:58:45,880
is my worldview allows for things like impirsist empir empirical

1027
00:58:46,000 --> 00:58:50,519
data to to and we have the predictive success on

1028
00:58:50,639 --> 00:58:53,800
our side, where you have are bogged down by dog

1029
00:58:53,920 --> 00:58:56,840
buzz that gets you to have to you have to

1030
00:58:56,920 --> 00:58:59,360
believe the Earth is six thousand years old or that

1031
00:59:00,960 --> 00:59:04,039
evolution is false and you just flat out just deny

1032
00:59:04,599 --> 00:59:08,960
in your face physical evidence of transitional fossils or I

1033
00:59:09,000 --> 00:59:11,159
don't have to do that. So I don't care if

1034
00:59:11,360 --> 00:59:15,639
ninety nine point nine percent of empiricists all right, atheists, Great,

1035
00:59:15,800 --> 00:59:17,880
I don't care if they're atheists. That means nothing to me.

1036
00:59:18,199 --> 00:59:21,320
Doesn't bother me one bit what we're doing in philosophy

1037
00:59:21,320 --> 00:59:24,639
and platonism it's a totally different thing. We're accounting. We're

1038
00:59:24,679 --> 00:59:27,199
doing metaphysical arguments and trying to account for the world

1039
00:59:27,480 --> 00:59:30,159
and and and ethics and metaph and stuff like that.

1040
00:59:30,719 --> 00:59:32,920
But the problem, but we can just do we can

1041
00:59:33,079 --> 00:59:36,559
just negate your worldview off the rip just because of

1042
00:59:36,639 --> 00:59:39,320
how flawed it is, and we can just go through

1043
00:59:39,440 --> 00:59:42,480
and say, and I pointed some things out to you,

1044
00:59:42,840 --> 00:59:46,119
the contra the major contradictions in your in your biblical corpus,

1045
00:59:46,880 --> 00:59:49,880
And I didn't I wasn't talking about anthropomorphic stuff like, yeah, okay,

1046
00:59:49,960 --> 00:59:52,559
maybe you can get away with saying God being jealous

1047
00:59:52,679 --> 00:59:55,760
is anthropomorphic and he wasn't really jealous. But that's just

1048
00:59:55,840 --> 00:59:58,199
how it's reflected in the story. But I but you

1049
00:59:58,280 --> 01:00:01,320
still have an answer. Why does God needs sacrifices? Why

1050
01:00:01,360 --> 01:00:04,760
does God need to send him hisself to save the

1051
01:00:04,840 --> 01:00:08,920
world from himself. That's not an omniscient God, that's not

1052
01:00:09,000 --> 01:00:11,199
an all powerful God that needs to do all these things.

1053
01:00:12,079 --> 01:00:16,960
So a perfect and omniscient being doesn't regret prior actions.

1054
01:00:18,320 --> 01:00:24,119
Yahweh regrets Uh regrets making the earth. In Genesis six,

1055
01:00:24,199 --> 01:00:27,519
he says, ah Yahweh regretted that I have made the

1056
01:00:27,639 --> 01:00:31,599
earth so Yahweh can't be a perfect omniscient being. So

1057
01:00:32,559 --> 01:00:35,360
I'm already more coherent with you. This debates over at

1058
01:00:35,400 --> 01:00:37,960
that point. I'm already even if you don't think that

1059
01:00:38,079 --> 01:00:41,480
my metaphysical arguments are can be proven with with whatever,

1060
01:00:42,320 --> 01:00:45,400
Why should I believe in your in your monad well,

1061
01:00:45,440 --> 01:00:47,199
I don't have to believe in yours because you have

1062
01:00:47,360 --> 01:00:49,679
You're giving me things that I can just cancel out

1063
01:00:50,119 --> 01:00:53,480
just because of the fallacies. An all perfect being does

1064
01:00:53,599 --> 01:00:58,239
not need anything, can't be jealous, can't not know things,

1065
01:00:58,559 --> 01:01:03,639
can't lose battles in in Uh. In the Book of Judges,

1066
01:01:03,880 --> 01:01:07,320
I have my notes here, Yahweh goes up against the

1067
01:01:09,280 --> 01:01:13,079
the Midianites, and it says that Yahweh was the spirit

1068
01:01:13,119 --> 01:01:17,000
of Yahweh was with the Judah heights, but the Judah

1069
01:01:17,039 --> 01:01:21,599
Heights couldn't defeat the Midianites because they had iron chariots.

1070
01:01:22,519 --> 01:01:24,800
The spirit of God was with the Judah. Heyightes, this

1071
01:01:24,840 --> 01:01:26,800
is what it says. How else do you exeget that?

1072
01:01:27,039 --> 01:01:30,360
Do I have to be an orthodox priest to exegy

1073
01:01:30,480 --> 01:01:33,239
that no I can use. I can use my own

1074
01:01:33,320 --> 01:01:36,760
reasoning and say that is not a perfect God, that

1075
01:01:36,960 --> 01:01:39,599
is a God that is flawed. This is a god

1076
01:01:39,719 --> 01:01:44,519
that dashes little children's, little children against rocks and is

1077
01:01:44,599 --> 01:01:48,320
boasting about it in the Psalms. And let's talk about

1078
01:01:48,920 --> 01:01:51,400
you meant you brought up, uh, you brought up the

1079
01:01:51,920 --> 01:01:54,079
dating of the text. And because I was talking about

1080
01:01:54,079 --> 01:01:56,760
Wisdom of Solomon in particular, which is clearly Hellenistic, it's

1081
01:01:56,800 --> 01:01:59,440
written in Greek. First of all, game over, they don't

1082
01:01:59,480 --> 01:02:01,760
even have a heat. It's Greek. It's a Greek text.

1083
01:02:01,960 --> 01:02:04,360
And you said, I'm talking with the whole corpus of Solomon. Well,

1084
01:02:04,440 --> 01:02:06,920
let's talk about the whole corpus of Solomon. Then none

1085
01:02:06,960 --> 01:02:09,559
of it. There's no evidence for any of it going

1086
01:02:09,639 --> 01:02:12,320
back before like four hundred to the latest. And I

1087
01:02:12,719 --> 01:02:17,280
can tell you how I know this, when when Israel

1088
01:02:17,360 --> 01:02:20,000
was conquered by the Assyrians in five eighty six BCE,

1089
01:02:21,199 --> 01:02:24,880
a bunch of thousands of Jews fled down to Elephantine,

1090
01:02:25,159 --> 01:02:27,880
while all the rest of them went into Babylon in captivity.

1091
01:02:28,199 --> 01:02:30,400
But they set up a colony called Elephantine, and they

1092
01:02:30,440 --> 01:02:32,719
set up a temple of Yahweh there, and they call

1093
01:02:32,800 --> 01:02:37,199
themselves Judaios in Greek, Yehudim and Hebrew. And they wrote

1094
01:02:37,239 --> 01:02:40,000
aramic texts, and we have hundreds of them, so we

1095
01:02:40,079 --> 01:02:43,920
have a perfect time capsule. From five eighty six to

1096
01:02:44,199 --> 01:02:46,519
four hundred is when they left and went back to Jerusalem.

1097
01:02:47,000 --> 01:02:50,039
It's one hundred and eighty six years, so this is

1098
01:02:50,199 --> 01:02:53,000
after the First Temple period. Well, guess what do you

1099
01:02:53,119 --> 01:02:56,119
find there? You don't find anything about the Torah. There's

1100
01:02:56,159 --> 01:02:58,880
not a single mention of Abraham, not a single mention

1101
01:02:59,000 --> 01:03:01,320
of Moses, not a single mention of Jacob, not a

1102
01:03:01,400 --> 01:03:03,599
single mention of the twelve tribes, not a single mention

1103
01:03:03,719 --> 01:03:08,400
of Moses. No Noah, no Adam and Eve, nothing, no Torah. Nothing.

1104
01:03:08,679 --> 01:03:10,880
They get a letter in the year four hundred and ten.

1105
01:03:10,960 --> 01:03:13,960
I think it is from Jerusalem. They get a letter

1106
01:03:14,039 --> 01:03:15,719
sent to them. We had the letter, we found it,

1107
01:03:15,800 --> 01:03:18,000
we dug it up, and it's telling them for the

1108
01:03:18,119 --> 01:03:21,760
first time how to do a Passover. It shows we

1109
01:03:22,239 --> 01:03:24,480
were starting this new thing called Passover. This is in

1110
01:03:24,639 --> 01:03:27,920
four to ten BCE, this new thing called Passover, and

1111
01:03:28,039 --> 01:03:31,519
we celebrated on Nissan fourteen. Well, it's every year, it's

1112
01:03:31,559 --> 01:03:34,000
on Nissan fourteen. That's like me telling you to celebrate

1113
01:03:34,079 --> 01:03:37,360
Christmas on the Stummer twenty fifth. You should already know that.

1114
01:03:38,079 --> 01:03:41,000
So these are the Old Testament that you think goes

1115
01:03:41,039 --> 01:03:45,239
back to Moses and Solomon. That's nonsense. Prove it. There's

1116
01:03:45,320 --> 01:03:48,960
not a single piece of evidence for the Exodus anywhere.

1117
01:03:49,320 --> 01:03:53,119
There's no mention of Moses and any Egyptian sources. Joseph

1118
01:03:53,400 --> 01:03:56,000
in the Old Testament was the visier of the entire

1119
01:03:56,079 --> 01:04:01,079
Egyptian kingdom, the second highest most powerful person in the

1120
01:04:01,280 --> 01:04:04,199
entire Egyptian kingdom. Well, guess what we have from Egypt

1121
01:04:04,559 --> 01:04:06,960
even to this day. We have all the records of

1122
01:04:07,079 --> 01:04:10,840
all the pharaohs and their viziers. None of them mentioned

1123
01:04:10,880 --> 01:04:13,519
any of Joseph. We don't know. Joseph doesn't exist. He's

1124
01:04:13,599 --> 01:04:16,920
made up. In fact, the name Joseph probably probably some

1125
01:04:17,079 --> 01:04:19,679
sort of derivative from Osiris at some people, some scholars

1126
01:04:19,679 --> 01:04:24,280
point out some sort of euhemerization of Osiris, how he

1127
01:04:24,360 --> 01:04:27,840
descends into the underworld, into the dungeon and it rises up,

1128
01:04:27,920 --> 01:04:31,239
it becomes the second most high next to Amen. So

1129
01:04:31,280 --> 01:04:32,599
there's a lot of things we could see what's going

1130
01:04:32,639 --> 01:04:34,360
on in the Old Testament text, like the like the

1131
01:04:34,440 --> 01:04:37,159
story of the flood with Noah where he lets off

1132
01:04:37,199 --> 01:04:39,440
a raven and a dove and the raven and the

1133
01:04:39,480 --> 01:04:41,760
dove comeback seven days later to show him he's in land.

1134
01:04:42,719 --> 01:04:47,320
Sure enough, we got Sumerian and Thekadian tablets that predate

1135
01:04:47,400 --> 01:04:50,920
the Bible by one thousand, two, two thousand years about

1136
01:04:51,280 --> 01:04:55,519
the epic of Gyogamesh And as another there's another source.

1137
01:04:55,559 --> 01:04:57,639
I'm I'm thinking of the mind slipping right in the

1138
01:04:57,719 --> 01:04:59,840
name of it slipping my mind right now. But it

1139
01:05:00,119 --> 01:05:05,400
has this exact same story where, uh, what's his name,

1140
01:05:05,400 --> 01:05:07,639
I can't remember his name. He's on the he's on

1141
01:05:07,719 --> 01:05:10,119
the arc, and he lets he's got all the animals,

1142
01:05:10,159 --> 01:05:12,840
two of each animal, same story, and he lets off

1143
01:05:12,880 --> 01:05:16,159
a dove and a raven that come back seven days later.

1144
01:05:16,239 --> 01:05:20,280
But it's not Noah that sucks. It's not Jewish, this

1145
01:05:20,400 --> 01:05:24,360
is Akkadian. This is just borrowing other stories and then

1146
01:05:24,960 --> 01:05:27,440
personalizing it. And how do we know that. I'm just

1147
01:05:27,480 --> 01:05:29,599
assert that they do this right here. You see those

1148
01:05:29,639 --> 01:05:31,800
yellow and black texts that I'm pointing to. Those are

1149
01:05:31,840 --> 01:05:38,079
called pseudo pigripha. Should you read them? They're false writings, Yeah,

1150
01:05:38,119 --> 01:05:41,239
they're false writings. They're fake text writing in the names

1151
01:05:41,280 --> 01:05:43,880
of other people. And this is like this Christians pick

1152
01:05:43,960 --> 01:05:47,719
up on this pseudo Dionysius, fifth century a d. He's

1153
01:05:47,800 --> 01:05:49,960
not a first century writer, He's a fifth century writer

1154
01:05:50,400 --> 01:05:54,719
adopting neo Platonism. So when I see these things, pseudo text,

1155
01:05:55,199 --> 01:05:58,840
no evidence, I go My reasoning tells me this is

1156
01:05:58,920 --> 01:06:01,519
not the true religion, this is not the true worldview.

1157
01:06:01,960 --> 01:06:04,880
So I have a more simple worldview that accounts for things,

1158
01:06:05,360 --> 01:06:07,079
and that's why I go with neil Platonism.

1159
01:06:09,360 --> 01:06:13,599
Speaker 2: Gentlemen, gentlemen, we just got a major rate in which

1160
01:06:13,639 --> 01:06:18,000
I really appreciate. We're at almost ten thousand live between

1161
01:06:18,039 --> 01:06:22,880
all platforms. Nice, about eight thousand live on YouTube at

1162
01:06:22,960 --> 01:06:27,440
the moment. Appreciate very much for the raid. Yeah, I

1163
01:06:27,519 --> 01:06:31,280
do pretty well anyway, Appreciate it very much. I don't

1164
01:06:31,360 --> 01:06:33,400
know who rated me. Maybe a mod can let me

1165
01:06:33,480 --> 01:06:34,639
know so that we can think.

1166
01:06:36,360 --> 01:06:37,880
Speaker 1: Real quick. Yeah, you can grab a water.

1167
01:06:38,119 --> 01:06:40,199
Speaker 2: We're going to take a brief intermission for two minutes

1168
01:06:40,239 --> 01:06:41,800
guys before we get to the open debate. If you

1169
01:06:41,840 --> 01:06:45,119
want to grab anything else, you're welcome to bathroom break,

1170
01:06:45,199 --> 01:06:48,000
whatever it is that you guys want to do. Appreciate

1171
01:06:48,039 --> 01:06:50,039
the raid or was it Timcast? Thank you Tim Cast?

1172
01:06:50,079 --> 01:06:54,679
Appreciate it real quick call to action. Make sure you like, subscribe,

1173
01:06:54,840 --> 01:06:59,280
share all that good stuff, and also send in your

1174
01:06:59,360 --> 01:07:01,480
super chat. You don't want all that evil money in

1175
01:07:01,519 --> 01:07:03,679
your wallet anyway, it's uncomfortable.

1176
01:07:03,840 --> 01:07:07,039
Speaker 1: You can send it in to me instead. I always

1177
01:07:07,079 --> 01:07:08,960
think that that's a much better gig.

1178
01:07:10,599 --> 01:07:13,760
Speaker 2: All your super chat's going to get red moving into

1179
01:07:14,079 --> 01:07:16,400
the third hour of the debate, we're moving into the

1180
01:07:16,480 --> 01:07:19,000
second now we're also going to be taking on callers,

1181
01:07:19,079 --> 01:07:22,519
So mods will be this hour putting in the link

1182
01:07:22,599 --> 01:07:24,360
so that you can come into the discord to get vetted,

1183
01:07:24,639 --> 01:07:26,760
so that you can call in in the third hour

1184
01:07:27,280 --> 01:07:30,960
to ask your questions directly to the debaters. With that,

1185
01:07:31,679 --> 01:07:33,960
ladies and gentlemen, we're going to open the floor up

1186
01:07:34,039 --> 01:07:37,440
for this debate between Jay and Gnaustic. Inform it, gentlemen,

1187
01:07:37,840 --> 01:07:39,719
I expect you both to it adhere to my moderation.

1188
01:07:40,440 --> 01:07:42,480
There's too much over talking things like this. I'm going

1189
01:07:42,519 --> 01:07:43,960
to break the debate up a little bit and get

1190
01:07:44,000 --> 01:07:45,920
it back on track. That's my job as the mod

1191
01:07:46,280 --> 01:07:49,119
to your guys' job to do the debating. With that,

1192
01:07:49,280 --> 01:07:51,920
the floor is open. Are we going to go back

1193
01:07:51,960 --> 01:07:54,360
and forth with any time or just no time on

1194
01:07:54,480 --> 01:07:58,639
this one? So open open floor, So I'll just start

1195
01:07:58,679 --> 01:08:02,119
with Neil talking about the book. I'm talking about the

1196
01:08:02,199 --> 01:08:05,119
numeral three. Is the numeral one thing?

1197
01:08:05,559 --> 01:08:08,840
Speaker 1: Or is it three? Well, it's one number, so it's

1198
01:08:08,880 --> 01:08:11,760
the number three, So it's one in three. But it's

1199
01:08:12,039 --> 01:08:14,199
the number three. But it's one thing. Yeah, So that's

1200
01:08:14,519 --> 01:08:16,760
is that three things and one thing? It's not three things,

1201
01:08:16,840 --> 01:08:19,439
it's one thing. The number three is not three. The

1202
01:08:19,560 --> 01:08:22,079
number three can count three. You can count three things

1203
01:08:22,239 --> 01:08:25,399
using the number three. This is three and one. It's

1204
01:08:25,520 --> 01:08:27,000
just the number three on a piece of pay thing.

1205
01:08:27,680 --> 01:08:30,119
So it's one in three. No, it's not. It's one thing.

1206
01:08:30,800 --> 01:08:33,760
It's not three. It's one thing with the number three

1207
01:08:33,840 --> 01:08:35,880
on it. We use we use three, We use three

1208
01:08:35,920 --> 01:08:37,680
to count things. We don't just put three on something

1209
01:08:37,720 --> 01:08:42,560
and it becomes three. Oh really yeah, okay, so all

1210
01:08:42,720 --> 01:08:45,359
numbers are only one thing. This has a bunch of

1211
01:08:45,439 --> 01:08:47,039
numbers on it. Does that make it the numbers?

1212
01:08:48,680 --> 01:08:51,520
Speaker 5: Well again, whether you think it has ontological existence or not,

1213
01:08:51,680 --> 01:08:53,680
is different from the fact that the number three is

1214
01:08:53,760 --> 01:08:55,640
not just one, it's also three.

1215
01:08:56,640 --> 01:08:59,239
Speaker 1: But it's one thing that has the number three on it.

1216
01:08:59,319 --> 01:09:04,479
That's realnumber three. Signify Neil three, thank you. But that's

1217
01:09:04,560 --> 01:09:07,000
doesn't make the number. That doesn't make that three things.

1218
01:09:07,159 --> 01:09:10,600
That's just what the number this also a signifier? Right? Yeah?

1219
01:09:10,640 --> 01:09:13,960
But I would you gave me that one and signifiers? Right?

1220
01:09:14,079 --> 01:09:15,920
If you gave me that to signify three, I would

1221
01:09:15,920 --> 01:09:19,479
say three? What is?

1222
01:09:19,520 --> 01:09:19,560
Speaker 3: It?

1223
01:09:19,640 --> 01:09:22,359
Speaker 1: Does matter what? We're trying to be coherent here, right, coherent.

1224
01:09:23,119 --> 01:09:25,439
Speaker 5: If it's a signifier, then it also then one is

1225
01:09:25,479 --> 01:09:26,279
also a signifier.

1226
01:09:26,359 --> 01:09:29,199
Speaker 1: So you're just saying one is three? Great gets me nowhere. No,

1227
01:09:29,319 --> 01:09:31,720
I'm saying three and one, Neil. Are you fundamentally unable

1228
01:09:31,720 --> 01:09:32,239
to understand that?

1229
01:09:32,359 --> 01:09:32,399
Speaker 6: No?

1230
01:09:32,520 --> 01:09:34,359
Speaker 1: I understand what you're trying to say. It doesn't make

1231
01:09:34,399 --> 01:09:36,880
sense though, Okay, then is the one can't be three

1232
01:09:37,479 --> 01:09:41,520
when one is one or three? This is fundamentally stupid.

1233
01:09:41,680 --> 01:09:45,680
Is the number one a signifier? Yes? Okay? How many

1234
01:09:45,800 --> 01:09:50,720
is that? That's one? Okay? How many is that one?

1235
01:09:51,680 --> 01:09:55,880
That's a one in the two? No? This two? Okay?

1236
01:09:55,920 --> 01:10:00,880
So is this one object itself? The symbol itself? The

1237
01:10:01,039 --> 01:10:04,600
symbol is two? Thank you? But but you can't say

1238
01:10:04,680 --> 01:10:06,640
that this book is now two things? Now one is

1239
01:10:06,720 --> 01:10:09,560
also one is also a symbol? I know, but the

1240
01:10:09,640 --> 01:10:13,159
book is still one. It's a both in No, you

1241
01:10:13,199 --> 01:10:15,319
asked me what the symbol means? That was you slipped

1242
01:10:15,319 --> 01:10:17,079
that in there at the end of the fire. They're

1243
01:10:17,119 --> 01:10:21,640
both there. It didn't one object. That's a signifier of

1244
01:10:21,760 --> 01:10:24,079
two things, right, But you're still holding one thing in

1245
01:10:24,159 --> 01:10:26,760
your hand. I'm talking about the numbers.

1246
01:10:26,840 --> 01:10:26,920
Speaker 3: Now.

1247
01:10:27,439 --> 01:10:29,960
Speaker 1: The number means too, I get that, but in your

1248
01:10:30,039 --> 01:10:35,319
hand is still one. Fundamentally stupid? The number it is

1249
01:10:35,479 --> 01:10:37,920
so fundamentally stupid. So this.

1250
01:10:40,239 --> 01:10:40,640
Speaker 7: What is this?

1251
01:10:41,239 --> 01:10:44,159
Speaker 1: It's the Roman numeral too and what is this too?

1252
01:10:45,039 --> 01:10:45,159
Speaker 3: Right?

1253
01:10:45,800 --> 01:10:49,439
Speaker 1: So they both refer to what those numbers, those symbols

1254
01:10:49,520 --> 01:10:53,000
mean too right, to just one thing as a whole.

1255
01:10:54,680 --> 01:10:57,960
The number is the number means one thing on the

1256
01:10:58,000 --> 01:11:00,520
page right here, it is one thing on the page.

1257
01:11:00,600 --> 01:11:01,119
Speaker 3: Yes, you.

1258
01:11:03,960 --> 01:11:07,159
Speaker 1: Just admitted it, but it's still one thing. Are you

1259
01:11:07,239 --> 01:11:10,600
fundamentally stupid? Imagine you can say one thing is you

1260
01:11:10,640 --> 01:11:13,840
can put a number two and say I'm one and many.

1261
01:11:14,199 --> 01:11:16,479
Speaker 5: Is the point of this that something can be singular

1262
01:11:16,600 --> 01:11:19,279
and also many at the same time. For example, take

1263
01:11:19,279 --> 01:11:22,960
an object like a book, Neil, is a book? Does

1264
01:11:23,039 --> 01:11:23,920
it have many parts?

1265
01:11:24,159 --> 01:11:24,359
Speaker 1: Yes?

1266
01:11:24,720 --> 01:11:24,960
Speaker 5: Okay?

1267
01:11:25,079 --> 01:11:27,760
Speaker 1: Is it also one book? It's one book? Thank you?

1268
01:11:27,880 --> 01:11:29,720
So it's one in many. So objects can be one

1269
01:11:29,760 --> 01:11:32,600
and me the same time. Question. Yes, but that that

1270
01:11:33,079 --> 01:11:35,520
Now you have a problem. Now you have one entity

1271
01:11:36,079 --> 01:11:39,760
with three parts. How do you make it three distinct things.

1272
01:11:40,079 --> 01:11:42,279
Speaker 5: You argue that something can't be one and many at

1273
01:11:42,279 --> 01:11:45,319
the same time, I can have different parts.

1274
01:11:45,319 --> 01:11:47,439
Speaker 1: I didn't say that. I said one can have different parts.

1275
01:11:47,479 --> 01:11:49,279
I didn't say one could be many at the same time.

1276
01:11:49,680 --> 01:11:53,159
That's why the emanation is a better account for you said,

1277
01:11:54,239 --> 01:11:57,079
I'll say exactly what you said. Something cannot be one

1278
01:11:57,119 --> 01:11:59,039
and many at the same time, and it can have

1279
01:11:59,279 --> 01:12:01,880
many parts, is what I said. No, you said, quote

1280
01:12:02,039 --> 01:12:04,119
something cannot be one and many at the same time,

1281
01:12:04,159 --> 01:12:05,760
in the same way I wrote. I wrote down the quote.

1282
01:12:05,960 --> 01:12:08,960
I agree with that. Okay, never stopped, never stopped saying.

1283
01:12:09,000 --> 01:12:11,640
This book one thing and many things. It's one thing

1284
01:12:11,720 --> 01:12:15,159
with many parts. It's different one in many. It's one

1285
01:12:15,199 --> 01:12:17,399
thing with many parts. It's different. So is it one

1286
01:12:17,479 --> 01:12:19,760
and many at the same time. It's one book with

1287
01:12:19,920 --> 01:12:23,279
many parts. That's how you want many. It's one, it's

1288
01:12:23,319 --> 01:12:25,079
one in money, Yeah, it's one in many parts. Yes,

1289
01:12:25,319 --> 01:12:30,439
that's so. That was that was Keep watching this with

1290
01:12:30,520 --> 01:12:33,159
a normal like you understands what just happened. Now you're

1291
01:12:33,199 --> 01:12:36,960
going into ad homin All right, ad homs? Then okay,

1292
01:12:37,840 --> 01:12:41,199
is there any more questions? You got? Sure? I want

1293
01:12:41,239 --> 01:12:42,880
to know what the trinity? I want to know how

1294
01:12:42,920 --> 01:12:45,840
the trinity? I mean, I mean you're you're saying the

1295
01:12:45,880 --> 01:12:47,640
training it could be one and three at the same time. Fine,

1296
01:12:47,680 --> 01:12:51,079
we can move past that. I think it's nonsense. Yeah,

1297
01:12:51,119 --> 01:12:51,399
but you.

1298
01:12:51,439 --> 01:12:53,800
Speaker 5: Already admitted the contradiction. So you can think it's nonsense,

1299
01:12:53,840 --> 01:12:54,319
but you can.

1300
01:12:54,359 --> 01:12:56,239
Speaker 1: Never admitted the contradiction. I'm talking about part of you

1301
01:12:57,159 --> 01:13:00,720
talking about parts versus just contradict yourself like ten t oh,

1302
01:13:00,840 --> 01:13:03,359
you think I did the part people to think I did?

1303
01:13:03,840 --> 01:13:07,520
Is it's one thing with many parts.

1304
01:13:07,760 --> 01:13:10,119
Speaker 5: So it's one and many. So it's one thing with

1305
01:13:10,239 --> 01:13:12,800
many many Thank you. So again you're shooting yourself.

1306
01:13:13,279 --> 01:13:14,880
Speaker 1: You're getting your make You want me to say that,

1307
01:13:15,079 --> 01:13:17,000
I'm sure you want me to. You want me to

1308
01:13:17,039 --> 01:13:20,960
be incoherent because I'm not going to do it. Do

1309
01:13:21,079 --> 01:13:22,159
I want you to be incoherent?

1310
01:13:22,439 --> 01:13:22,520
Speaker 3: One?

1311
01:13:22,640 --> 01:13:24,000
Speaker 1: Is it one in many? No, it's not one of

1312
01:13:24,079 --> 01:13:27,760
many many parts? Am I am? I many things at once?

1313
01:13:29,479 --> 01:13:31,760
Many parts? Yeah, I have many parts exactly. I have

1314
01:13:31,800 --> 01:13:33,359
a I have a hand, I have an eyeball. But

1315
01:13:33,720 --> 01:13:37,039
it's all, Neil, I have different cells, one and many.

1316
01:13:37,119 --> 01:13:40,399
Thank you. You're just making many parts. Why can't you?

1317
01:13:41,520 --> 01:13:44,840
Doesn't matter, Neil, because it's one. It does. No, it doesn't, Yes,

1318
01:13:44,920 --> 01:13:45,239
it does.

1319
01:13:45,840 --> 01:13:49,119
Speaker 5: Parts is that it's many, it doesn't matter. Obviously many

1320
01:13:49,159 --> 01:13:51,319
would be parts. That's contained in the idea of many.

1321
01:13:52,399 --> 01:13:55,319
Speaker 1: But that's all I'm agreeing to is that it's one thing, still.

1322
01:13:56,760 --> 01:13:59,199
Speaker 5: Many, regardless of part. Parts is containing the idea of many.

1323
01:13:59,239 --> 01:14:01,920
Speaker 1: Yeah, but many the parts. It's not many different things.

1324
01:14:02,079 --> 01:14:05,520
It's not different things altogether. The parts aren't different things.

1325
01:14:05,960 --> 01:14:09,520
The parts are different parts. You said they're not different things.

1326
01:14:10,119 --> 01:14:13,239
The parts are different parts. You said they're not different things.

1327
01:14:14,239 --> 01:14:17,079
Well they're not that. My hand is still Nil's hand.

1328
01:14:17,479 --> 01:14:19,880
It's part of me. Okay, but it's not a different

1329
01:14:19,960 --> 01:14:22,399
thing from your not your hand. It's not it's not

1330
01:14:22,520 --> 01:14:25,319
Andrew's hand. Not different things. Can it be Neil's Can it?

1331
01:14:25,399 --> 01:14:29,000
Can my hand be different thing from your leg? Yes?

1332
01:14:29,479 --> 01:14:32,560
Speaker 5: So it is different things, which you're getting you're contradicting.

1333
01:14:32,560 --> 01:14:34,439
It's a different part. I keep saying it's a different part.

1334
01:14:35,319 --> 01:14:38,399
Speaker 1: You said they're not different things. I said it's a

1335
01:14:38,399 --> 01:14:43,359
different part. You said it just said that I said,

1336
01:14:43,520 --> 01:14:46,800
one thing has many parts within it. Everything has many parts.

1337
01:14:46,880 --> 01:14:51,439
And then you said they're not different things. Okay, let's

1338
01:14:51,439 --> 01:14:54,239
see something more basic. Well, are they different things or not?

1339
01:14:55,000 --> 01:14:58,800
Is this one thing or many things? It's both? Really?

1340
01:14:58,880 --> 01:15:01,760
Where is it? What's the different? What else?

1341
01:15:01,800 --> 01:15:02,039
Speaker 3: What is it?

1342
01:15:02,079 --> 01:15:04,199
Speaker 1: What's so different about it? What else is there? What

1343
01:15:05,520 --> 01:15:07,800
I mean? It has it has a surface, and it

1344
01:15:07,920 --> 01:15:08,800
has a cat.

1345
01:15:08,880 --> 01:15:12,600
Speaker 5: Oh okay, so different parts exactly. Yeah, but Neil, you

1346
01:15:12,720 --> 01:15:14,920
said different parts are not different things.

1347
01:15:15,920 --> 01:15:18,680
Speaker 1: Well, if you want to describe parts as things, then okay,

1348
01:15:18,720 --> 01:15:19,960
I would have to. I would have to ask you

1349
01:15:20,039 --> 01:15:22,359
what you mean by things and you would say it's parts,

1350
01:15:22,399 --> 01:15:26,279
and I would say, okay, yes, it's just regular English

1351
01:15:26,359 --> 01:15:29,600
right here. Okay, now all right, do you want to

1352
01:15:29,600 --> 01:15:31,199
ask the next question or do you want me to? Yeah?

1353
01:15:31,199 --> 01:15:32,720
I mean I I threw at you a lot of

1354
01:15:32,840 --> 01:15:36,399
biblical contradictions, and you know, like the idea, like you

1355
01:15:36,520 --> 01:15:38,560
seem to be very adamant that the world is only

1356
01:15:38,600 --> 01:15:40,159
six thousand years old because the Bible says so, I

1357
01:15:40,199 --> 01:15:42,119
don't mean just I don't even blame you. You're trying

1358
01:15:42,159 --> 01:15:44,399
to stay consistent in your worldview. But even the church,

1359
01:15:44,520 --> 01:15:46,680
your church doesn't have a stance on this or like

1360
01:15:46,760 --> 01:15:48,680
things like evolution. Why does the church have to have

1361
01:15:48,760 --> 01:15:51,479
a stance on the age of the earth. I mean,

1362
01:15:51,640 --> 01:15:54,239
this are these are fundamental things about a reality where

1363
01:15:54,239 --> 01:15:56,640
you and I are dedating on these things. How do

1364
01:15:56,680 --> 01:15:57,840
you so you know the age of the earth?

1365
01:15:59,279 --> 01:16:03,079
Speaker 5: Yeah, said it's fundamental, right, Yeah, Well, if it's fundamental,

1366
01:16:03,119 --> 01:16:03,720
it's a dogma.

1367
01:16:03,920 --> 01:16:07,199
Speaker 1: Is it a dogma or not a dogma? But I'm saying, like,

1368
01:16:07,600 --> 01:16:09,600
if the Bible says the Earth is six thousand years

1369
01:16:09,640 --> 01:16:12,800
old and we have empirical data that contradicts that, that's

1370
01:16:12,840 --> 01:16:15,760
a problem for you. How do you do You just

1371
01:16:15,920 --> 01:16:18,600
deny empirical data? Is how this is how this works.

1372
01:16:18,680 --> 01:16:20,439
Speaker 5: No, I already said at the beginning that we don't

1373
01:16:20,479 --> 01:16:21,479
deny empirical data.

1374
01:16:21,560 --> 01:16:23,560
Speaker 1: So what do you do when people show us? What

1375
01:16:23,600 --> 01:16:26,600
do you do when paleontologists and archaeologists dig deep under

1376
01:16:26,600 --> 01:16:29,000
the ground and they predict exactly what's going to be

1377
01:16:29,079 --> 01:16:32,279
down there based on other digs for the last hundreds

1378
01:16:33,039 --> 01:16:33,199
do you.

1379
01:16:33,239 --> 01:16:35,399
Speaker 5: Understand that when you look at an object, an object

1380
01:16:35,439 --> 01:16:36,399
doesn't give you age.

1381
01:16:37,159 --> 01:16:40,239
Speaker 1: It's an interpretation of the object. Yeah, But I mean

1382
01:16:40,239 --> 01:16:43,600
I just asked you a specific question on how paleontologists

1383
01:16:43,640 --> 01:16:46,800
can dig to certain levels on the ground and predictively

1384
01:16:47,399 --> 01:16:49,600
and predict to a t ninety nine point nine percent

1385
01:16:49,640 --> 01:16:51,479
of the time what's going to be down there based

1386
01:16:51,520 --> 01:16:52,680
on the other digs around the world.

1387
01:16:53,079 --> 01:16:55,680
Speaker 5: But there's also times when there's fossils between those layers,

1388
01:16:55,720 --> 01:16:56,880
which contradicts that theory.

1389
01:16:57,199 --> 01:16:59,520
Speaker 1: Right now, there's show me an example.

1390
01:17:00,199 --> 01:17:03,000
Speaker 5: Uh, there have been trees in Iceland, excuse me, u

1391
01:17:03,199 --> 01:17:08,159
in uh Antarctica that extend between the ice layers.

1392
01:17:09,279 --> 01:17:11,079
Speaker 1: You have to show me that. I've never heard of that. Well,

1393
01:17:11,119 --> 01:17:14,760
it's a famous case. But well, I guess nine point

1394
01:17:14,800 --> 01:17:17,159
nine percent of the time. I'm sure there's outliers. But that.

1395
01:17:18,760 --> 01:17:21,239
Speaker 5: But wait a minute, why would wouldn't one outlier mean

1396
01:17:21,279 --> 01:17:23,920
that perhaps that No, it means there's something something happened

1397
01:17:23,960 --> 01:17:24,439
that was so.

1398
01:17:24,560 --> 01:17:25,800
Speaker 1: Then so they're not reliable.

1399
01:17:26,520 --> 01:17:26,840
Speaker 3: No, it is.

1400
01:17:27,039 --> 01:17:31,920
Speaker 1: It's ninety nine point nine percent not reliable. No, so

1401
01:17:32,039 --> 01:17:37,920
you're gonna you're gonna that predictive success. I'm not. I'm

1402
01:17:37,960 --> 01:17:39,039
not a paleontologist.

1403
01:17:39,119 --> 01:17:41,399
Speaker 5: And sure the fact that you understand that just because

1404
01:17:41,439 --> 01:17:43,840
there's predictive success doesn't mean that your model is correct.

1405
01:17:44,479 --> 01:17:47,000
You can have multiple models that have predictive success. This

1406
01:17:47,119 --> 01:17:48,640
is called the underdetermination of data.

1407
01:17:48,680 --> 01:17:49,880
Speaker 1: Agree. I actually agree with that.

1408
01:17:50,079 --> 01:17:52,079
Speaker 5: Okay, so then what you're arguing doesn't tell us which

1409
01:17:52,279 --> 01:17:55,760
which paradigm is correct. So beyond that, like I can

1410
01:17:55,840 --> 01:17:58,640
say that I have a different authority, uh in terms

1411
01:17:58,680 --> 01:18:01,840
of what I consider uh the ancient world to have

1412
01:18:02,159 --> 01:18:04,439
existed and been, Like, you have another authority.

1413
01:18:04,920 --> 01:18:06,600
Speaker 1: And I don't reject quote science.

1414
01:18:06,680 --> 01:18:08,680
Speaker 5: But again I'm making a different point about when you

1415
01:18:08,800 --> 01:18:10,920
see the rock layers or when you see the strata,

1416
01:18:11,279 --> 01:18:14,279
there's nothing about that that immediately tells you a time

1417
01:18:14,359 --> 01:18:15,359
frame or an age.

1418
01:18:15,960 --> 01:18:19,800
Speaker 1: So how do you know? Fair? Fair? But let me

1419
01:18:19,840 --> 01:18:23,439
ask you this, when you find contradictory data, for example,

1420
01:18:23,840 --> 01:18:26,840
when we go to places like Elephantine and they're doing

1421
01:18:26,960 --> 01:18:31,279
the opposite. They're making graven images, they're polytheists, they are

1422
01:18:31,399 --> 01:18:34,039
not You're going to something different. I know I'm saying.

1423
01:18:34,039 --> 01:18:35,760
I'm saying, for let's let's not let's not talk about

1424
01:18:35,800 --> 01:18:39,079
just looking at rocks. I'm talking about evidence that goes

1425
01:18:39,199 --> 01:18:42,840
against the biblical narrative. For example, when we go to

1426
01:18:42,920 --> 01:18:45,960
places that say that that that where there's Jews living

1427
01:18:46,399 --> 01:18:48,840
after the First Temple period, and we look at all

1428
01:18:48,840 --> 01:18:50,680
their not we look at all their writings, and that

1429
01:18:50,720 --> 01:18:52,800
has nothing to do with what the Bible said. They

1430
01:18:52,800 --> 01:18:58,560
were like, they're completely different. They're they're doing stuff on Sabbath,

1431
01:18:58,960 --> 01:19:00,960
they are worshiping mymultiple gods'.

1432
01:19:01,920 --> 01:19:05,560
Speaker 5: That's like saying that scenes disproved Judaism because thees scenes

1433
01:19:05,880 --> 01:19:07,960
did something totally different than the Jews.

1434
01:19:09,560 --> 01:19:12,199
Speaker 1: Are doing. That goes against the biblical narrative. I'm not

1435
01:19:12,199 --> 01:19:12,640
talking about.

1436
01:19:12,920 --> 01:19:16,000
Speaker 5: They were like, they were listen to me. They had

1437
01:19:16,000 --> 01:19:19,039
a Jewish gnostic perspective. They believe that they were the

1438
01:19:19,119 --> 01:19:21,399
sons of light, and they had certain aesthetic they had

1439
01:19:21,439 --> 01:19:26,159
certain ascetic practices that the Torah doesn't teach. So my

1440
01:19:26,319 --> 01:19:30,039
argument is, but the scenes, the scenes had the Torah. Okay,

1441
01:19:30,039 --> 01:19:32,840
go ahead, it doesn't matter, I'm making it. That's not

1442
01:19:32,960 --> 01:19:35,000
the point. The point is that the fact that there's

1443
01:19:35,039 --> 01:19:38,319
a sex somewhere that's doing things different in no way

1444
01:19:38,640 --> 01:19:41,640
leads you to the conclusion that the Jews with the Torah,

1445
01:19:41,800 --> 01:19:45,359
or the Jews in Israel are doing that they don't exist,

1446
01:19:45,479 --> 01:19:46,239
or that they're not there.

1447
01:19:46,279 --> 01:19:49,680
Speaker 1: It's an argument from silence. It's not an a from silence.

1448
01:19:49,680 --> 01:19:52,960
It's actually the evidence is the opposite of the historical

1449
01:19:53,000 --> 01:19:56,479
claims from the Bible. There's there's evidence that are that,

1450
01:19:57,079 --> 01:19:58,039
how directly though.

1451
01:19:58,199 --> 01:20:02,199
Speaker 5: That the Jews didn't exists prior to this sect what

1452
01:20:02,359 --> 01:20:03,760
in the g and it didn't exist?

1453
01:20:04,199 --> 01:20:06,920
Speaker 1: Okay, I said, there's no evidence that there were tora observant.

1454
01:20:07,079 --> 01:20:08,880
There's no evidence that they even knew what the tora was.

1455
01:20:09,560 --> 01:20:12,279
In fact, the things that they're doing in their text

1456
01:20:12,359 --> 01:20:15,800
and in the archaeology shows the exact opposite that they

1457
01:20:16,359 --> 01:20:18,239
got you. Okay, So, and and this is what century

1458
01:20:18,239 --> 01:20:21,439
you're saying we're talking Are you talking about Elephant Team

1459
01:20:22,399 --> 01:20:25,600
five eighty six to four hundred BC, sixth century, fifth century?

1460
01:20:25,960 --> 01:20:28,560
Speaker 5: And what main scholars have this opinion? Because I'm going

1461
01:20:28,640 --> 01:20:30,439
to show you a scholars that said the opposite of that.

1462
01:20:31,600 --> 01:20:32,239
Where are you getting this?

1463
01:20:32,880 --> 01:20:35,560
Speaker 1: Well, Okay, I can go I can go to Gad Barnea,

1464
01:20:35,600 --> 01:20:39,039
I can go to Adler, Russell Amerkin, Thomas L. Thomas,

1465
01:20:39,199 --> 01:20:43,000
Philip bar Davies, I could go to let's see, I

1466
01:20:43,039 --> 01:20:46,159
could go to Bruce Louden. I can I can keep

1467
01:20:46,159 --> 01:20:48,880
going on and on about this. Okay, So everybody know

1468
01:20:49,039 --> 01:20:51,000
these scholars, because we have no idea who yeah, write

1469
01:20:51,000 --> 01:20:54,560
those down? Please everyone write those down, Bruce Louden, Thomas L. Thomas, so,

1470
01:20:54,800 --> 01:20:59,520
Philip Davies, Russell Amerkin. Let let you respond, just some

1471
01:20:59,560 --> 01:21:01,399
people know arm respond response.

1472
01:21:01,479 --> 01:21:03,920
Speaker 5: So now when we go to for example, the again

1473
01:21:04,079 --> 01:21:07,479
just using this as an example text which refutes also

1474
01:21:08,039 --> 01:21:10,920
this claim and the other claim, release it shows contrary

1475
01:21:10,960 --> 01:21:15,079
scholarly evidence. So again Oxford opinion too. The Bible, the

1476
01:21:15,159 --> 01:21:20,680
Book of Proverbs deals with the prophetic tradition. The writings

1477
01:21:20,800 --> 01:21:23,720
excuse me, different from the prophetic tradition, The writings of

1478
01:21:23,920 --> 01:21:28,079
this wisdom literature, consistent parts of saying, short, pithy forms,

1479
01:21:28,079 --> 01:21:28,479
et cetera.

1480
01:21:28,560 --> 01:21:31,279
Speaker 1: The Hebrew word is translated to mean comparisons.

1481
01:21:31,279 --> 01:21:33,680
Speaker 5: And then it goes on to say that many of

1482
01:21:33,760 --> 01:21:36,920
these sexts debate date to the fifth century BCE, but

1483
01:21:37,039 --> 01:21:39,239
also many of them are actually even earlier to the

1484
01:21:39,399 --> 01:21:43,039
pre monarchic position. So you said earlier that there's no

1485
01:21:43,880 --> 01:21:47,319
evidence for this period for the Book of Proverbs mainline,

1486
01:21:47,439 --> 01:21:51,399
mainline non conservative. Necessarily, this is just awesome.

1487
01:21:51,439 --> 01:21:56,079
Speaker 1: That's a linguistic claim. First of all, are you do

1488
01:21:56,159 --> 01:21:59,279
you have evidence? Degree? I would ask, are you it's actual?

1489
01:22:00,039 --> 01:22:02,079
Are you a textual scholar? First, I'm not a textual scholar.

1490
01:22:03,039 --> 01:22:05,199
Speaker 5: How do you know about linguistic claims because I talked

1491
01:22:05,199 --> 01:22:06,159
to textual scholars.

1492
01:22:06,760 --> 01:22:09,680
Speaker 1: Okay, but that doesn't make wrong with that. I didn't

1493
01:22:09,720 --> 01:22:11,760
say I was a textual scholar. You just made this leak.

1494
01:22:11,840 --> 01:22:14,359
Speaker 5: You're acting like the fact that you cited the scholars

1495
01:22:14,520 --> 01:22:17,680
necessarily means that, by the way, where was it means

1496
01:22:18,039 --> 01:22:20,000
didn't argue that the arguments.

1497
01:22:19,680 --> 01:22:24,960
Speaker 1: On the basis of the words does there averbs is?

1498
01:22:25,039 --> 01:22:29,000
Where is it? And the proverbs themselves are pre monarchic.

1499
01:22:29,560 --> 01:22:32,680
Where are they? Who's talking? Who's citing it? Where's the text?

1500
01:22:33,640 --> 01:22:35,520
You don't think we have taxticle back that far? We do.

1501
01:22:36,000 --> 01:22:38,039
None of them cite proverbs. None of the text from

1502
01:22:38,079 --> 01:22:39,039
that period site proverbs.

1503
01:22:39,079 --> 01:22:39,119
Speaker 3: No.

1504
01:22:39,119 --> 01:22:42,119
Speaker 1: One mentions probably the first person an argument from silence

1505
01:22:42,319 --> 01:22:45,840
that scholars are saying that the scholars scholars are making

1506
01:22:45,920 --> 01:22:48,439
linguistic arguments on this I talk. They're not just making

1507
01:22:48,479 --> 01:22:51,760
linguistic arguments are making they're also making archaeological arguments. There's

1508
01:22:51,840 --> 01:22:54,520
no archaeological data to show that Solomon is right. There's

1509
01:22:54,520 --> 01:22:57,119
no Solomon text in archaeology I'm making. I'm telling you

1510
01:22:57,199 --> 01:22:59,720
that there's nothing there. You're calling m silence.

1511
01:23:00,039 --> 01:23:01,600
Speaker 5: You're saying the saying, But what I'm showing you is

1512
01:23:01,640 --> 01:23:03,600
that so there's competing scholarly claims.

1513
01:23:03,640 --> 01:23:06,600
Speaker 1: How do we know what's true between these? I would say,

1514
01:23:06,640 --> 01:23:09,000
you're what you're reading is probably outdated scholarship. When is

1515
01:23:09,039 --> 01:23:10,640
that date? What does that?

1516
01:23:10,880 --> 01:23:11,079
Speaker 3: You know?

1517
01:23:11,399 --> 01:23:12,920
Speaker 1: What year is that book from? How do you know

1518
01:23:13,279 --> 01:23:16,119
what year? What counts is up? Because the modern up

1519
01:23:16,159 --> 01:23:18,439
to the most up to date, most rigorous academics are

1520
01:23:18,479 --> 01:23:20,640
all agreeing that we don't have any evidence of the Bible.

1521
01:23:21,000 --> 01:23:22,960
Now there might have been some layers of solomons. Do

1522
01:23:23,079 --> 01:23:27,119
go back and what counts as as outdated? I don't

1523
01:23:27,119 --> 01:23:30,159
know twenty years whatever book I say, right, No til

1524
01:23:30,199 --> 01:23:33,920
i's twenty years, probably twenty years. How do you you

1525
01:23:34,079 --> 01:23:36,159
don't say a arbitrary that? No, it could still be correct.

1526
01:23:36,199 --> 01:23:38,560
But I'm telling you there's no evidence. Well, I know

1527
01:23:38,640 --> 01:23:40,880
you're telling me that, but you're not actually proving that.

1528
01:23:41,079 --> 01:23:43,720
Speaker 5: You're saying that when I give you scholars with hold on,

1529
01:23:44,720 --> 01:23:47,920
scholar I give you, when I give you counter scholars.

1530
01:23:48,199 --> 01:23:50,319
We're in a dilemma then where we have to figure out, well,

1531
01:23:50,479 --> 01:23:51,960
how do we know what scholars are right or wrong?

1532
01:23:52,000 --> 01:23:54,600
And I'm asking you what tells you and you said, well,

1533
01:23:54,640 --> 01:23:56,319
it's got to be up to date. And I said

1534
01:23:56,640 --> 01:23:58,479
that's arbitrary. How do you know what the up to

1535
01:23:58,560 --> 01:24:00,319
date is? You said, oh, it's gonna twenty year. This

1536
01:24:00,520 --> 01:24:01,279
is all arbitrary.

1537
01:24:01,439 --> 01:24:03,319
Speaker 1: You just asked me what I think is outdated and

1538
01:24:03,319 --> 01:24:05,359
I just gave you a number. You're in a debate

1539
01:24:05,520 --> 01:24:07,439
that means you have to make good arguments. But Jay,

1540
01:24:07,640 --> 01:24:10,479
what I'm telling you is you can Scholars can guess

1541
01:24:10,560 --> 01:24:13,560
Solomon is dated to the fifth century or whatever, fine,

1542
01:24:13,880 --> 01:24:17,199
based on linguistics. How do you know they're guessing because

1543
01:24:17,239 --> 01:24:18,880
they do. We don't have any text from that period.

1544
01:24:21,039 --> 01:24:23,560
They all are guessing none of these texts go back

1545
01:24:23,560 --> 01:24:25,319
to that far? Do you not know that? You're just

1546
01:24:26,520 --> 01:24:28,159
how do you know that? Do you know? How do

1547
01:24:28,199 --> 01:24:32,239
you need zero biblical that? How do you know that?

1548
01:24:32,560 --> 01:24:35,119
Because we don't have a single manuscript of the Bible

1549
01:24:35,479 --> 01:24:37,880
the Dead strolls. You just keep asserting this. How do

1550
01:24:37,960 --> 01:24:40,359
you know that assertion is true? Because we don't have them?

1551
01:24:42,199 --> 01:24:45,560
Is there one of the music counter textual evidence? Right?

1552
01:24:45,560 --> 01:24:48,439
And I'm saying that it doesn't exist? I know you're

1553
01:24:48,479 --> 01:24:50,359
saying that physical.

1554
01:24:50,000 --> 01:24:52,199
Speaker 2: Copy of it hang on, hang on, hang on, Let's

1555
01:24:52,279 --> 01:24:54,600
let's see if we can untangle this. Okay, just a

1556
01:24:54,640 --> 01:24:58,479
little bit here, all right. Uh, we'll start with Neil. Neil,

1557
01:24:58,560 --> 01:25:01,520
I believe, are you saying your argument is there's no

1558
01:25:01,680 --> 01:25:06,359
physical evidence for this? Yes, okay, and then Jay will

1559
01:25:06,399 --> 01:25:09,520
operate off that counter Neil saying there's no physical evidence,

1560
01:25:09,920 --> 01:25:10,800
and we'll move from there.

1561
01:25:10,880 --> 01:25:16,680
Speaker 8: Go ahead, guys, again, the claim about the dating, and

1562
01:25:16,800 --> 01:25:20,039
that would be that would include dating actual physical texts

1563
01:25:20,079 --> 01:25:21,279
and not later copies.

1564
01:25:21,920 --> 01:25:25,840
Speaker 1: Would itself be subject to debate. And thus, when he

1565
01:25:25,960 --> 01:25:26,399
said that.

1566
01:25:26,520 --> 01:25:30,520
Speaker 5: We didn't have examples of proverbs prior to a certain century,

1567
01:25:31,039 --> 01:25:34,359
and I gave scholarly claims that there are proverbs that

1568
01:25:34,479 --> 01:25:37,640
go back to the pre monarchic period, Neil then said,

1569
01:25:38,159 --> 01:25:40,520
we don't have physical text. So we moved the goalposts

1570
01:25:40,560 --> 01:25:43,920
away from scholarly claims to you have to have the

1571
01:25:44,000 --> 01:25:44,920
physical copies.

1572
01:25:45,000 --> 01:25:46,840
Speaker 1: That's a foulccy to move the goalposts.

1573
01:25:47,239 --> 01:25:49,840
Speaker 5: And so when that's what the point of the scholarly

1574
01:25:49,880 --> 01:25:52,800
claims is, to say, Neil, it if I give you

1575
01:25:52,960 --> 01:25:55,960
counter scholarly claims and there's conservative scholars who date the

1576
01:25:56,039 --> 01:25:58,760
text before what you would date them, what is the

1577
01:25:58,920 --> 01:26:04,720
mechanism to know whose scholarly claims are correct and just

1578
01:26:04,760 --> 01:26:05,800
reassert your position.

1579
01:26:06,159 --> 01:26:08,319
Speaker 1: No, we take a holistic approach to this. So how

1580
01:26:08,359 --> 01:26:11,199
do we have not only hold on nominally only respond

1581
01:26:11,439 --> 01:26:13,600
Not only do we have no physical evidence? On top

1582
01:26:13,680 --> 01:26:16,039
of that, we don't have we So, for example, another

1583
01:26:16,119 --> 01:26:18,479
thing that scholars do to test this out is we

1584
01:26:19,239 --> 01:26:21,359
let me finish my you just I just you talk.

1585
01:26:23,880 --> 01:26:25,359
I'm not repeat a argument to give you some more

1586
01:26:25,439 --> 01:26:28,199
name ignored. One of the things we know about how

1587
01:26:28,600 --> 01:26:32,199
how we know textave survivor or go back far enough

1588
01:26:32,600 --> 01:26:36,439
is things like naming people name their children after heroes.

1589
01:26:36,840 --> 01:26:39,600
After four hundred BC, you start seeing names in the

1590
01:26:39,680 --> 01:26:42,720
sources of Moses, Abraham, Noah, all the heroes from the

1591
01:26:42,720 --> 01:26:46,800
Old Testament before that, There's zero. There's zero. They don't

1592
01:26:46,840 --> 01:26:48,319
have anyone with those names at all.

1593
01:26:48,399 --> 01:26:50,000
Speaker 2: Hang on, let me let me unentangle this too. I'm

1594
01:26:50,000 --> 01:26:51,640
sorry to step in here, guys, but I just got

1595
01:26:51,760 --> 01:26:55,840
to make sure so you I got your claim correct.

1596
01:26:56,039 --> 01:26:58,560
You're talking about physical evidence. But Jay did give an

1597
01:26:58,720 --> 01:27:01,119
argument to that, and I would like to hear what

1598
01:27:01,239 --> 01:27:03,439
you have to say in regards to that argument. As

1599
01:27:03,520 --> 01:27:05,560
he was addressing your argument of doing.

1600
01:27:05,600 --> 01:27:09,800
Speaker 1: Even say the argument perhaps you're saying you can bring

1601
01:27:09,920 --> 01:27:12,199
up come up with scholars who say that the more

1602
01:27:12,239 --> 01:27:16,960
conservative scholars who dated past the premi archt period. Yeah,

1603
01:27:17,359 --> 01:27:21,039
I say where, I'd say where are they right there? No?

1604
01:27:21,439 --> 01:27:23,640
I would say where, who's where? How do you know this?

1605
01:27:23,920 --> 01:27:27,199
Where are you just because the linguist that I thought,

1606
01:27:27,640 --> 01:27:29,199
the linguist that I talked to, say this is all

1607
01:27:29,279 --> 01:27:31,920
circular that they date a text. They go, Moses lived

1608
01:27:31,920 --> 01:27:34,239
in twelve hundred BC. So they find a text in

1609
01:27:34,319 --> 01:27:38,760
Hebrew that looks like it has the same linguisty point

1610
01:27:39,079 --> 01:27:42,159
they think. They find they say they use axiom Moses

1611
01:27:42,239 --> 01:27:45,000
as twelve hundred BC, and they find they then they

1612
01:27:45,119 --> 01:27:47,439
use that Hebrew that from that text and say that's

1613
01:27:47,479 --> 01:27:50,039
twelve hundred b C. Hebrew addressing they find another text

1614
01:27:50,079 --> 01:27:52,279
that looks like that Hebrew and go and also twelve

1615
01:27:52,359 --> 01:27:55,239
hundred b C. Stelling picular reasoning. Yeah, I mean I

1616
01:27:55,319 --> 01:27:56,159
do have to step in here.

1617
01:27:56,359 --> 01:28:00,840
Speaker 2: You are talking specifically to methodology here, and he's he's

1618
01:28:00,920 --> 01:28:03,479
giving a specific argument that he wants contended with.

1619
01:28:03,880 --> 01:28:07,359
Speaker 1: And I do think it's fair as you're we're at

1620
01:28:07,399 --> 01:28:09,159
a lock here. You have your scholars I have mine.

1621
01:28:09,319 --> 01:28:11,840
Fair you want to end it? There is what you're saying.

1622
01:28:12,840 --> 01:28:15,800
Speaker 5: The question is you said that, well, if we have

1623
01:28:15,920 --> 01:28:20,199
a competing claims of scholars thing going on, then it

1624
01:28:20,239 --> 01:28:22,720
would just be going to the holistic approach.

1625
01:28:23,079 --> 01:28:24,960
Speaker 1: How do we know that the holistic approach is the

1626
01:28:25,039 --> 01:28:28,079
right approach because your your scholars are just saying this

1627
01:28:28,199 --> 01:28:32,000
text dates period scholars I'm talking to hold on, No,

1628
01:28:32,039 --> 01:28:33,920
I'm not saying you have the same problem. I'm saying

1629
01:28:34,000 --> 01:28:37,079
your scholars have your scholars date the text of this period.

1630
01:28:37,319 --> 01:28:39,600
I'm saying, how do they know that? Where the scholars

1631
01:28:39,640 --> 01:28:42,720
I'm sorry, are going off archaeology argument going They're going

1632
01:28:42,760 --> 01:28:46,359
off archaeology namings, they're using the holes they're seeing that

1633
01:28:46,520 --> 01:28:50,319
Jews in that period argument. You're again you're talking about

1634
01:28:50,760 --> 01:28:55,199
methodology and chances. If the Jews before four hundred BC

1635
01:28:55,640 --> 01:28:58,399
are making graven images and doing things on Sabbath and

1636
01:28:58,479 --> 01:29:00,840
eating pork, they're not torre observant, right.

1637
01:29:01,520 --> 01:29:03,840
Speaker 5: Can you state what my argument is about the holistic

1638
01:29:03,880 --> 01:29:05,119
approach and what what you think?

1639
01:29:05,159 --> 01:29:10,640
Speaker 1: I'm arguing you can go ahead? You so you can't

1640
01:29:10,920 --> 01:29:13,600
You've not understood the argument yet. No, I don't you

1641
01:29:13,680 --> 01:29:15,960
think that what I'm doing is not and you're saying

1642
01:29:16,000 --> 01:29:18,079
it's yours. It's your argument versus mine, But I'm not

1643
01:29:18,319 --> 01:29:20,760
all you're going on Neil, No, that's not the argument.

1644
01:29:21,039 --> 01:29:21,680
What's the argument.

1645
01:29:22,239 --> 01:29:25,159
Speaker 5: The argument is that when we have a contention about

1646
01:29:25,279 --> 01:29:28,479
which scholars and we're going to resolve it, I ask

1647
01:29:28,560 --> 01:29:30,720
you what would resolve this? How would we know whether

1648
01:29:30,760 --> 01:29:33,600
it's conservative or liberal scholars or whatever your scholars? My so,

1649
01:29:33,880 --> 01:29:36,039
how would we resolve it? And you said we would

1650
01:29:36,079 --> 01:29:40,600
go by the holistic approach? Okay, why would we How

1651
01:29:40,640 --> 01:29:42,760
do we know that that's the criteria to go to.

1652
01:29:43,199 --> 01:29:44,680
That's the question. What's the proof?

1653
01:29:44,800 --> 01:29:47,479
Speaker 1: What's the good reason to believe that your arbitrary statement

1654
01:29:47,520 --> 01:29:49,359
that it's the holistic thing? Do you know what the horse?

1655
01:29:49,520 --> 01:29:52,960
Do not know what the historical method is? Again, how

1656
01:29:53,039 --> 01:29:55,079
do we know that the holistic approach is the right

1657
01:29:55,079 --> 01:29:57,199
way to go because it follows the historical method and

1658
01:29:57,279 --> 01:29:59,119
we go off the data and we have the best

1659
01:29:59,520 --> 01:30:02,479
possible we said this is the most likely scenario, the

1660
01:30:03,880 --> 01:30:04,800
most likely scenario.

1661
01:30:05,319 --> 01:30:08,680
Speaker 5: A holistic approach surveying scholars is not the same thing

1662
01:30:08,760 --> 01:30:09,800
as the historical method.

1663
01:30:09,840 --> 01:30:13,359
Speaker 1: Those are two different questions, so they're not these scholars

1664
01:30:13,439 --> 01:30:15,399
who are applying the historical method.

1665
01:30:15,880 --> 01:30:20,880
Speaker 5: One is consensus of scholars telling I'm not talking about huh,

1666
01:30:21,199 --> 01:30:22,760
I'm not talking about the consensus of scholar.

1667
01:30:22,880 --> 01:30:24,600
Speaker 1: You said it, we would go with the holistic approach.

1668
01:30:25,000 --> 01:30:28,000
I'm talking about. Here's one scholar who's a linguist. Here's

1669
01:30:28,039 --> 01:30:32,159
what he's saying, here's what, here's reasons are. Here's another theologist.

1670
01:30:32,359 --> 01:30:35,079
Here's all a scholar, it's a textual scholar said a

1671
01:30:35,159 --> 01:30:38,159
holistic and they're all applying the historical method. You don't

1672
01:30:38,199 --> 01:30:41,239
do no, you just say the Bible truth again.

1673
01:30:42,119 --> 01:30:44,960
Speaker 5: If they're using all the scholars are using some form

1674
01:30:45,000 --> 01:30:48,680
of a historical method, that's not that's a deflection away

1675
01:30:48,720 --> 01:30:52,239
from how do you know that the holistic approach is right?

1676
01:30:52,720 --> 01:30:54,840
And you're saying no, no, I didn't actually mean a consensus.

1677
01:30:55,079 --> 01:30:58,399
What did you mean by holistic? I said, you go

1678
01:30:58,560 --> 01:31:02,920
to each of these, study each of these a consensus.

1679
01:31:03,680 --> 01:31:05,720
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it's not a consensus in all these are

1680
01:31:05,800 --> 01:31:08,640
different fields that you put together. And then you say,

1681
01:31:08,680 --> 01:31:13,319
wait a minute, not even not only we look at

1682
01:31:13,359 --> 01:31:15,880
the data and we conclude not only is there no evidence,

1683
01:31:17,600 --> 01:31:21,520
respond not only is no evidence, it's the opposite again,

1684
01:31:22,399 --> 01:31:23,960
So you have nothing and I have.

1685
01:31:24,000 --> 01:31:27,920
Speaker 5: A whole bunch of dais is the criteria that we

1686
01:31:28,000 --> 01:31:28,199
go with?

1687
01:31:29,279 --> 01:31:32,680
Speaker 1: I just explained that. Now, how do we all know this? Well,

1688
01:31:32,720 --> 01:31:34,239
you don't. You don't have to know it, I guess

1689
01:31:34,800 --> 01:31:37,880
because you're just going the audience. You're just throwing off

1690
01:31:37,920 --> 01:31:40,319
with one scholars. I just told you. I just gave

1691
01:31:40,399 --> 01:31:43,319
you the answer. How does every one of the audience

1692
01:31:43,399 --> 01:31:47,760
following your arg on Neil? Let them respond? Here?

1693
01:31:48,119 --> 01:31:51,600
Speaker 5: Go ahead, Jay again, you keep circling back to listing

1694
01:31:51,800 --> 01:31:55,720
various methodologies amongst different disciplines. That doesn't tell me that

1695
01:31:55,960 --> 01:31:59,159
a holistic approach of scholars amongst a bunch of different

1696
01:31:59,199 --> 01:32:00,359
disciplines is the way to go.

1697
01:32:01,720 --> 01:32:06,159
Speaker 1: Fine and ignore it all. Go like this, close your

1698
01:32:06,199 --> 01:32:07,520
eyes to all the data around you.

1699
01:32:07,760 --> 01:32:07,960
Speaker 7: Do it.

1700
01:32:08,039 --> 01:32:09,520
Speaker 1: I don't know. That's not what I'm arguing.

1701
01:32:11,840 --> 01:32:15,159
Speaker 2: Hang on, guys, guys, Neil, we can't or we're not

1702
01:32:15,199 --> 01:32:18,119
going to operate. And I don't care, right, I'm just

1703
01:32:18,239 --> 01:32:20,560
saying I would like it. I would like a response.

1704
01:32:21,359 --> 01:32:23,960
Just as you gave an argument to Jay's responding to

1705
01:32:24,000 --> 01:32:26,680
your arguments, make an argument back. I would actually like

1706
01:32:26,760 --> 01:32:28,560
to response to the argument. I'll hold his feet to

1707
01:32:28,600 --> 01:32:30,880
the same fire. If I see he's not responding to

1708
01:32:30,960 --> 01:32:32,800
an argument, so I would like you to actually respond

1709
01:32:32,800 --> 01:32:33,319
to his argument.

1710
01:32:33,399 --> 01:32:37,039
Speaker 1: Please, Okay, you said that I have a scholar right

1711
01:32:37,079 --> 01:32:39,439
here from this book that says that the books of

1712
01:32:39,520 --> 01:32:41,760
Solomon go back to the pre monarchopare, which would be

1713
01:32:41,760 --> 01:32:44,720
a thousand BC plus. Wow, that's a great that's a

1714
01:32:44,840 --> 01:32:49,119
crazy claim. From my experience with scholarship, that's that's pretty fringe.

1715
01:32:49,239 --> 01:32:51,039
I would say, how do you know that? So I'd

1716
01:32:51,119 --> 01:32:52,640
have to ask him how he knows that what is

1717
01:32:52,720 --> 01:32:55,680
evidence is why he's making that conclusion. And then I

1718
01:32:55,680 --> 01:32:58,439
would go to other scholars in archaeology. I'll go to

1719
01:32:58,520 --> 01:33:03,039
scholars in and techrual criticism, scholars who do linguistics, scholars

1720
01:33:03,039 --> 01:33:05,039
who study Egypt, scholar to study, and I would go

1721
01:33:05,279 --> 01:33:07,319
and find all the data and say, wait a minute,

1722
01:33:07,479 --> 01:33:09,359
where is the evidence for the for the Torah?

1723
01:33:09,399 --> 01:33:12,880
Speaker 5: If it's not there, not understanding that it's an epistemic question,

1724
01:33:12,960 --> 01:33:15,439
I'm not asking you. Can you list a bunch of

1725
01:33:15,479 --> 01:33:19,920
scholars that are liberal scholgical data. Neil, stop interrupting me,

1726
01:33:20,039 --> 01:33:24,439
because it's a really clear, simple argument. I don't dispute

1727
01:33:24,600 --> 01:33:27,960
that people go and look at other scholars and other disciplines.

1728
01:33:28,680 --> 01:33:33,600
Your resolution to the challenge of complete competing scholarly claims was, quote,

1729
01:33:33,720 --> 01:33:35,119
go to the holistic approach.

1730
01:33:35,760 --> 01:33:36,720
Speaker 1: Maybe that is true.

1731
01:33:37,439 --> 01:33:40,279
Speaker 5: And all I'm saying is, how do we know that

1732
01:33:40,399 --> 01:33:42,520
that's the way to resolve it, because you know, sometimes,

1733
01:33:42,600 --> 01:33:44,760
how do you know, Neil, Neil, that's a.

1734
01:33:44,760 --> 01:33:47,560
Speaker 1: Too quote way. I'm here, I'm doing I'm committing too quickly.

1735
01:33:47,600 --> 01:33:49,479
I want to know how he's admitting that he's doing.

1736
01:33:49,720 --> 01:33:50,359
I'm admitting it.

1737
01:33:50,439 --> 01:33:52,880
Speaker 5: How do you know, Jay, Well, I don't have the

1738
01:33:52,960 --> 01:33:57,039
problem of Oh, I don't accept, so you don't even

1739
01:33:57,159 --> 01:33:59,119
have to know it's true.

1740
01:33:59,199 --> 01:34:03,000
Speaker 1: I don't accept that. Holistic at hoc is an argument.

1741
01:34:03,840 --> 01:34:06,439
Why would I have. You don't accept, you don't accept

1742
01:34:06,600 --> 01:34:09,159
the you don't accept the data. You don't accept, you

1743
01:34:09,199 --> 01:34:13,560
don't accept if I present contrary scholars and you want

1744
01:34:13,560 --> 01:34:18,039
scholars and types of things. Your answer was wholeism. And

1745
01:34:18,119 --> 01:34:20,000
then I asked you to flesh that out, and you say,

1746
01:34:20,039 --> 01:34:22,439
I don't care. And I asked you how do you know?

1747
01:34:22,479 --> 01:34:24,520
And you said, I don't have to know. Well, it's

1748
01:34:24,560 --> 01:34:26,840
a problem. It's not my argument. It was your argument.

1749
01:34:26,920 --> 01:34:29,199
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going we're going here in circles. Ask to

1750
01:34:29,279 --> 01:34:32,800
Neil's question, I think it's a fair question. He is

1751
01:34:32,960 --> 01:34:36,079
asking what sort of methodology would you appeal to Jay

1752
01:34:36,159 --> 01:34:37,600
for this? And I do think that that's fair for

1753
01:34:37,640 --> 01:34:38,880
you to answer that right.

1754
01:34:38,960 --> 01:34:42,840
Speaker 5: No, I don't disagree with scholars or the approach of

1755
01:34:42,880 --> 01:34:45,760
scholarly you know, academia, et cetera. I was spent time

1756
01:34:45,800 --> 01:34:48,479
in academia. I have one of my good friends is

1757
01:34:48,479 --> 01:34:52,880
an orthodox archaeologist. Uh uh, so there's there are people

1758
01:34:52,920 --> 01:34:56,640
who do this but also have a conservative perspective. Sure,

1759
01:34:56,680 --> 01:34:59,600
and a lot of archaeology backs up the Bible. This,

1760
01:34:59,800 --> 01:35:02,039
this kind of stuff comes out all the time. My

1761
01:35:02,119 --> 01:35:05,159
buddy James as an archaeologist, he blogs about this regularly,

1762
01:35:05,279 --> 01:35:06,520
is a PhD in archaeology.

1763
01:35:06,680 --> 01:35:08,840
Speaker 1: So I have scholars and friends too.

1764
01:35:08,960 --> 01:35:11,760
Speaker 5: My point was just simply that it's not resolved by

1765
01:35:11,960 --> 01:35:15,079
throwing the claims of scholars back and forth, because there's

1766
01:35:15,119 --> 01:35:18,079
no way to know if there's conflicting claims.

1767
01:35:18,920 --> 01:35:20,600
Speaker 1: If you get to this issue of it being an

1768
01:35:20,640 --> 01:35:21,600
epistemic question.

1769
01:35:22,079 --> 01:35:25,760
Speaker 5: So again, the way that we interpret the textual data,

1770
01:35:25,840 --> 01:35:28,560
the scholarly data, the academic data, is going to be

1771
01:35:28,640 --> 01:35:31,119
governed by our paradigm. So you notice that Neil's not

1772
01:35:31,199 --> 01:35:33,479
going to accept the scholars that I present or mention,

1773
01:35:34,319 --> 01:35:36,800
but I'm not going to be accepting his. So that

1774
01:35:36,920 --> 01:35:39,239
proves that we have kind of a fundamental issue.

1775
01:35:39,560 --> 01:35:41,520
Speaker 1: That's why I raised the question of how would we

1776
01:35:41,640 --> 01:35:42,119
resolve it?

1777
01:35:42,279 --> 01:35:45,720
Speaker 5: If there's a scholarly disagreement and we're throwing scholars back

1778
01:35:45,760 --> 01:35:46,079
and forth.

1779
01:35:46,239 --> 01:35:48,600
Speaker 1: It can't be resolved by just Neil saying and I

1780
01:35:48,680 --> 01:35:51,239
don't just reject, I don't just I'm sorry, I cut

1781
01:35:51,239 --> 01:35:51,840
you off, You're done.

1782
01:35:52,520 --> 01:35:55,880
Speaker 5: It's not resolved by an arbitrary ad hoc principle of

1783
01:35:56,119 --> 01:35:59,239
it's just holistic. Okay, maybe that's true, Neil, maybe we

1784
01:35:59,319 --> 01:36:01,399
do go to a whole realistic But what does that

1785
01:36:01,520 --> 01:36:03,920
actually mean? And why ought we think that that's true?

1786
01:36:03,960 --> 01:36:06,279
Maybe it is true, but I need a good reason

1787
01:36:06,359 --> 01:36:08,600
to believe it's true. Your answer to that was just

1788
01:36:08,680 --> 01:36:11,159
to give a bunch of methodologies that are used. That

1789
01:36:11,319 --> 01:36:14,079
doesn't tell me that holism is the right approach.

1790
01:36:14,479 --> 01:36:17,560
Speaker 1: Maybe it is, okay, And I would even respond to

1791
01:36:17,640 --> 01:36:20,640
that and say, I don't just deny conservative scholars because

1792
01:36:20,640 --> 01:36:23,079
I don't like what they're saying. I accept I fact,

1793
01:36:23,079 --> 01:36:26,199
I'm convinced by Christians all the time. But well, he

1794
01:36:26,199 --> 01:36:27,640
didn't get you didn't give me a reason why. He

1795
01:36:27,680 --> 01:36:30,039
says that he just wrote it down, So what how

1796
01:36:30,079 --> 01:36:31,600
did he make that? How did he come to that conclusion?

1797
01:36:31,640 --> 01:36:34,279
And they say that your liberal scholars just wrote it down?

1798
01:36:35,600 --> 01:36:38,840
Conservative scholars, you just Schmidt, doctor Schmidt who just came

1799
01:36:38,880 --> 01:36:41,600
out with the published a book about Joe Siphas saying

1800
01:36:41,680 --> 01:36:44,520
it's authentic. I was convinced by some of his arguments.

1801
01:36:44,600 --> 01:36:47,960
He made good arguments off the Greek. He demonstrated why

1802
01:36:48,039 --> 01:36:50,960
he made why he made his arguments that Joseph, I'm

1803
01:36:51,039 --> 01:36:52,960
just showing you it's not ba. I'm not just denying

1804
01:36:53,000 --> 01:36:58,239
scholars because they're conservative Christians. They bring arguments that are data.

1805
01:36:58,840 --> 01:37:01,439
They bring arguments that sport's the supportive of the data.

1806
01:37:01,720 --> 01:37:04,279
I'll be convinced it's never. It just doesn't happen to

1807
01:37:04,319 --> 01:37:07,399
the point where ystemic questions are prior to scientific questions.

1808
01:37:07,439 --> 01:37:10,439
Is that I know that? Huh? I know that you do.

1809
01:37:10,640 --> 01:37:13,640
You're saying you asked the question about wholeism, and how

1810
01:37:13,680 --> 01:37:16,319
do we know that that's the right way, because my

1811
01:37:16,479 --> 01:37:21,239
worldview accounts for things like being being objective, is and

1812
01:37:21,319 --> 01:37:21,920
maybe it does.

1813
01:37:22,119 --> 01:37:24,439
Speaker 5: But why ought we to think that wholism is the

1814
01:37:24,520 --> 01:37:28,279
right approach here? You just admitted that some scholars can

1815
01:37:28,319 --> 01:37:29,680
be in the minority to be correct.

1816
01:37:29,479 --> 01:37:35,600
Speaker 1: Right, because if we because the we want to follow

1817
01:37:35,840 --> 01:37:42,600
the data to its final conclusion, to the most. But again,

1818
01:37:42,960 --> 01:37:45,640
you are missing you're missing the point. How does that

1819
01:37:46,319 --> 01:37:49,359
what you're saying there tell me that wholism is the

1820
01:37:49,439 --> 01:37:52,119
right approach? Maybe it is, but what is the what

1821
01:37:52,279 --> 01:37:56,000
is the basis for that? Because that's how we that's

1822
01:37:56,039 --> 01:37:58,239
how we discover things in the world. So that's just

1823
01:37:58,359 --> 01:38:01,720
restating the curiist. Well, you just asked me a question

1824
01:38:01,760 --> 01:38:04,079
that's the answer to So the answer is just a circle.

1825
01:38:04,880 --> 01:38:05,720
How is that a circle?

1826
01:38:06,600 --> 01:38:09,199
Speaker 5: Because the thing in question is an epistemic issue, and

1827
01:38:09,239 --> 01:38:10,960
you're saying that we'll just be an empiricist.

1828
01:38:11,640 --> 01:38:14,720
Speaker 1: How does that resolve that wholes follow the most the

1829
01:38:14,800 --> 01:38:18,439
most rigorous methodology, that's how we discover things in the world.

1830
01:38:18,479 --> 01:38:21,119
Speaker 5: Is that so the rigorous one is the one that's

1831
01:38:21,119 --> 01:38:25,199
your position? Yeah, the rigorous methodology. Again, so it's just

1832
01:38:25,319 --> 01:38:28,399
right that you just follow. So you're just saying follow me.

1833
01:38:28,880 --> 01:38:33,199
Speaker 1: So I'm not saying me. I'm not saying have you

1834
01:38:33,239 --> 01:38:36,039
ever had a family member that had cancer, you know,

1835
01:38:36,079 --> 01:38:42,119
anyone that ever had cancer? Do they pray? This is

1836
01:38:42,239 --> 01:38:44,880
becoming this is becoming a series of No. This is

1837
01:38:44,920 --> 01:38:47,680
actually I'm actually making a point here. You can hang on,

1838
01:38:47,760 --> 01:38:49,840
hang on, Neil, allow allow the point.

1839
01:38:50,359 --> 01:38:52,399
Speaker 2: But if it's becoming a non sequitor and we're not

1840
01:38:52,520 --> 01:38:55,920
getting to the answer to this question, then I'm going

1841
01:38:56,000 --> 01:38:56,399
to step in.

1842
01:38:56,520 --> 01:39:00,399
Speaker 1: So go ahead, okay, And someone has cancer, they don't.

1843
01:39:00,880 --> 01:39:03,119
They don't just go to their own devices or ask,

1844
01:39:03,680 --> 01:39:05,319
you know, pray about it, or go to the witch

1845
01:39:05,359 --> 01:39:09,840
doctor on the street. They go to the best experts,

1846
01:39:10,239 --> 01:39:15,479
whether it's the the hospital, PhDs or Roswell Institute, something

1847
01:39:15,520 --> 01:39:18,720
where there's literal experts who know what they're doing. That's

1848
01:39:18,800 --> 01:39:21,000
that they want the best experts that are out there,

1849
01:39:21,359 --> 01:39:24,720
who have the best credentials period, and you can use that,

1850
01:39:24,840 --> 01:39:26,479
you can you can see the same thing for all

1851
01:39:26,520 --> 01:39:29,439
these other fields of study, the not just medicine, but

1852
01:39:29,560 --> 01:39:33,359
even history, even things like the humanities. The same thing applies. Okay.

1853
01:39:34,119 --> 01:39:38,960
Speaker 5: Is it possible that sometimes the scholarship that's conservative is

1854
01:39:39,000 --> 01:39:41,479
in the minority and could be correct, Like you said

1855
01:39:41,520 --> 01:39:43,439
with the guy about Josepha's.

1856
01:39:44,520 --> 01:39:47,920
Speaker 1: Yeah, Okay, So that makes.

1857
01:39:47,720 --> 01:39:52,720
Speaker 5: My point that scholarly consensus and wholism isn't going to

1858
01:39:52,720 --> 01:39:53,960
be a reliable way to go about it.

1859
01:39:55,960 --> 01:39:58,279
Speaker 1: Well, when it comes to the Bible, the consensus usually

1860
01:39:58,359 --> 01:40:00,520
leans in the direction of the most so that most

1861
01:40:00,560 --> 01:40:02,439
of the scholars that are in the field, Neil, I'm

1862
01:40:02,479 --> 01:40:06,439
asking why. I'm not talking about consensus. I'm talking about

1863
01:40:06,439 --> 01:40:08,760
you in particular fields.

1864
01:40:08,920 --> 01:40:10,840
Speaker 2: Hang on, But this is the question, this is the

1865
01:40:10,960 --> 01:40:14,199
question at hand that Jay Jay has. He has asked

1866
01:40:14,239 --> 01:40:16,239
this argument now twice, and I think it's fair to

1867
01:40:16,319 --> 01:40:21,159
answer to it. Yeah, he's asking the odd claim, and

1868
01:40:21,439 --> 01:40:23,079
I'd like you to respond to the act claim.

1869
01:40:23,319 --> 01:40:25,199
Speaker 1: That's why I brought up the cancer thing. You go

1870
01:40:25,319 --> 01:40:28,479
to the experts in the particular field, who are the

1871
01:40:28,560 --> 01:40:32,239
most well most well established, who know what they're doing, Neil.

1872
01:40:32,399 --> 01:40:34,239
Speaker 5: The question is how do we know that we ought

1873
01:40:34,319 --> 01:40:37,359
to go to the holistic approach or a consensus.

1874
01:40:37,520 --> 01:40:38,880
Speaker 1: If you want to be right, you do it. If

1875
01:40:38,920 --> 01:40:40,520
you want to be right, you do it. Do you

1876
01:40:40,600 --> 01:40:42,520
want to be right or wrong? The question is how

1877
01:40:42,560 --> 01:40:44,199
do we know that that's the right approach that we

1878
01:40:44,239 --> 01:40:45,880
ought to take. Well, No, that's a fair it's a

1879
01:40:45,920 --> 01:40:48,760
fair point. But I wouldn't like to hear the counter evidence,

1880
01:40:48,760 --> 01:40:51,720
so you don't have an argument. It's not no, it's

1881
01:40:51,760 --> 01:40:54,840
not too hang on to be fair, to be totally fair.

1882
01:40:55,239 --> 01:40:58,920
Speaker 2: Okay, well, Neil to be totally fair here, that is

1883
01:40:59,119 --> 01:41:02,840
not actually answering the argument. That's that's asking him to

1884
01:41:03,199 --> 01:41:07,239
to now state a position. I I do think it's

1885
01:41:07,279 --> 01:41:10,000
fair for you to answer to it, to the argument

1886
01:41:10,039 --> 01:41:11,880
that he's making. I would I would make him answer

1887
01:41:11,920 --> 01:41:15,960
to yours as well, like I have. I just did, though, Okay,

1888
01:41:16,439 --> 01:41:18,279
I mean that if you want to do you want

1889
01:41:18,279 --> 01:41:19,199
to move on to another topic?

1890
01:41:19,279 --> 01:41:22,000
Speaker 1: Maybe? Yes, it's just kind of going around. You don't

1891
01:41:22,039 --> 01:41:24,359
have to follow the expert. You can follow the conservative scholars.

1892
01:41:24,479 --> 01:41:29,079
Speaker 5: Fine again, I'm just I'm not even it's an epistemic

1893
01:41:29,239 --> 01:41:32,439
question about how do we ask I gave you a

1894
01:41:32,560 --> 01:41:34,880
counter you know, I gave you a counter to why

1895
01:41:35,159 --> 01:41:38,560
sometimes consensus is wrong, and you admitted that that can happen,

1896
01:41:38,680 --> 01:41:40,439
And so I'm asking you, how do we know then

1897
01:41:40,560 --> 01:41:46,880
that we should follow the consensus. I just told you, Okay,

1898
01:41:47,880 --> 01:41:49,439
do you want to move on to I'd like to

1899
01:41:49,479 --> 01:41:51,720
ask you about because you mete a big deal about

1900
01:41:52,720 --> 01:41:55,680
you know, the evil god of the Old Testament and

1901
01:41:55,800 --> 01:41:56,960
his actions.

1902
01:41:57,800 --> 01:41:58,920
Speaker 1: Isn't it just the case that.

1903
01:42:01,079 --> 01:42:05,600
Speaker 5: If infants are dashed against stones, wouldn't in your worldview,

1904
01:42:05,680 --> 01:42:07,840
that just be the one manifesting?

1905
01:42:08,560 --> 01:42:12,600
Speaker 1: No, Because in this material realm we are farthest away

1906
01:42:12,760 --> 01:42:15,960
from the One, and because of the flux of our reality,

1907
01:42:16,199 --> 01:42:19,800
things can like this do happen. So the One has

1908
01:42:19,880 --> 01:42:25,159
a will, but we farthest away from the One, which

1909
01:42:25,199 --> 01:42:27,760
is where the flux is, there are opposing forces that

1910
01:42:27,880 --> 01:42:30,560
do things that we even if we have a piece

1911
01:42:30,600 --> 01:42:32,159
of the One within us and that which is our

1912
01:42:32,199 --> 01:42:36,319
full potentiality, are tilos, if you will, to Aristotle's phrase

1913
01:42:36,479 --> 01:42:39,439
that you also use in your world world view, Sometimes

1914
01:42:39,479 --> 01:42:42,439
people don't follow that and they do evil things because

1915
01:42:42,600 --> 01:42:45,880
we're in the flux. We don't all have direct we

1916
01:42:45,920 --> 01:42:48,800
don't all have direct access to the good. That's what

1917
01:42:49,119 --> 01:42:51,479
that's the problem of evil solved by my worldview. Your

1918
01:42:51,520 --> 01:42:56,720
worldview just says God, let Satan do it. So what

1919
01:42:56,960 --> 01:43:02,279
things in this lower dimension are good or evil? Whatever

1920
01:43:02,399 --> 01:43:05,840
is in in a in a apply in whatever is

1921
01:43:05,880 --> 01:43:10,000
in appliance with virtue, virtue, we know what are the virtues.

1922
01:43:10,479 --> 01:43:12,600
So we those have been debated over time through the

1923
01:43:12,640 --> 01:43:16,199
dialectic through Socratic method, and we have we have texts

1924
01:43:16,199 --> 01:43:18,600
that you know, talk about the virtues like the Golden

1925
01:43:19,119 --> 01:43:23,640
the Golden sentences. Then no, we do, Okay, they're debated,

1926
01:43:23,800 --> 01:43:32,079
but like honesty, what honesty? Yeah, okay, how do we

1927
01:43:32,119 --> 01:43:33,520
know that? I thought you said earlier it was the

1928
01:43:33,680 --> 01:43:37,520
it was just virtue, right, yeah, because we can, we can,

1929
01:43:37,680 --> 01:43:39,720
we can. We can come up with things that lead

1930
01:43:39,760 --> 01:43:43,119
to virtue. That's the highest of the pinnacle of good.

1931
01:43:43,439 --> 01:43:46,960
And then there are others. There are other principles that

1932
01:43:47,159 --> 01:43:50,239
are good that lead to virtue, like being honest, like

1933
01:43:50,439 --> 01:43:53,800
and like and what what what's the epistemic justification for

1934
01:43:54,119 --> 01:43:58,439
knowing that my will I view accounts for it? How

1935
01:43:58,479 --> 01:43:59,000
do we know that?

1936
01:43:59,159 --> 01:44:02,880
Speaker 5: Within your worldview, honesty is the key one because it

1937
01:44:02,960 --> 01:44:06,640
leads the virtue. But honestly was supposed to be the virtue.

1938
01:44:08,239 --> 01:44:11,039
Isn't it one of the virtues? It's honestly leads to

1939
01:44:11,159 --> 01:44:13,880
it leads to virtue. It's one of versus. The highest

1940
01:44:14,359 --> 01:44:15,920
versu is the highest good you can attain.

1941
01:44:16,000 --> 01:44:20,840
Speaker 1: Honestly is a virtue? You don't know? Yes, so honesty

1942
01:44:20,960 --> 01:44:24,800
leads to honesty, nor it's one of the lesser virtues.

1943
01:44:24,840 --> 01:44:28,840
That leads to how do you know which ones are

1944
01:44:29,319 --> 01:44:31,960
lower and higher? Well, because there's different ways to debate

1945
01:44:32,000 --> 01:44:34,079
this negation we can use. We can debate it. We

1946
01:44:34,159 --> 01:44:37,880
can tell you that honesty is a lower virtue than another.

1947
01:44:38,039 --> 01:44:40,640
We can tell I just said, we debate and we negate.

1948
01:44:40,840 --> 01:44:43,119
We figured out what tell you that knowing what not

1949
01:44:43,319 --> 01:44:45,600
is good? What is not good? What is the what

1950
01:44:47,800 --> 01:44:50,119
I just told you? Oh you didn't. You said debating

1951
01:44:50,359 --> 01:44:52,199
that's a thing that people. That's that's the same thing

1952
01:44:52,239 --> 01:44:56,000
you do. Not an epistemic principle, it's an action. Yeah,

1953
01:44:56,039 --> 01:44:57,840
but that's how we figured these things out over time.

1954
01:44:57,960 --> 01:45:03,439
So that's no method, it's not a principle. Well, the

1955
01:45:03,520 --> 01:45:08,319
principle is having the having the dogma of attaining virtue.

1956
01:45:08,479 --> 01:45:10,640
That's wait a minute, I thought you were about reason

1957
01:45:10,720 --> 01:45:14,199
and now you're saying it's dogma. Yeah, the only the

1958
01:45:14,319 --> 01:45:17,520
only dogs is dogma, the only platonist that virtue that

1959
01:45:17,800 --> 01:45:19,439
that that the only dog when that playton is holed,

1960
01:45:19,600 --> 01:45:23,119
is attaining virtue. Yeah, buttu was the highest good. That's it.

1961
01:45:24,199 --> 01:45:26,199
Because you have more than one dog, one of you

1962
01:45:26,279 --> 01:45:28,000
have more than one dog, will you end up conflicting

1963
01:45:28,000 --> 01:45:31,199
at some point, Neil, this is all just gibber soft

1964
01:45:32,399 --> 01:45:35,039
of what the wrote. This is what the neoplatonist wrote.

1965
01:45:35,199 --> 01:45:37,520
That's an appealatory Who cares. I'm just saying, you're saying

1966
01:45:37,560 --> 01:45:39,600
it's all nonsense. This has been written about a thousands

1967
01:45:40,279 --> 01:45:43,279
So what there's a lot of ancient writers that wrote nonsense. Right,

1968
01:45:43,399 --> 01:45:44,520
I'm just giving you the answers.

1969
01:45:44,560 --> 01:45:46,560
Speaker 5: Okay, So what we need is good reasons to know

1970
01:45:46,760 --> 01:45:48,640
that honesty is the one that leads us to the

1971
01:45:48,720 --> 01:45:49,439
higher virtues.

1972
01:45:50,479 --> 01:45:52,960
Speaker 1: View my world view, do isn't? Isn't in contradiction of yours?

1973
01:45:53,039 --> 01:45:55,560
Is we're debating?

1974
01:45:56,520 --> 01:45:56,880
Speaker 3: Debating?

1975
01:45:58,000 --> 01:46:00,560
Speaker 1: Just explained to me. I want to my world more

1976
01:46:00,720 --> 01:46:03,359
coherent than yours. So that's why people should listen to

1977
01:46:03,439 --> 01:46:06,279
me over you. Fine, let's say Christianity's contradictory.

1978
01:46:06,880 --> 01:46:09,560
Speaker 5: What is the reason that we ought to believe that

1979
01:46:10,199 --> 01:46:12,439
honesty is the virtue that leads to the highest virtues?

1980
01:46:13,800 --> 01:46:16,279
Speaker 1: Because you haven't demonstrated any other worldview to be better,

1981
01:46:16,800 --> 01:46:18,000
because I haven't done something?

1982
01:46:18,239 --> 01:46:20,600
Speaker 5: Yes, no, no, I'm asking from your worldview, why aren't

1983
01:46:20,600 --> 01:46:23,760
we what's the epistemic principle here? Because of the predictive

1984
01:46:23,800 --> 01:46:28,199
success and the For example, how does honesty, get predictive success.

1985
01:46:28,279 --> 01:46:30,560
Speaker 1: Well, no, hold on a second. When we look back

1986
01:46:30,600 --> 01:46:33,680
in history, we could see wherever these Platonists were, there

1987
01:46:33,760 --> 01:46:36,600
was renaissances. So when they were kicked out of Constantinople,

1988
01:46:36,720 --> 01:46:38,680
a lot of second and going take a point here,

1989
01:46:38,880 --> 01:46:42,319
they're kicked out of Constantinople after after the world, after

1990
01:46:42,399 --> 01:46:46,039
having the greatest empire ever, the Roman Empire, inheriting things

1991
01:46:46,079 --> 01:46:49,560
from the Greeks, the greatest, the the Pax Romana all

1992
01:46:49,600 --> 01:46:52,079
the way up to the late Antiquity, they become Christian.

1993
01:46:52,239 --> 01:46:55,039
They kick the Platonists out, they go to the East,

1994
01:46:55,079 --> 01:46:57,439
they go to Babylon, and then you you they even

1995
01:46:57,520 --> 01:47:01,319
lead to a quote unquote exlomic go because they're reading

1996
01:47:01,479 --> 01:47:04,800
the text. And when they come down, when they come

1997
01:47:04,880 --> 01:47:07,279
back to Macedonia, when they come back to business, there's

1998
01:47:07,319 --> 01:47:12,119
a Macedonian mini renaissance. And then there's another measure. Did

1999
01:47:12,199 --> 01:47:14,600
you measure that scientifically? When we can look at we

2000
01:47:14,680 --> 01:47:17,720
can look at history, and that's arbitrary. Okay, let me

2001
01:47:17,800 --> 01:47:22,520
ask your criteria, Aristotle, and Aristotle and your criteria a

2002
01:47:22,560 --> 01:47:26,439
successful society is correct because we're asking world world. The

2003
01:47:26,520 --> 01:47:29,199
basis for what the successful society is that's so it's

2004
01:47:29,199 --> 01:47:33,319
a circle. Sure, okay, So I'm let me ask you this.

2005
01:47:33,439 --> 01:47:36,960
Aristotle and Galen. Huh Aristotle and Galen you know there,

2006
01:47:37,399 --> 01:47:40,880
Uh huh. So Galen Galen was the textor for medical text.

2007
01:47:40,960 --> 01:47:44,319
He was the second century a d. Aristotle's fourth century

2008
01:47:45,119 --> 01:47:49,079
is not a Neoplatonist. I'm well, actually, middle Platonists and

2009
01:47:49,159 --> 01:47:54,079
Neoplatonists and later Platonists take Aristotle, I'm merging with we

2010
01:47:54,119 --> 01:47:56,199
can use it. We use aristotles So I'm not talking

2011
01:47:56,359 --> 01:47:59,520
we use Aristotle. You're wrong. So what I'm saying is

2012
01:47:59,680 --> 01:48:03,199
how wrong he's not a Neoplatonist. I didn't say he was.

2013
01:48:03,319 --> 01:48:05,520
I said we use Aristotle either way. How is a

2014
01:48:05,920 --> 01:48:10,479
going to prove neoplatonism. I'm showing you Aristotle's works and

2015
01:48:10,800 --> 01:48:14,600
Galen's works were not even were the central textbooks for

2016
01:48:14,800 --> 01:48:18,560
medical science and and and all the way up until

2017
01:48:18,600 --> 01:48:21,600
the sixteenth century. But how does that prove neo platonism

2018
01:48:22,439 --> 01:48:27,039
Because Christianity couldn't do anything to improve on that. We

2019
01:48:27,119 --> 01:48:28,680
had to wait till the plan we had, We had

2020
01:48:28,720 --> 01:48:33,279
to wait till my world he was back world. No,

2021
01:48:33,359 --> 01:48:34,319
it's not a fallacy.

2022
01:48:35,039 --> 01:48:39,920
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, to say, well, Christianity couldn't do. This is

2023
01:48:40,000 --> 01:48:42,079
not answering the question of how do we know that?

2024
01:48:42,199 --> 01:48:45,319
Because aristotles You were asking about worldviews, how do we

2025
01:48:45,439 --> 01:48:48,560
know that that proves? The question was about proving neoplatonism,

2026
01:48:48,600 --> 01:48:50,359
and you said, well, Aristotle did some good things and

2027
01:48:50,399 --> 01:48:53,159
then Galen wrote some medical stuff and Christianity couldn't do it.

2028
01:48:53,279 --> 01:48:57,239
Speaker 1: That doesn't prove neo platon escunt improve on these basic

2029
01:48:57,319 --> 01:49:02,279
science text and then that prove neo Platonism from Aristotle

2030
01:49:02,319 --> 01:49:05,760
and Galen. This is ridiculous because we're doing a worldview

2031
01:49:05,840 --> 01:49:09,640
versus we're doing a world vers world to right, they

2032
01:49:10,600 --> 01:49:12,960
coherent have to do with proving because my world is

2033
01:49:13,000 --> 01:49:16,520
more coherent than yours. Not neo Platonists. I didn't say

2034
01:49:16,600 --> 01:49:22,039
they were faith and then it's irrelevant. Neo playton is

2035
01:49:22,159 --> 01:49:25,840
drawn from Galen and Aristotle. They're part of for them,

2036
01:49:25,960 --> 01:49:28,720
and it's irrelevant. I know that I'm after them too.

2037
01:49:30,319 --> 01:49:33,319
This makes no sense. I'm after Aristotle. I can borrower

2038
01:49:33,359 --> 01:49:38,680
from Aristotle. Why not you think I think I can't

2039
01:49:38,680 --> 01:49:41,239
read Aristotle and learn from Aristotle? How does this prove

2040
01:49:41,359 --> 01:49:44,560
I have some sort of metaphysical thing that's stopped Aristotle

2041
01:49:45,800 --> 01:49:47,680
Because I said my world view is more coherent than

2042
01:49:47,720 --> 01:49:53,520
yours because you said it. Wow, I proved it in

2043
01:49:53,560 --> 01:49:54,000
this debate.

2044
01:49:54,199 --> 01:49:58,920
Speaker 2: Gentlemen, Neil Jay's done a lot of the cross exam here.

2045
01:49:59,000 --> 01:50:01,920
You haven't really had too much chance to cross exam back.

2046
01:50:02,279 --> 01:50:03,880
I'm going to give you the last ten minutes to

2047
01:50:04,000 --> 01:50:05,920
do that. Go ahead when you're ready.

2048
01:50:09,600 --> 01:50:11,199
Speaker 1: I don't want to get into the dating of the text,

2049
01:50:11,239 --> 01:50:13,439
the stupid we are to get in there. So I

2050
01:50:14,079 --> 01:50:15,960
you know, we talked about the trinity, what about the

2051
01:50:17,319 --> 01:50:20,479
I haven't heard much of you defending things like God

2052
01:50:20,600 --> 01:50:23,319
being jealous, or God not being omniscient, or not even

2053
01:50:23,359 --> 01:50:27,000
being omnipotent. For example, when the iron chariots came and

2054
01:50:27,239 --> 01:50:30,399
in Judges the tribe of Judah got wiped out. This

2055
01:50:30,399 --> 01:50:34,039
isn't that show God is not all powerful? What's what's

2056
01:50:34,079 --> 01:50:34,720
the response to that?

2057
01:50:34,880 --> 01:50:38,439
Speaker 5: You know, there's often statements that explain why they lost,

2058
01:50:38,600 --> 01:50:41,760
and in every case God explains that you lose when

2059
01:50:41,800 --> 01:50:44,880
you're wicked. But by the way you said that it's okay.

2060
01:50:45,079 --> 01:50:48,279
You could you said it's okay if jealousy is used,

2061
01:50:48,520 --> 01:50:49,640
Well why not?

2062
01:50:51,159 --> 01:50:53,439
Speaker 1: You made a point there. I'm doing the cross examination here,

2063
01:50:53,439 --> 01:50:56,600
Ald seconds. You're not letting me answer judges, but you

2064
01:50:56,640 --> 01:51:01,800
want to move on to to finisher. Okay, So again

2065
01:51:02,319 --> 01:51:04,000
the anthropomorphic language again.

2066
01:51:04,199 --> 01:51:08,279
Speaker 5: If God says something like he's jealous, you said, okay, fine,

2067
01:51:08,279 --> 01:51:12,800
you could say maybe that's anthropomorphica earlier. But if jealousy

2068
01:51:12,840 --> 01:51:15,800
can be anthropomorphic, as you admitted, then't regret ken as well.

2069
01:51:16,199 --> 01:51:18,920
So I think that clears up the jealousy and regret issue.

2070
01:51:18,960 --> 01:51:21,800
But when God says that you will lose your battles,

2071
01:51:21,920 --> 01:51:25,199
this is explained in Deuteronomy that you will be trodden

2072
01:51:25,279 --> 01:51:26,359
upon when you're.

2073
01:51:26,199 --> 01:51:29,079
Speaker 1: Wicked, So it's not because of a lack say the wicked.

2074
01:51:30,239 --> 01:51:31,119
In Deuteronomy.

2075
01:51:31,159 --> 01:51:33,800
Speaker 5: When there's covenant sanctions, God warns them and he says,

2076
01:51:35,319 --> 01:51:37,960
if let me finish. So if you are wicked, you

2077
01:51:38,039 --> 01:51:40,199
will lose your battles and be trodden upon. So what

2078
01:51:40,319 --> 01:51:43,239
I'm saying is that when there's an explanation like that,

2079
01:51:43,439 --> 01:51:46,600
it doesn't mean anything close to denying divine omniscience.

2080
01:51:46,640 --> 01:51:49,159
Speaker 1: It just means that the reason that they were.

2081
01:51:49,159 --> 01:51:52,760
Speaker 5: Defeated was because of this, but ultimately because of God

2082
01:51:53,079 --> 01:51:53,720
punishing them.

2083
01:51:54,359 --> 01:51:56,680
Speaker 1: Okay, I'm talking about judges, don't talk about Deuteronomy. It

2084
01:51:56,800 --> 01:52:01,840
specifically says Judges one nineteen Yahweh or the Lord. It's

2085
01:52:01,840 --> 01:52:06,600
my turin, dude, if it's Judges, because that's Yahweh was

2086
01:52:06,720 --> 01:52:11,000
with Judah or Theos in Greek. Theos was with Judah

2087
01:52:11,359 --> 01:52:14,359
and he drove the inhabitants of the mountain, but he

2088
01:52:14,479 --> 01:52:18,199
could not drive out the inhabitants, still talking about Yahweh

2089
01:52:18,640 --> 01:52:21,640
because they had chariots of iron, nothing.

2090
01:52:21,399 --> 01:52:25,000
Speaker 5: To do with There's a similar statement where you have,

2091
01:52:25,079 --> 01:52:27,279
for example, Jesus says he goes into a town and

2092
01:52:27,359 --> 01:52:29,560
it says and he could not do any miracles there

2093
01:52:29,640 --> 01:52:31,000
because of their unbelief.

2094
01:52:31,239 --> 01:52:32,239
Speaker 1: So this is a principle.

2095
01:52:33,239 --> 01:52:35,880
Speaker 5: Why are you talking about I'm giving other examples of

2096
01:52:35,960 --> 01:52:39,000
this principle in scripture that just because that text doesn't

2097
01:52:39,039 --> 01:52:41,399
say that they're wicked, it doesn't follow from that that

2098
01:52:41,520 --> 01:52:44,600
there's not another text that comments on that and explains

2099
01:52:44,680 --> 01:52:48,920
that where you know, when you're wicked, this is why

2100
01:52:49,239 --> 01:52:52,439
you're defeated, And sometimes the texts explained that God allowed

2101
01:52:52,479 --> 01:52:56,079
them to be defeated via the This.

2102
01:52:56,239 --> 01:52:58,239
Speaker 1: One doesn't do that, though. This one just says that

2103
01:52:58,399 --> 01:53:01,880
Yahweh couldn't win know wed iron cheeriot.

2104
01:53:02,720 --> 01:53:06,520
Speaker 5: Everybody interprets texts holistically, including Platonists and neoplatonists. If I

2105
01:53:06,600 --> 01:53:09,319
took one phrase of Plato out of out of context,

2106
01:53:09,359 --> 01:53:12,359
and I said, this phrase disproves all platonism, you would

2107
01:53:12,359 --> 01:53:14,319
say you got to look at the whole body of

2108
01:53:14,399 --> 01:53:16,880
a Platonic corpus. You can't just take one one passage.

2109
01:53:16,920 --> 01:53:17,840
And so that's a yeah.

2110
01:53:17,880 --> 01:53:19,720
Speaker 1: But if you had a contradiction that he does, if

2111
01:53:19,760 --> 01:53:22,039
you had one text that was in contradiction to something else,

2112
01:53:22,119 --> 01:53:23,520
I would we would look at it. We don't have

2113
01:53:23,600 --> 01:53:25,760
to take the whole thing. And in this particular one

2114
01:53:25,800 --> 01:53:29,039
here it's clear. What's what's happening here? Yeah, wait, could

2115
01:53:29,079 --> 01:53:31,840
not drive them out, You're just it's clear. But you say,

2116
01:53:32,560 --> 01:53:33,880
you say, thinking about them being wicked.

2117
01:53:34,239 --> 01:53:37,520
Speaker 5: You just admitted what's called canonical interpretation, which is that, yes,

2118
01:53:37,600 --> 01:53:39,439
you can look at the rest of the text to

2119
01:53:39,479 --> 01:53:42,279
see if it's reconciled or if it synthesizes. And then

2120
01:53:42,319 --> 01:53:43,840
you turn around and said, but here this one is

2121
01:53:43,880 --> 01:53:46,800
clear as to contradiction. Well, again, it's not if you

2122
01:53:46,960 --> 01:53:50,399
believe in a holistic interpretation, which again, if I brought

2123
01:53:50,439 --> 01:53:53,840
the Platonic corpus here and I found one phrase, wouldn't

2124
01:53:53,880 --> 01:53:55,640
you call me out and say you don't have the

2125
01:53:55,760 --> 01:53:56,039
right to.

2126
01:53:56,039 --> 01:53:57,880
Speaker 1: Say one phrase out of context from the rest of

2127
01:53:57,920 --> 01:54:00,680
the corpus. Right, well, actually, the platon is don't really care.

2128
01:54:00,760 --> 01:54:02,439
If you think there's a we would debate. We would

2129
01:54:02,439 --> 01:54:04,880
have a debate about the maybe you do have a contract,

2130
01:54:04,920 --> 01:54:06,840
maybe you did find the contradiction here, let's talk about it.

2131
01:54:07,119 --> 01:54:11,359
Speaker 5: So you wouldn't care if no, if play platonic texts

2132
01:54:11,359 --> 01:54:14,199
were being interpreted improperly, okay.

2133
01:54:13,880 --> 01:54:16,199
Speaker 1: And that that's not you mean that way, then yeah,

2134
01:54:16,239 --> 01:54:19,159
we would. But what I'm saying, okay, so you're saying,

2135
01:54:19,560 --> 01:54:22,439
because of this doctrine that when something bad happens to

2136
01:54:22,439 --> 01:54:25,359
the Juda Heights, they were wicked. So, no matter what says,

2137
01:54:25,840 --> 01:54:26,760
if they felt they were.

2138
01:54:26,840 --> 01:54:31,279
Speaker 5: K specifically, not anything bad, but specifically, if you do

2139
01:54:31,439 --> 01:54:33,680
not obey me, you will lose your battles and be

2140
01:54:33,760 --> 01:54:36,760
trodden upon. That's one of the penal sanctions in Deuteronomy.

2141
01:54:38,159 --> 01:54:40,319
Speaker 1: Right, But you got to you at least be at

2142
01:54:40,399 --> 01:54:45,760
least admit this particular text here in Judges one is

2143
01:54:46,199 --> 01:54:48,720
very unclear about there being some sort of divide punishment.

2144
01:54:48,960 --> 01:54:53,319
Speaker 5: Again, it's when we read holistically the way the Covenant

2145
01:54:53,359 --> 01:54:55,960
functions all of the battles and all the situations where

2146
01:54:55,960 --> 01:54:59,680
they lose. The implication is that when Israel is unfaithful,

2147
01:54:59,760 --> 01:55:02,600
they will lose the battles. In the same way when

2148
01:55:02,680 --> 01:55:05,239
Jesus walks into that town and it says and he

2149
01:55:05,399 --> 01:55:07,920
was unable to do miracles there because of their lack

2150
01:55:08,000 --> 01:55:10,760
of faith. It's not because of his omniscience that he

2151
01:55:10,880 --> 01:55:13,039
that he or that his omnipotence was failing that day.

2152
01:55:13,079 --> 01:55:18,079
It's because he chose to not reward them and to reciprocate.

2153
01:55:18,199 --> 01:55:20,560
It's a reciprocal relationship where he chose to not do

2154
01:55:20,640 --> 01:55:24,119
the miracles because they did not have faith. Likewise, Yahweit

2155
01:55:24,239 --> 01:55:27,720
chose to not give Israel to battle because they're your

2156
01:55:28,319 --> 01:55:31,239
Your text, the New Testament says that they didn't have faith.

2157
01:55:31,560 --> 01:55:34,079
Speaker 1: Judges one does not say that. Judges One says he

2158
01:55:34,279 --> 01:55:37,880
even says it earlier that Yahweh said jud to go up,

2159
01:55:37,960 --> 01:55:39,159
and I have delivered.

2160
01:55:38,760 --> 01:55:42,560
Speaker 5: The lay body interpret sex holistically. That's what I said earlier.

2161
01:55:42,680 --> 01:55:46,720
But these texts weren't written. Different have to say within

2162
01:55:46,840 --> 01:55:49,239
the text every implication.

2163
01:55:48,960 --> 01:55:51,119
Speaker 1: To me and what I'm saying, I understand that now

2164
01:55:51,199 --> 01:55:54,000
that you have a church that does ex Jesus and apologetics.

2165
01:55:54,079 --> 01:55:56,880
Then now you can interpret things everyone does ex to Jesus.

2166
01:55:56,960 --> 01:55:59,199
You just admitted that with Plato, Right, But I'm saying

2167
01:55:59,520 --> 01:56:01,920
these tax were written for different people in different times.

2168
01:56:02,680 --> 01:56:06,119
They weren't necessarily written for a canonical church to be

2169
01:56:06,239 --> 01:56:07,439
taking in a holistic thing.

2170
01:56:07,560 --> 01:56:09,800
Speaker 5: Well, I mean that's your assumption as an unbeliever. But

2171
01:56:09,840 --> 01:56:12,439
I have a different paradigm, a different assumption. So but again,

2172
01:56:12,479 --> 01:56:14,800
that's why I asked you if wouldn't you agree that

2173
01:56:15,239 --> 01:56:19,520
you can interpret platonic texts holistically? For example, even within

2174
01:56:19,640 --> 01:56:23,319
one platonic dialogue, Right, you wouldn't take one line and say, well,

2175
01:56:23,520 --> 01:56:25,760
this appears to be contrary to all the other things

2176
01:56:25,800 --> 01:56:27,960
in this dialogue, right, it would wouldn't it be fair

2177
01:56:28,000 --> 01:56:29,079
to interpret it holistically?

2178
01:56:29,279 --> 01:56:32,840
Speaker 1: That's fair? Okay, So I'm being good faith.

2179
01:56:33,159 --> 01:56:37,159
Speaker 5: Interpretation between canonical versus taking one verse.

2180
01:56:37,319 --> 01:56:39,119
Speaker 1: Let me chat out to understand you better. You're saying

2181
01:56:39,560 --> 01:56:42,079
that whatever this guy wrote is not is kind of

2182
01:56:42,680 --> 01:56:46,880
doesn't really matter because no interpret it anyway. Is that

2183
01:56:46,920 --> 01:56:47,439
what you're saying?

2184
01:56:47,560 --> 01:56:50,399
Speaker 5: No, this isn't even nessessitate bringing the church in. I'm

2185
01:56:50,439 --> 01:56:54,039
just saying that canonically or holistically, even in Jewish literature,

2186
01:56:54,119 --> 01:56:57,119
for example, you wouldn't take one verse out out of

2187
01:56:57,399 --> 01:56:59,720
the context of Judges and read it against all the

2188
01:56:59,760 --> 01:57:01,920
rest to the Book of Judges. Right now, you could

2189
01:57:02,039 --> 01:57:04,520
do that, like you can do it, but it's not

2190
01:57:04,640 --> 01:57:07,520
really fair to any text to operate that way. And

2191
01:57:07,600 --> 01:57:12,000
all I'm saying is that from our perspective, doctor Burke

2192
01:57:12,079 --> 01:57:13,960
would be read, for example, in the context of the

2193
01:57:14,000 --> 01:57:16,319
Book of Judges and the rest of the Old Testament,

2194
01:57:16,359 --> 01:57:19,079
where we have other explanations as to well, why is

2195
01:57:19,159 --> 01:57:21,840
it that the Israelites sometimes lose these battles. Well, in

2196
01:57:21,960 --> 01:57:24,800
the Covenant Sanctions it says when you're unfaithful, you will

2197
01:57:24,800 --> 01:57:26,479
be trodden upon and you won't win the battles.

2198
01:57:26,840 --> 01:57:28,600
Speaker 1: Yeah, one question left, Neil, and then we got a

2199
01:57:28,640 --> 01:57:30,560
rap it for a Yeah, okay, My last question is

2200
01:57:30,640 --> 01:57:33,960
we you sew another There's there's minor contradictions too that

2201
01:57:34,079 --> 01:57:35,239
I'm not going to make a big deal out of.

2202
01:57:35,359 --> 01:57:39,079
Like First Chronicles twenty one, it tells the same story

2203
01:57:39,199 --> 01:57:43,479
that's in to Samuel twenty four, and it starts off

2204
01:57:43,600 --> 01:57:47,800
Satan rose up against Israel and incited deal, Yes, incited

2205
01:57:47,880 --> 01:57:50,039
David to taking census, and then so and God did it,

2206
01:57:50,239 --> 01:57:51,720
and the other one, and then God did another one,

2207
01:57:51,760 --> 01:57:53,079
and then you have another one where you have in

2208
01:57:53,159 --> 01:57:55,119
the New Testament, and I want to get your question.

2209
01:57:55,279 --> 01:57:55,479
Speaker 7: You can.

2210
01:57:55,960 --> 01:57:57,960
Speaker 1: I'm not just going to put this aside. Fine. In

2211
01:57:58,039 --> 01:58:01,159
the New Testament it talks about Corineans doing a census,

2212
01:58:02,239 --> 01:58:04,800
which we can actually locate through reading Josephus and other

2213
01:58:04,840 --> 01:58:07,439
sources and triangulate that he would have been governed around

2214
01:58:07,520 --> 01:58:10,359
seven to six BC or AD I'm sorry, which is

2215
01:58:10,399 --> 01:58:12,880
when the senses would have happened. Where in Matthew it

2216
01:58:12,960 --> 01:58:15,319
says Jesus was born in four BC. How do we

2217
01:58:15,399 --> 01:58:17,760
know that? Because Herod died in a certain year of

2218
01:58:17,840 --> 01:58:20,479
Augustus reign. I can't remember exactly, but it leads to

2219
01:58:20,520 --> 01:58:24,159
four BCE. Now, someone like myself, when I'm reading this stuff,

2220
01:58:24,159 --> 01:58:26,079
I'm seeing these contradictions. I know these aren't minor and

2221
01:58:26,279 --> 01:58:29,359
there are not big theological major difference. I'm not saying

2222
01:58:29,399 --> 01:58:32,119
this like shatters your religion or anything, but I'm reading

2223
01:58:32,159 --> 01:58:35,199
these things as just a person with doing regular reasoning,

2224
01:58:35,399 --> 01:58:38,680
conductive deductive reasoning, just reading these texts and going, wow,

2225
01:58:38,800 --> 01:58:41,560
these are some contradictions. Why ought I believe in the

2226
01:58:41,640 --> 01:58:44,039
text like this? Why ought I follow some sort of

2227
01:58:44,079 --> 01:58:44,640
religion like this.

2228
01:58:46,239 --> 01:58:52,039
Speaker 5: So the question of the situation of God allowing the

2229
01:58:52,600 --> 01:58:56,199
evil to occur and then or David took a census,

2230
01:58:56,239 --> 01:58:58,640
and then it says Satan, God moved David to take

2231
01:58:58,680 --> 01:59:01,359
a sense says Satan move David to take a census.

2232
01:59:01,840 --> 01:59:03,720
Speaker 1: The answer is that in many.

2233
01:59:03,600 --> 01:59:05,960
Speaker 5: Cases, if you look at the Exodus narrative as well,

2234
01:59:06,399 --> 01:59:09,880
you have the explanation that when Pharaoh quote hardened his heart.

2235
01:59:09,960 --> 01:59:11,840
There's one pastor where it says Pharaoh hardened his heart

2236
01:59:11,840 --> 01:59:13,960
against Moses and against God. And there's another passor word

2237
01:59:14,000 --> 01:59:18,840
he said God hardened Pharaoh's heart. So one pastor that

2238
01:59:18,920 --> 01:59:21,319
Satan did it. Once past said God did it. The

2239
01:59:21,399 --> 01:59:24,359
answer to that is that God allowed Satan to have

2240
01:59:24,600 --> 01:59:26,720
dominion and to do it. So it's a really simple

2241
01:59:26,800 --> 01:59:30,479
resolution that. And there's other cases where for example, there's

2242
01:59:30,520 --> 01:59:34,199
other cases where, for example, you have people being deceived.

2243
01:59:34,720 --> 01:59:37,600
One of the prophets has a lying spirit and it

2244
01:59:37,680 --> 01:59:40,399
says that God allowed a lying spirit to be.

2245
01:59:40,439 --> 01:59:41,520
Speaker 1: In the mouth of the prophet.

2246
01:59:41,640 --> 01:59:45,680
Speaker 5: So God allows evil, and you can speak of things

2247
01:59:45,880 --> 01:59:48,760
as direct and indirect causation. So one pastor is talking

2248
01:59:48,760 --> 01:59:52,239
about the ultimate indirect causation. The other pastor is talking

2249
01:59:52,239 --> 01:59:55,079
about the direct, immediate causation that Satan's moving them.

2250
01:59:55,000 --> 01:59:55,319
Speaker 3: To do it.

2251
01:59:55,520 --> 01:59:58,439
Speaker 5: So, and then when it comes to the claims about

2252
01:59:58,560 --> 02:00:01,479
dating and that kind of stuff with the sen or whatever. Again,

2253
02:00:01,520 --> 02:00:04,560
from my paradigm, if I believe that divine revelation is true,

2254
02:00:04,960 --> 02:00:07,479
I'm going to have that as my judge of the

2255
02:00:07,560 --> 02:00:11,439
secular unbelieving scholars. And again, the reason I would saying

2256
02:00:11,520 --> 02:00:14,600
that about with holism earlier was that just to illustrate

2257
02:00:14,680 --> 02:00:17,600
that you have a paradigm and you have scholars that

2258
02:00:17,640 --> 02:00:20,159
you're going to accept on the basis of your presuppositions

2259
02:00:20,199 --> 02:00:23,119
and your pre commitments. I have the same situation. I

2260
02:00:23,199 --> 02:00:25,199
have my pre subposition with my pre commitments, and that's

2261
02:00:25,239 --> 02:00:28,920
why really the reconciliation has to always go back to worldviews.

2262
02:00:29,880 --> 02:00:33,600
Speaker 2: Okay, gentlemen, I'm going to give a real quick wrap

2263
02:00:33,760 --> 02:00:37,359
up two minutes each because we're way over time. I

2264
02:00:37,479 --> 02:00:38,960
know that that's not a lot of time, but I

2265
02:00:39,039 --> 02:00:40,800
want to make sure that we keep this confined to

2266
02:00:40,920 --> 02:00:46,680
something close to three hours here. So Neil Jay opened first.

2267
02:00:46,760 --> 02:00:48,840
I'm going to give him the last close. So go

2268
02:00:48,880 --> 02:00:51,279
ahead with your opening or closing statement got two minutes.

2269
02:00:52,079 --> 02:00:54,039
Speaker 1: Well, just want to admit Jay's a good to dater.

2270
02:00:54,319 --> 02:00:56,720
I knew this wasn't going to be easy, and he

2271
02:00:56,840 --> 02:00:59,520
can he can get out of get out of some

2272
02:00:59,640 --> 02:01:03,000
good pickles there. But I ultimately do think that my

2273
02:01:03,279 --> 02:01:06,479
worldview is simpler, accounts for things just as well as

2274
02:01:06,520 --> 02:01:11,640
his does. And you even have modern impiricist scholars and

2275
02:01:11,880 --> 02:01:16,960
blatantists like I mentioned Werner Heisenberg who attests to these things,

2276
02:01:17,079 --> 02:01:19,479
and I could see that the things out in the

2277
02:01:19,520 --> 02:01:26,039
real world work in sync with what my worldview is.

2278
02:01:26,279 --> 02:01:29,600
So you know, things like evolution and atoms and the

2279
02:01:30,039 --> 02:01:32,039
age of the universe, stuff like that, where I don't

2280
02:01:32,079 --> 02:01:35,000
have to fight that for any particular textbook where Jay does.

2281
02:01:35,079 --> 02:01:37,039
I think that's where these I think we both agree

2282
02:01:37,079 --> 02:01:42,039
on sort of like the metaphysical reality of there being

2283
02:01:42,199 --> 02:01:45,119
a perfect God in the beginning who whether you call

2284
02:01:45,159 --> 02:01:47,840
it a trinity or a triad, and it emanates these

2285
02:01:47,880 --> 02:01:49,880
things or you don't believe in the emanations. But the

2286
02:01:50,560 --> 02:01:54,880
essence and energy is distinction thing that Orthodoxy has. I mean,

2287
02:01:54,920 --> 02:01:57,319
you can read stuff like Saint Dionysi as the Arabic

2288
02:01:57,319 --> 02:02:00,399
guy put him side by side with someone like and

2289
02:02:00,399 --> 02:02:02,279
you see a lot of this stuff does line up. Now,

2290
02:02:02,439 --> 02:02:05,640
I agree with Jay, there are fundamental, big differences that

2291
02:02:05,840 --> 02:02:09,119
are going to be drastic, which ends up with pre

2292
02:02:09,359 --> 02:02:11,800
debates like this where it can get pretty nasty. But

2293
02:02:12,359 --> 02:02:14,760
you know, I think I think my worldview, I think

2294
02:02:14,760 --> 02:02:16,399
I did a good job. I think my worldview is

2295
02:02:17,000 --> 02:02:20,399
more more coherent than Jay's. Okay, Jay got two minutes.

2296
02:02:21,199 --> 02:02:22,640
Speaker 5: Yeah, I want to thank Neil for doing the debate.

2297
02:02:22,720 --> 02:02:24,960
It was an enjoyable debate and I didn't think it

2298
02:02:25,039 --> 02:02:26,920
was nasty. I thought we actually had a really a good,

2299
02:02:27,359 --> 02:02:31,720
great conversation. It got heated, but it wasn't over the time. Yeah,

2300
02:02:31,800 --> 02:02:33,880
so I would say I think from Neil, we didn't

2301
02:02:33,920 --> 02:02:38,720
really hear a convincing, coherent argumentation about why his position

2302
02:02:38,880 --> 02:02:40,359
is correct. We heard a lot of claims, a lot

2303
02:02:40,359 --> 02:02:43,920
of assertions about you know, platonism, and we saw some

2304
02:02:44,000 --> 02:02:46,920
appeals to authority and well, this physicist today had this

2305
02:02:47,119 --> 02:02:49,880
view and my view is simpler. Well, you know, it's

2306
02:02:49,880 --> 02:02:52,680
funny because when I debated Dane Kikikachu, he said, look,

2307
02:02:52,880 --> 02:02:56,720
Islam is true because it's simpler. Well, Islam has a monad,

2308
02:02:57,439 --> 02:02:59,880
Neil has a mon ad. There's other positions that have

2309
02:03:00,119 --> 02:03:03,399
this sort of monad. How would we know what amongst

2310
02:03:03,439 --> 02:03:06,079
the monad positions is true because they all appeal to

2311
02:03:06,199 --> 02:03:10,840
principles like simple or because it's scientific, or because it

2312
02:03:11,640 --> 02:03:14,239
follows the data or it Again, these are a lot

2313
02:03:14,279 --> 02:03:17,199
of appeals that don't actually put any rubber to the road.

2314
02:03:17,199 --> 02:03:18,840
Speaker 1: They don't actually give us any meat to know.

2315
02:03:19,680 --> 02:03:22,119
Speaker 5: Well, wait a minute, why is it Neil Platonism and

2316
02:03:22,239 --> 02:03:25,439
not Iamblicus or Plotinus or Proclus or any of the

2317
02:03:25,479 --> 02:03:31,640
other middle Platonists and later Platonists. There's no real way

2318
02:03:31,760 --> 02:03:34,880
to know or to see that any of those positions

2319
02:03:35,159 --> 02:03:40,199
or anything other than something totally antithetical too, modern scientism, which,

2320
02:03:40,239 --> 02:03:43,399
again Neil wants to have his foot in both camps.

2321
02:03:43,439 --> 02:03:45,960
He wants to be an ancient neo platonimistic, but he

2322
02:03:46,000 --> 02:03:50,079
also wants to have this scientific perspective. And he said, well,

2323
02:03:50,119 --> 02:03:53,000
I wasn't trying to appeal to scientists. I just think

2324
02:03:53,079 --> 02:03:57,239
that empiricism is true. Well, again, empiricism is not the

2325
02:03:57,319 --> 02:03:59,479
same thing as neo platonism at all.

2326
02:03:59,560 --> 02:04:04,159
Speaker 1: In fact, they're typically pretty much very quickly jay quickly.

2327
02:04:04,239 --> 02:04:06,600
Speaker 5: So I think that Neil did not give a coherent view.

2328
02:04:07,039 --> 02:04:10,560
I think that the Orthdox perspective is coherent, and maybe

2329
02:04:10,640 --> 02:04:12,119
gonna have a part two or something going more into

2330
02:04:12,159 --> 02:04:13,000
worthodox he or something.

2331
02:04:13,479 --> 02:04:16,600
Speaker 2: Happy to have you guys back on again. I understand

2332
02:04:16,720 --> 02:04:18,920
that I am known for being a tough moderator on

2333
02:04:19,000 --> 02:04:21,560
both sides, and so you felt like I was being

2334
02:04:21,640 --> 02:04:24,119
unfair at certain points. Then I did my job properly

2335
02:04:25,000 --> 02:04:29,319
diving into super chats. Here callers going to stack up

2336
02:04:29,359 --> 02:04:32,960
on the back end at this point, So drunk Batman

2337
02:04:33,159 --> 02:04:37,159
gives five Crucibal memberships. Appreciated, Appreciate the membership. Appreciate the membership.

2338
02:04:37,199 --> 02:04:39,920
Appreciate the membership. Congrats on the win.

2339
02:04:40,079 --> 02:04:40,279
Speaker 4: Jay.

2340
02:04:40,439 --> 02:04:42,199
Speaker 2: Now, just so you know, this happened at the beginning

2341
02:04:42,239 --> 02:04:45,319
of the debate, so I guess this person had some

2342
02:04:45,520 --> 02:04:48,880
sort of clairvoyance. Unfortunately I have to be up for

2343
02:04:48,960 --> 02:04:51,119
work in five hours. Well that sucks because you missed

2344
02:04:51,119 --> 02:04:54,520
a great debate. Thanks for the five gifted Crucible membership

2345
02:04:55,039 --> 02:04:57,920
to the grifter host. Take my money, dammit, I will.

2346
02:04:58,520 --> 02:05:01,840
I appreciate it. This gnostic guy sure is a word.

2347
02:05:01,960 --> 02:05:08,960
Salad generator says, get great. Uh we was fingers says Austin.

2348
02:05:09,319 --> 02:05:12,479
Appreciate that Jay is pulling from Plato and Aristotle. G

2349
02:05:12,640 --> 02:05:15,520
I is pulling from Hayesan Ovid is that.

2350
02:05:17,199 --> 02:05:22,439
Speaker 1: Those are more poets, those are the poets. Easy W. J. Well.

2351
02:05:22,439 --> 02:05:25,399
Speaker 2: Emmanuel, who sends in fifty Mexican pesos, don't be fooled,

2352
02:05:25,439 --> 02:05:27,359
that's like three dollars in nine nine cents, says, not

2353
02:05:27,560 --> 02:05:31,840
all assertions are justified justifications. Not all superchats count for shit,

2354
02:05:31,960 --> 02:05:34,960
this one sure doesn't. I totally agree you should be

2355
02:05:35,000 --> 02:05:37,600
deported for that super chat, except you live in Mexico.

2356
02:05:38,039 --> 02:05:42,840
Straight out of Arkham for uh, it says mister funds

2357
02:05:42,880 --> 02:05:47,960
wrecker for five dollars. Deef Sleazy for ten says what

2358
02:05:48,079 --> 02:05:50,279
I'm hearing is bro developed a worldview that allows for

2359
02:05:50,359 --> 02:05:51,960
evolution to not contradict it.

2360
02:05:52,079 --> 02:05:54,720
Speaker 1: What an idiot? Evolution? Is this real god? L m

2361
02:05:54,760 --> 02:05:57,800
ao And you want to say to that, Neil, Well,

2362
02:05:58,119 --> 02:06:01,760
that's just a it's it's what it is according to Heisenberg,

2363
02:06:01,960 --> 02:06:06,920
is it's the uh, the becoming of the What does

2364
02:06:06,960 --> 02:06:10,119
he say? He says something like the turning into the noose,

2365
02:06:10,279 --> 02:06:12,680
like we're moving into the we're moving to our final form.

2366
02:06:14,119 --> 02:06:19,600
Speaker 2: Okay, the only true wisdom is in knowing, you know, nothing, Socrates,

2367
02:06:21,720 --> 02:06:22,359
It's good good.

2368
02:06:22,640 --> 02:06:22,800
Speaker 1: Yeah.

2369
02:06:22,840 --> 02:06:26,520
Speaker 2: Smokey says Neil's worldview comes from the game Cruelty Squad,

2370
02:06:26,640 --> 02:06:30,399
God Bless Dire and God bless the Eastern Orthodox Christians.

2371
02:06:31,840 --> 02:06:35,439
Ten dollars says four point seven k viewers and less

2372
02:06:35,479 --> 02:06:36,560
than one thousand likes.

2373
02:06:36,680 --> 02:06:38,640
Speaker 1: Do better. We did a lot better.

2374
02:06:41,079 --> 02:06:43,800
Speaker 2: The san Joe Savage for twenty says, how does monism

2375
02:06:43,920 --> 02:06:46,720
solve for the gettier challenge? It seems to fail right

2376
02:06:46,760 --> 02:06:50,199
at the start with epistemology, given the impersonal nature of

2377
02:06:50,359 --> 02:06:52,479
the one making truth inaccessible.

2378
02:06:52,840 --> 02:06:54,560
Speaker 1: I think that's for you, Neil. That's the one in

2379
02:06:54,600 --> 02:06:56,680
the are they talking about? Is that another another name

2380
02:06:56,680 --> 02:06:57,680
for the one of the many problem.

2381
02:06:58,359 --> 02:07:00,800
Speaker 2: I'm not going to comment on as to what it

2382
02:07:00,920 --> 02:07:04,600
is that he's referencing. Just how does monism solve for

2383
02:07:04,640 --> 02:07:05,600
the gettier challenge?

2384
02:07:05,640 --> 02:07:07,439
Speaker 1: I don't know. I'm not sure what the gettier challenges

2385
02:07:07,479 --> 02:07:07,920
to be honest.

2386
02:07:08,159 --> 02:07:11,399
Speaker 5: So it has to do with another layer of justification

2387
02:07:11,640 --> 02:07:16,159
and the classical JTB not being sufficient. So you also'll

2388
02:07:16,199 --> 02:07:19,239
have to have a justification to not accidentally have knowledge

2389
02:07:19,319 --> 02:07:21,640
that's correct. In other words, you have to demonstrate that

2390
02:07:21,840 --> 02:07:25,279
you actually could know that what was correct wasn't just accidental.

2391
02:07:26,520 --> 02:07:28,039
Speaker 1: Yeah, I have to look into that and check and

2392
02:07:28,399 --> 02:07:29,279
come up with something better.

2393
02:07:30,239 --> 02:07:32,239
Speaker 2: Why would God exist in such way to make his

2394
02:07:32,359 --> 02:07:35,880
presence blatantly known to such beings who identify as gnostic.

2395
02:07:36,920 --> 02:07:39,000
Speaker 1: I'm not actually a gnostic. I use the term because

2396
02:07:39,920 --> 02:07:42,800
I did have a phase where I was really into

2397
02:07:42,880 --> 02:07:45,720
narcissism after I was even Christianity, and I started my

2398
02:07:45,880 --> 02:07:48,840
channel as talking about narcissism. So it was like it

2399
02:07:48,960 --> 02:07:51,319
was like scholarship on narcissism. That's kind of what it was.

2400
02:07:52,039 --> 02:07:54,640
Speaker 2: And if anybody today is upset he spaghetti with your

2401
02:07:54,760 --> 02:07:59,239
fine moderator. Just remember I was requested for this debate

2402
02:07:59,319 --> 02:08:01,279
by both vaders to take it up with them.

2403
02:08:02,000 --> 02:08:02,119
Speaker 9: Uh.

2404
02:08:02,279 --> 02:08:05,000
Speaker 2: This one comes in from Succo says, my father equals

2405
02:08:05,079 --> 02:08:07,960
a person, Me equals a person.

2406
02:08:08,039 --> 02:08:09,479
Speaker 1: We're the same person. I guess.

2407
02:08:11,159 --> 02:08:12,680
Speaker 2: This is the one and the many problem. I think

2408
02:08:12,680 --> 02:08:15,039
he's going back to or trying to will this towards Jay.

2409
02:08:15,079 --> 02:08:18,960
Then I think it's towards you. My father equals a person,

2410
02:08:19,199 --> 02:08:20,279
me equals a person.

2411
02:08:20,720 --> 02:08:24,720
Speaker 1: This is the Quanta Parks shift fallacy. It's probably for Neil. Yeah,

2412
02:08:24,760 --> 02:08:28,479
we're not the same person. It's a word it's a

2413
02:08:28,520 --> 02:08:33,399
word concept fallacy. Wouldn't that be the person were quarkshift fallacy? Yeah?

2414
02:08:33,479 --> 02:08:37,520
Speaker 2: So abstract says I'm willing to hear this guy out,

2415
02:08:37,600 --> 02:08:43,640
but come on, don't straw me on the Trinity. This

2416
02:08:43,720 --> 02:08:46,079
one comes in from Austin says, did bro google Muslim

2417
02:08:46,159 --> 02:08:47,720
arguments against the Trinity before this?

2418
02:08:48,840 --> 02:08:51,079
Speaker 1: I don't think Muslims believe emanations and the news? Do

2419
02:08:51,199 --> 02:08:56,520
they do? They arguments against the Trinity? Oh? I guess, yeah,

2420
02:08:56,560 --> 02:08:59,279
I guess they would use the similar Yeah, I know

2421
02:08:59,359 --> 02:09:01,279
some of them. I didn't. I didn't use the muscle ardians.

2422
02:09:02,239 --> 02:09:05,039
Speaker 2: Drew breesays for ten says thirty to thirty seven trillion

2423
02:09:05,119 --> 02:09:06,159
selles equals one human.

2424
02:09:09,039 --> 02:09:10,279
Speaker 1: Yeah, the parts.

2425
02:09:10,840 --> 02:09:12,560
Speaker 2: This one comes in from Well, at Manuel, he's not

2426
02:09:12,560 --> 02:09:14,279
gonna be able to eat for a week sending all

2427
02:09:14,319 --> 02:09:17,199
that Mexican currency to us. He says, if punishment and

2428
02:09:17,399 --> 02:09:20,720
sacrifice her tools so to speak, for our salvation, that is,

2429
02:09:20,800 --> 02:09:23,680
they help us prevent. How does that mean God requires

2430
02:09:23,760 --> 02:09:29,439
something for his perfection? Any takers on that?

2431
02:09:29,920 --> 02:09:32,279
Speaker 1: Well, one thing I will just briefly say is that.

2432
02:09:34,479 --> 02:09:37,079
Speaker 5: I did not get to to Neil's objection about God

2433
02:09:37,239 --> 02:09:41,000
needing in terms of sacrifice. But even within the Old Testament,

2434
02:09:41,279 --> 02:09:44,279
from the Orthodox perspective, we don't think that God had

2435
02:09:44,279 --> 02:09:48,000
those sacrifices because he needed the anything from the created order.

2436
02:09:48,359 --> 02:09:52,399
They were typological for the coming work of Christ, and

2437
02:09:53,119 --> 02:09:56,159
that's why David says, I'm Solm. Fifty one that sacrifice

2438
02:09:56,159 --> 02:09:59,119
an offering you do not desire. So in one sense

2439
02:09:59,199 --> 02:10:01,680
God laid that down as a pedagogical tool within the

2440
02:10:01,720 --> 02:10:03,800
ancient world where there's a lot of idolatry. But it's

2441
02:10:03,800 --> 02:10:07,439
also not necessary from God's perspective, and that's why Paul

2442
02:10:07,479 --> 02:10:11,119
says in Hebrews to blood and animals and blood offerings

2443
02:10:11,159 --> 02:10:12,079
to not appease God.

2444
02:10:15,479 --> 02:10:18,479
Speaker 2: How do you logically apply laws and concepts of this reality?

2445
02:10:18,560 --> 02:10:21,920
There's something incomprehensible that exists outside of this reality.

2446
02:10:25,239 --> 02:10:28,079
Speaker 1: What do you mean, like it's for me? Yeah, oh

2447
02:10:28,720 --> 02:10:30,800
well I already said I I account for this with

2448
02:10:30,960 --> 02:10:34,800
the the noose, which is the intellect and form and

2449
02:10:34,840 --> 02:10:38,640
logos and reason. So things like things like these concepts

2450
02:10:38,680 --> 02:10:41,159
of is that what they mean, like, logically apply concepts

2451
02:10:41,199 --> 02:10:44,520
of this reality something incomprehensible that exists. Yeah, I mean,

2452
02:10:44,560 --> 02:10:47,319
that's that's kind of what I said. I'm making metaphysical

2453
02:10:47,439 --> 02:10:48,640
arguments to accompany these things.

2454
02:10:50,199 --> 02:10:53,000
Speaker 2: This one comes in from Darth Jeff, who says, holy filibuster, bro.

2455
02:10:53,600 --> 02:10:55,000
I think a lot of people thought that there was

2456
02:10:55,000 --> 02:10:57,399
a filibuster because they weren't familiar with the particular format

2457
02:10:57,439 --> 02:10:59,880
of the debate. The first hour of the debate, for

2458
02:11:00,000 --> 02:11:02,640
those of you who came in later, was designed to

2459
02:11:02,760 --> 02:11:07,079
be a ten ten ten, with rebuttals and then closings

2460
02:11:07,359 --> 02:11:09,079
before we got to the open end of the debate.

2461
02:11:09,159 --> 02:11:10,960
I know it's a bit of a different format, but

2462
02:11:11,039 --> 02:11:13,159
it helps both debaters set the stage for what it

2463
02:11:13,239 --> 02:11:16,840
is that they're actually going to be arguing. Patriot Muss

2464
02:11:17,000 --> 02:11:20,000
for ten, says Gregor Mendel was a priest and a geneticist.

2465
02:11:20,399 --> 02:11:23,720
There were religious figures who were geologists and hypothesized the

2466
02:11:23,760 --> 02:11:25,960
earth was old. To say the church can't hold a

2467
02:11:26,039 --> 02:11:28,079
scientific position as ludicrous.

2468
02:11:28,119 --> 02:11:29,479
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I was just saying that they don't have

2469
02:11:29,600 --> 02:11:32,880
a particular position on the old the age being old

2470
02:11:33,079 --> 02:11:36,239
or young, which is fair. I mean, it's better than

2471
02:11:36,920 --> 02:11:41,880
dogmatically asserting at six thousand in my worldview. Maybe jadea'n't agree.

2472
02:11:41,640 --> 02:11:45,159
Speaker 2: But whatever, Neil, you should have just barred on the

2473
02:11:45,199 --> 02:11:48,000
floor because that would have been more coherent than your rebuttal.

2474
02:11:49,760 --> 02:11:50,039
Speaker 1: Nice.

2475
02:11:50,439 --> 02:11:53,239
Speaker 2: This one comes in from the San Joe Savage for twenty.

2476
02:11:53,279 --> 02:11:56,079
He says, Gi, your objections to Trinity is premised on

2477
02:11:56,439 --> 02:12:01,000
grammatical errors and a word concept fallacy. Basil addresses the

2478
02:12:01,039 --> 02:12:03,680
misreading of John one multiple times on the Holy Spirit

2479
02:12:04,119 --> 02:12:08,720
and letters against enemis Or I'm sorry, is that?

2480
02:12:09,479 --> 02:12:10,600
Speaker 4: And you know me?

2481
02:12:11,319 --> 02:12:13,000
Speaker 1: Yeah? I know me? Okay, gotcha. I'd like to know

2482
02:12:13,039 --> 02:12:14,800
what the grammatical errors were. And that's kind of a

2483
02:12:15,159 --> 02:12:17,319
if it If it's grammatical, I mean I'm saying it

2484
02:12:17,520 --> 02:12:19,439
is because I'm saying it wrong. Is that what they're saying?

2485
02:12:21,720 --> 02:12:27,600
Speaker 2: Take my emanation of cash, I will nice Nostar's list

2486
02:12:27,680 --> 02:12:32,920
of top one hundred debunked misconceptions of Christianity read Irenais

2487
02:12:33,000 --> 02:12:37,159
that's true, I smil says quest for j Can you

2488
02:12:37,279 --> 02:12:41,399
give us an undetermination of scientific theory that Gnostic has

2489
02:12:41,520 --> 02:12:42,880
used Stone to determine the.

2490
02:12:42,880 --> 02:12:47,000
Speaker 1: Age of the world, that Gnostic has used Yeah?

2491
02:12:47,079 --> 02:12:50,239
Speaker 2: Can you give us an underdetermination of scientific theory that

2492
02:12:50,359 --> 02:12:51,560
Gnostic has used.

2493
02:12:52,239 --> 02:12:55,159
Speaker 5: I mean, I think the point there is just that,

2494
02:12:55,680 --> 02:12:59,439
like you could have a lot of data that two

2495
02:12:59,560 --> 02:13:04,039
different theories or two different systems might conceivably make sense

2496
02:13:04,079 --> 02:13:06,439
of and so the point of underdetermination of data is

2497
02:13:06,560 --> 02:13:09,520
just that more and more data isn't going to tell

2498
02:13:09,560 --> 02:13:12,560
you which theory to go with. So the point is

2499
02:13:12,600 --> 02:13:14,479
that you've got you've got to have some other kind

2500
02:13:14,520 --> 02:13:18,720
of argument beyond just more data or more science papers

2501
02:13:18,920 --> 02:13:22,000
to deal with the problem of the undertermination of data.

2502
02:13:22,159 --> 02:13:26,079
Hence the phrase itself under determination of data, meaning that

2503
02:13:26,159 --> 02:13:28,319
there's not enough data to tell you which paradigm or

2504
02:13:28,399 --> 02:13:29,039
model is true.

2505
02:13:29,880 --> 02:13:31,119
Speaker 1: So I don't know how to explain that.

2506
02:13:31,199 --> 02:13:34,039
Speaker 2: From his view, project did for ten says the problem

2507
02:13:34,199 --> 02:13:37,600
is that either the one contains differentiation so it isn't simple,

2508
02:13:37,760 --> 02:13:40,279
or it contains none, so it can explain multiplicity. The

2509
02:13:40,319 --> 02:13:42,880
structureless source cannot yield a structured world.

2510
02:13:43,279 --> 02:13:47,720
Speaker 1: Yep, that's where that's where the I think it's Platinis

2511
02:13:47,800 --> 02:13:50,039
who comes up with the idea of the emanations to

2512
02:13:50,159 --> 02:13:54,680
solve that. The eminations means you can have a spark

2513
02:13:54,800 --> 02:13:57,119
of the one and also be different from the one,

2514
02:13:57,279 --> 02:14:00,439
So it's not just strict monism where we're all raw

2515
02:14:00,560 --> 02:14:06,039
one man, it's not that question. I'm sorry, did I

2516
02:14:06,079 --> 02:14:08,520
wonder if this one came in twice? He looks like it.

2517
02:14:09,399 --> 02:14:11,000
Speaker 2: No, no, no, I'm sorry, I backed it must have

2518
02:14:11,039 --> 02:14:14,640
backed up slightly. This one comes in from Jeremiah. It

2519
02:14:14,640 --> 02:14:18,319
says Gei's problem with God's commands for sacrifices as well

2520
02:14:18,359 --> 02:14:20,760
as atonement by Christ, stems from his complete lack of

2521
02:14:20,840 --> 02:14:24,920
research and understanding of the Orthodox view of atonement. Okay,

2522
02:14:26,680 --> 02:14:29,000
So one comes in from Cooler who says, no, star

2523
02:14:29,159 --> 02:14:32,520
keeps reading info someone else's writing for him on a

2524
02:14:32,560 --> 02:14:34,079
screen like I.

2525
02:14:34,199 --> 02:14:38,000
Speaker 1: Cheated or something. Yeah. Right, the only thing I looked

2526
02:14:38,079 --> 02:14:41,039
up was Orthodox scholars who say the Earth is or

2527
02:14:41,119 --> 02:14:43,920
who says Solomon isn't one fifty BC text.

2528
02:14:44,159 --> 02:14:47,600
Speaker 2: Okay, listen, I think it's perfectly acceptable when you're using

2529
02:14:47,960 --> 02:14:51,680
sources in a debate to pull up the sources in

2530
02:14:51,760 --> 02:14:55,119
the debate, and sometimes that may require a Google or

2531
02:14:55,159 --> 02:14:57,000
something like this if you don't have the source on end.

2532
02:14:57,079 --> 02:14:58,399
Speaker 1: I think that that's totally fair.

2533
02:14:59,359 --> 02:14:59,439
Speaker 3: Uh.

2534
02:14:59,560 --> 02:15:02,800
Speaker 2: No, Neil, you never go full Billy Carson. Neil, nice,

2535
02:15:04,079 --> 02:15:07,399
that's a that's a good reference. Neil smoked mad Ganja

2536
02:15:07,520 --> 02:15:10,560
before this. I wish were you were you token a

2537
02:15:10,640 --> 02:15:14,079
little bit of the Devil's lettuce. Neil, No, No, Okay,

2538
02:15:15,239 --> 02:15:17,479
twenty dollars is when it comes in, Sam shimone would

2539
02:15:17,520 --> 02:15:20,520
eat g I alive. Not that Jay Dyer hasn't been

2540
02:15:20,600 --> 02:15:24,000
dog walking already, but man, he wouldn't get away with

2541
02:15:24,119 --> 02:15:28,720
any perverting of sam Shimun's crazy. You might actually literally

2542
02:15:28,720 --> 02:15:32,159
eat him alive. So glorry to the trune God. I

2543
02:15:32,199 --> 02:15:34,159
want to show the entire audience something I can do

2544
02:15:34,319 --> 02:15:35,359
that Sam Shimon can't.

2545
02:15:36,800 --> 02:15:40,000
Speaker 1: I just there you go. I can do that Sam

2546
02:15:40,039 --> 02:15:42,359
Shimon can't. So this one comes in.

2547
02:15:44,119 --> 02:15:49,640
Speaker 2: From Caleb, who says in gnostic non formant, very clever,

2548
02:15:50,039 --> 02:15:52,680
very clever, Caleb, you very clever guy.

2549
02:15:53,000 --> 02:15:54,800
Speaker 1: You you really got us with that one.

2550
02:15:55,640 --> 02:15:58,560
Speaker 2: Josie says, Gi is drifting the debate into reliability of

2551
02:15:58,600 --> 02:16:02,439
scriptures off topic from metaphysical debate to this just mumbling

2552
02:16:02,520 --> 02:16:05,279
and spatting. He shouldn't be doing this major red herring.

2553
02:16:05,439 --> 02:16:09,439
Be better, Gi. I do think that the debate went

2554
02:16:09,520 --> 02:16:11,079
off the rails a little bit here and there, but

2555
02:16:11,119 --> 02:16:13,239
we managed to get a lot of it back on track.

2556
02:16:13,439 --> 02:16:17,560
So Jay, the worst three and one's too complex for Neil,

2557
02:16:17,600 --> 02:16:23,600
but twelve logos in the Nomad's perfectly acceptable. Nice, okay,

2558
02:16:23,760 --> 02:16:27,079
Jeremiah says, Gnostics a frequent retreat back to it's one

2559
02:16:27,119 --> 02:16:28,720
book when you know his dang well, what Jay is

2560
02:16:28,760 --> 02:16:33,120
saying just one example of his many sophistries. By the way,

2561
02:16:33,239 --> 02:16:35,799
right now we have a full we I mean we're

2562
02:16:35,879 --> 02:16:38,719
totally full. In the call queue, there's tons of people

2563
02:16:38,799 --> 02:16:41,799
still trying to join the studio. I'm sorry, guys. As

2564
02:16:41,879 --> 02:16:44,280
we start filtering through callers, you'll be able to get in.

2565
02:16:45,239 --> 02:16:47,159
Are you getting my super chats to read? Are they

2566
02:16:47,200 --> 02:16:47,920
just going on my end?

2567
02:16:48,239 --> 02:16:51,399
Speaker 1: I think it's that's just you brokay, Yeah, I'm not out. Yeah,

2568
02:16:51,399 --> 02:16:52,319
I'm just warning. Yeah.

2569
02:16:53,040 --> 02:16:58,319
Speaker 2: This one comes into lesions Map, certifiably debunking the yeahootish

2570
02:16:58,399 --> 02:17:01,079
origins from Moses to now so if it's all stolen

2571
02:17:01,120 --> 02:17:02,120
mythology to wire.

2572
02:17:02,280 --> 02:17:05,799
Speaker 1: Dire is a dweeb, he says Jay. He called you

2573
02:17:05,879 --> 02:17:09,360
a deweve. No, I guess it's time to pack it up.

2574
02:17:09,799 --> 02:17:12,479
I don't. I don't think. I don't even think he

2575
02:17:12,559 --> 02:17:14,200
has a mustache though. Fuck that guy.

2576
02:17:14,520 --> 02:17:16,799
Speaker 2: This one comes in from Davis Wood, who says, question

2577
02:17:16,879 --> 02:17:19,319
for Neil, it's a block of iron, one thing. If

2578
02:17:19,360 --> 02:17:22,159
it can be divided into individual atoms, Adams themselves are

2579
02:17:22,159 --> 02:17:24,079
fundamentally separate things, not just parts.

2580
02:17:26,920 --> 02:17:29,040
Speaker 1: Question for me, sorry, I was yeah, I was typing

2581
02:17:29,079 --> 02:17:32,520
a mic. Pay attention, Neil Lock of irony. Thing is

2582
02:17:32,639 --> 02:17:35,680
if it divided into Adams, Adams themselves are fundamental, separate,

2583
02:17:35,719 --> 02:17:39,399
not just parts. I mean the the as I said,

2584
02:17:39,479 --> 02:17:42,079
the the modern playton this view on Adams is that

2585
02:17:42,200 --> 02:17:45,280
we we actually accept that Adams are are are like

2586
02:17:45,399 --> 02:17:50,479
a describing the fundamentals of reality. But they actually they

2587
02:17:50,520 --> 02:17:53,840
actually attest the Plato, not Democratius, because when you smash

2588
02:17:53,879 --> 02:17:56,200
Adams together, they don't break up in the fall, and

2589
02:17:56,200 --> 02:18:00,600
the smaller atoms they actually show a mathematical symmetry. That's

2590
02:18:00,920 --> 02:18:04,399
that's the modern perspective on it. Mathgree here. One is

2591
02:18:04,479 --> 02:18:04,920
not many.

2592
02:18:05,040 --> 02:18:11,239
Speaker 2: Worst debate ever, Okay, Zach Mercer, I didn't I noticed

2593
02:18:11,239 --> 02:18:12,319
that you didn't have a beard, Bill.

2594
02:18:12,399 --> 02:18:14,280
Speaker 5: I didn't actually argue, by the way, one is many.

2595
02:18:14,319 --> 02:18:17,360
I said that the numeral three is both one and many.

2596
02:18:17,559 --> 02:18:20,680
Obviously the number one is not many, although it is

2597
02:18:20,799 --> 02:18:24,719
divisible into many many. You know you can go into fractions, so.

2598
02:18:26,840 --> 02:18:27,680
Speaker 1: I have to add this.

2599
02:18:28,159 --> 02:18:30,799
Speaker 2: The Pando aspen Grove in Utah is roughly forty seven

2600
02:18:30,879 --> 02:18:33,719
thousand aspen trees. But one thing that is amazing about

2601
02:18:33,760 --> 02:18:36,879
them they have a single root system, a singular living

2602
02:18:36,959 --> 02:18:40,360
origin or organism. Imagine that one root thousands of trees.

2603
02:18:42,879 --> 02:18:46,000
Peanuts says evidence of Moses and the Exodus do exist

2604
02:18:46,200 --> 02:18:49,600
in Egypt when the hieroglyphics are deciphered correctly using Welsh

2605
02:18:49,680 --> 02:18:52,479
language and syntax, as shown by Wilson and Blackhart in

2606
02:18:52,520 --> 02:18:54,799
their book Moses in the Hieroglyphs.

2607
02:18:57,680 --> 02:19:04,159
Speaker 1: Talk about Exodus. Yes, Welsh language and syntax. Well, I

2608
02:19:04,159 --> 02:19:06,959
don't know what they're talking about. I have no idea.

2609
02:19:07,079 --> 02:19:08,200
That's above my pay grade.

2610
02:19:08,879 --> 02:19:11,760
Speaker 2: Jay the worst I predict Neil did the magic fun

2611
02:19:11,840 --> 02:19:16,399
guy and misunderstood the trip. You can make fun of

2612
02:19:16,440 --> 02:19:19,600
these guys because they sound beardless. Neil's that's perfectly acceptable.

2613
02:19:20,120 --> 02:19:23,120
Bird Brain for ten says, the trinity is not complicated.

2614
02:19:23,200 --> 02:19:25,000
God is the Sun, the Sun is the light of

2615
02:19:25,079 --> 02:19:26,879
the Sun, and the Spirit is the warmth you feel

2616
02:19:26,959 --> 02:19:28,760
from the sun. At least that's how I understand it.

2617
02:19:29,040 --> 02:19:29,879
Thanks for the content.

2618
02:19:30,799 --> 02:19:33,959
Speaker 1: That's the Son of righteousness idea. We believe. We believe

2619
02:19:34,000 --> 02:19:37,239
that too, about the news being the represent being represented

2620
02:19:37,280 --> 02:19:41,319
by the Sun being the all pervading form, all pervading

2621
02:19:42,600 --> 02:19:44,760
source of logic and reason perfection.

2622
02:19:46,319 --> 02:19:48,760
Speaker 2: I don't think he's actually making a literal reference to

2623
02:19:48,840 --> 02:19:51,879
the sun, but rather saying that this one thing has

2624
02:19:52,000 --> 02:19:54,600
three different things you can do, right, Is that okay?

2625
02:19:54,719 --> 02:19:54,920
Speaker 1: Yeah?

2626
02:19:56,159 --> 02:19:59,680
Speaker 2: So, Ti Cavallo says, for five bucks, thanks for curing

2627
02:19:59,760 --> 02:20:03,319
me my thorazine addiction. This was a burden to watch.

2628
02:20:04,639 --> 02:20:07,440
Waale Jennings says, I wasn't religious. When I was eight

2629
02:20:07,520 --> 02:20:09,680
years old. I got real sick. My whole family and

2630
02:20:09,760 --> 02:20:12,760
school came to visit me. When the disease moved my head,

2631
02:20:12,799 --> 02:20:14,959
it was game over. But that night an angel appeared

2632
02:20:14,959 --> 02:20:18,840
before me and saved me. Yeah, Neil, what do you

2633
02:20:18,879 --> 02:20:19,399
think about that?

2634
02:20:19,760 --> 02:20:22,319
Speaker 1: Neil? Look, if that happened to me, I don't blame you.

2635
02:20:22,639 --> 02:20:24,799
That's like that that happened to you. You've got to

2636
02:20:24,840 --> 02:20:26,280
follow it only whatever.

2637
02:20:27,000 --> 02:20:29,520
Speaker 2: I haven't seen any angels either, but you know whatever.

2638
02:20:29,879 --> 02:20:34,079
Slavic polytheist for five Canadian says Jay said, one can

2639
02:20:34,159 --> 02:20:34,719
be many things.

2640
02:20:34,760 --> 02:20:35,239
Speaker 1: I agree.

2641
02:20:35,840 --> 02:20:39,000
Speaker 2: He just used the trinity to prove pagan monism. The

2642
02:20:39,079 --> 02:20:42,840
one can emanate many gods and other forms and beings.

2643
02:20:43,559 --> 02:20:43,959
Speaker 1: Interesting.

2644
02:20:44,840 --> 02:20:47,000
Speaker 5: Yeah, so I mean I would just say, okay, how

2645
02:20:47,040 --> 02:20:48,959
do we know that, how do we know that's true?

2646
02:20:49,079 --> 02:20:54,239
Versus Neil's conception of the same monadology.

2647
02:20:55,000 --> 02:20:57,559
Speaker 1: James says, for Gnostic, do you have a soul? Are

2648
02:20:57,600 --> 02:21:00,360
you your soul your body? Both? Are you on? Are

2649
02:21:00,399 --> 02:21:02,639
you many? Are you one and many? The essence of

2650
02:21:02,719 --> 02:21:07,440
God is Yeah. In this world my worldview, I believe

2651
02:21:07,440 --> 02:21:10,760
there's a soul and a body, So Gi.

2652
02:21:12,200 --> 02:21:15,200
Speaker 2: The evidence shows Jews actually worshiped multiple gods and did

2653
02:21:15,280 --> 02:21:18,440
not obey the Torah. A single tear runs down the

2654
02:21:18,479 --> 02:21:20,639
prophet Jeremiah's face as he says, I know.

2655
02:21:23,959 --> 02:21:27,079
Speaker 1: That's actually that's actually the strongest argument against what I'm saying,

2656
02:21:27,479 --> 02:21:29,200
is you go to the prophets and say talk about

2657
02:21:29,200 --> 02:21:32,200
how bad the Jews were and how polytheistic and idolatry

2658
02:21:32,239 --> 02:21:35,239
they were. That's the best argument I've heard against my

2659
02:21:35,760 --> 02:21:38,920
my stuff that I put out there. The Unplugged Beta says,

2660
02:21:38,959 --> 02:21:40,559
for ten, I'm not right. You see what I'm saying, though,

2661
02:21:40,639 --> 02:21:43,559
Jay about that, because when I'm my arguments are like,

2662
02:21:43,600 --> 02:21:45,760
when we look at the evidence of the Jews before

2663
02:21:45,840 --> 02:21:49,920
this period, they're all worshiping many gods, they're worshiping Astrara Yahweh,

2664
02:21:49,959 --> 02:21:51,799
they're doing all this stuff. They're making curre of them,

2665
02:21:52,239 --> 02:21:54,959
and the person who actually made a fair critique and says,

2666
02:21:55,239 --> 02:21:57,760
that's what Jeremiah is telling us. He's literally saying, that's

2667
02:21:57,760 --> 02:22:00,399
what's happening in his time before. We mean that the

2668
02:22:00,520 --> 02:22:05,920
text do relate historical accuracies which would refute your argument

2669
02:22:06,040 --> 02:22:08,840
that they are late. It's a good argument, but it

2670
02:22:08,920 --> 02:22:10,879
also you still we still don't have evidence for the

2671
02:22:10,920 --> 02:22:15,719
contrary either, So it's not so you like in Jerusalem

2672
02:22:15,840 --> 02:22:18,760
or like in the Temples of Yahweh.

2673
02:22:18,600 --> 02:22:23,000
Speaker 5: Profits talk about the high priest in Jerusalem engaging these

2674
02:22:23,040 --> 02:22:24,239
activities like in Ezekiel.

2675
02:22:24,760 --> 02:22:27,000
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what it looks like to me that later

2676
02:22:27,159 --> 02:22:30,479
scribes were counting for the history of Jerusalem being But

2677
02:22:30,600 --> 02:22:35,200
you just said that the prophets are describing Polytheism early on.

2678
02:22:36,319 --> 02:22:38,319
That's what the text say. I think the text writing later.

2679
02:22:38,440 --> 02:22:42,239
That's what I'm saying, because guys, guys, that's actually reliable. There,

2680
02:22:42,879 --> 02:22:46,159
let's finish barreling through the super lias. Boys, I'm not ready,

2681
02:22:46,200 --> 02:22:48,760
but I'd like to debate at some point. Well, good

2682
02:22:48,799 --> 02:22:50,520
for you, I guess get ready. Wipedia?

2683
02:22:50,639 --> 02:22:54,600
Speaker 2: Yeah right, Gi is your source Wikipedia, Urban dictionary or book.

2684
02:22:55,520 --> 02:22:58,239
He's making a crucible reference to guy who's debating wants

2685
02:22:58,280 --> 02:23:02,479
to told me that The definition of hypocrisy from the

2686
02:23:02,600 --> 02:23:06,879
Urban Dictionary was pretty funny. Bruce Loaden is an independent researcher,

2687
02:23:06,920 --> 02:23:09,959
and there's no scholar called Thomas L. Davies gnostic information

2688
02:23:10,000 --> 02:23:13,280
Philip R. Davies, Phillip R. Davies, Thomas L. Thomas I

2689
02:23:13,319 --> 02:23:15,600
said you missed. You heard me wrong, Philip R.

2690
02:23:15,719 --> 02:23:19,280
Speaker 1: Davies. Thomas L. Thomas, and Bruce Louden is a PhD.

2691
02:23:19,920 --> 02:23:22,680
Not just some random independent scholar. He was a professor.

2692
02:23:23,000 --> 02:23:27,319
Do you trust anybody with a redundant name Thomas L. Thomas. Yeah,

2693
02:23:27,360 --> 02:23:29,440
that's what I mean. He trust He's still He's still

2694
02:23:29,639 --> 02:23:32,200
trust you trusts anybody with an Irish He is an

2695
02:23:32,200 --> 02:23:37,079
Irish scholar, then you can't trust him. Double you were

2696
02:23:37,079 --> 02:23:39,479
gonna like him because he's Irish? Are you kidding me?

2697
02:23:39,479 --> 02:23:42,520
Speaker 2: I'm a self loathing irishman. I'm English and Irish, and

2698
02:23:42,719 --> 02:23:45,159
my friend Posh says that that means I wear the

2699
02:23:45,360 --> 02:23:48,159
traditional headwear of the Irish, which is the English boot

2700
02:23:48,559 --> 02:23:50,639
technician says, Notice.

2701
02:23:50,360 --> 02:23:52,840
Speaker 1: How Thomas L. Thompson I said his name wrong?

2702
02:23:53,040 --> 02:23:56,840
Speaker 2: Okay, Notice how gnostic lover profiles don't have PfP Typical

2703
02:23:56,920 --> 02:24:01,600
bot behaviorally say something with substance dips. This one is

2704
02:24:01,680 --> 02:24:04,040
from the Unplugged Beta says, this is for the grift.

2705
02:24:04,120 --> 02:24:07,440
I appreciate it as the grift or extraordinary. I appreciate

2706
02:24:07,479 --> 02:24:08,319
all the super jazz.

2707
02:24:09,000 --> 02:24:11,680
Speaker 1: Roger Rabbit says for one hundred bucks, A perfect God

2708
02:24:11,760 --> 02:24:14,040
would know all that is required to have on earth

2709
02:24:14,079 --> 02:24:16,280
at seven thousand years old.

2710
02:24:16,559 --> 02:24:19,040
Speaker 2: He would have created everything to make it so. You

2711
02:24:19,120 --> 02:24:22,239
both rely too much on teachings unless on any type

2712
02:24:22,280 --> 02:24:22,639
of faith.

2713
02:24:24,920 --> 02:24:27,120
Speaker 1: I don't even know what that means. It's a lot

2714
02:24:27,159 --> 02:24:29,520
of money though. Yeah, it's a nice super jet.

2715
02:24:30,440 --> 02:24:36,920
Speaker 2: Respect that the lost Neil Fallacy, says Josie Gaming. Eric says,

2716
02:24:37,000 --> 02:24:39,920
AB and AB are three different things. The paper, the

2717
02:24:39,959 --> 02:24:42,799
writing represents the number, and the number itself. You're the

2718
02:24:42,920 --> 02:24:44,879
dumb one. But that's a whole different formula.

2719
02:24:46,159 --> 02:24:50,040
Speaker 1: Okay. This one comes in from Pepper Prophet. Good work, Jay.

2720
02:24:50,559 --> 02:24:54,280
Speaker 2: This one says from the San Joe Savage GI. Simply

2721
02:24:55,040 --> 02:24:58,040
using something does not provide justification for that something. Ie

2722
02:24:58,239 --> 02:25:01,440
using consensus of scientists is not justification for the consensus

2723
02:25:01,680 --> 02:25:02,600
nor their mythology.

2724
02:25:04,319 --> 02:25:04,680
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.

2725
02:25:04,760 --> 02:25:10,719
Speaker 2: Methodology interesting. Okay, guys, I got to wrap the super

2726
02:25:10,799 --> 02:25:13,959
chats there. I'm sorry that they they they're coming in.

2727
02:25:14,120 --> 02:25:15,280
I wish I'd get to all of them, but we

2728
02:25:15,399 --> 02:25:18,319
got to jump over to the callers. I'm just going

2729
02:25:18,399 --> 02:25:20,280
to take them in the order that I saw you,

2730
02:25:20,399 --> 02:25:25,559
guys pop in a scrumpage. Tutor, You're up first, How are.

2731
02:25:25,520 --> 02:25:26,840
Speaker 1: You this fine evening.

2732
02:25:27,440 --> 02:25:29,920
Speaker 2: I'm going to try to time this so point maker

2733
02:25:29,920 --> 02:25:32,879
your questions very pointed towards the debater, so that they

2734
02:25:32,920 --> 02:25:33,600
can answer them.

2735
02:25:33,639 --> 02:25:34,760
Speaker 1: Go ahead, yes, sir.

2736
02:25:34,959 --> 02:25:37,479
Speaker 7: So before you guys moved on. In the middle of

2737
02:25:37,520 --> 02:25:42,959
the debate, there was a mention of a holistic approach

2738
02:25:43,040 --> 02:25:47,319
to acknowledging scholarly reference, and so far as whether or

2739
02:25:47,319 --> 02:25:49,559
not you're actually going to give credence to a certain

2740
02:25:50,920 --> 02:25:54,600
set of arguments from a scholar, Neil, could you go

2741
02:25:54,680 --> 02:25:58,559
ahead and reconcile this for me. Jane necessarily mentioned that

2742
02:25:59,680 --> 02:26:03,600
later or after you had said that that a minority

2743
02:26:04,600 --> 02:26:09,719
of scholars couldn't necessarily be right? Are you arguing that

2744
02:26:09,879 --> 02:26:15,399
the same in your you know, in your refutation, are

2745
02:26:15,440 --> 02:26:18,280
you arguing the same thing that Jay is necessarily saying

2746
02:26:18,399 --> 02:26:21,280
when you say that a minority of scholars could necessarily

2747
02:26:21,360 --> 02:26:21,760
be right?

2748
02:26:22,280 --> 02:26:22,559
Speaker 1: I e.

2749
02:26:22,719 --> 02:26:28,719
Speaker 7: The idea of neo platonism, not being existent in your reference. Yeah,

2750
02:26:28,760 --> 02:26:30,479
of course, okay, cool.

2751
02:26:30,520 --> 02:26:34,159
Speaker 2: Thank you, yeah, thank you have a good one caller.

2752
02:26:34,239 --> 02:26:36,079
Please drop out on the back end so other people

2753
02:26:36,159 --> 02:26:38,239
can come in. I'd appreciate that very much. And you

2754
02:26:38,319 --> 02:26:40,280
have a wonderful evening, Terry at can you hear me?

2755
02:26:40,360 --> 02:26:41,959
Speaker 1: Okay, yep? Perfect?

2756
02:26:42,520 --> 02:26:45,879
Speaker 9: First of all, mazing show guys to everybody. I just

2757
02:26:45,959 --> 02:26:48,920
have a real quick question for Neil. Neil, you don't

2758
02:26:49,520 --> 02:26:53,200
like a multiple different podcasts with Jason Georgehnny and he

2759
02:26:53,520 --> 02:26:56,959
basically makes the case that Christianity is just like the

2760
02:26:57,719 --> 02:27:01,120
brainshaw of Plato. So if that is the case, why

2761
02:27:01,120 --> 02:27:04,239
would you not just support orthodox Christianity rather than neo Platonism.

2762
02:27:04,520 --> 02:27:07,760
Speaker 1: Well, it's it's not it's not identical to it, so

2763
02:27:07,799 --> 02:27:09,719
it's different from it. So you can't just be like, oh,

2764
02:27:09,799 --> 02:27:13,239
it's because it's adopting Playton's tenants. Clayton is tenantstead it

2765
02:27:13,719 --> 02:27:16,799
And obviously I believe in my worldview that it bastardizes

2766
02:27:16,879 --> 02:27:19,680
things like the news and the logos and stuff like that,

2767
02:27:19,920 --> 02:27:22,959
and so yeah, that's that's the reason why.

2768
02:27:24,000 --> 02:27:25,879
Speaker 9: But like if you look at it from if it

2769
02:27:25,959 --> 02:27:29,040
was like Aristotle and the likes that continued on Playo's vision.

2770
02:27:29,440 --> 02:27:32,399
Why do not trust off his vision rather than something new?

2771
02:27:32,520 --> 02:27:35,239
Speaker 1: It's like the Layton has continued on. They didn't all

2772
02:27:35,319 --> 02:27:38,559
become Christians. There was Platonists all the way to late Antiquity,

2773
02:27:39,040 --> 02:27:40,920
all the way through the Dark Ages, all the way

2774
02:27:40,959 --> 02:27:43,520
to Plathon Plathon do you want to call them that?

2775
02:27:43,879 --> 02:27:45,680
All the way till today. So it's not like they

2776
02:27:45,719 --> 02:27:47,600
all just became Christians. Even though it is true that

2777
02:27:47,719 --> 02:27:50,000
some Platonists did convert. I think Origin was one of them.

2778
02:27:50,159 --> 02:27:52,799
I think very quick last question, Terry app got a

2779
02:27:52,840 --> 02:27:53,360
lot of callers.

2780
02:27:54,120 --> 02:27:56,520
Speaker 9: Yeah, no, I can go there. Appreciate you having me

2781
02:27:56,600 --> 02:27:58,280
on and shout out with everybody.

2782
02:27:58,399 --> 02:28:00,959
Speaker 1: Jay, Neil and Andrew. Thanks for on the show, of course,

2783
02:28:01,040 --> 02:28:02,559
thank you have a wonderful evening.

2784
02:28:03,399 --> 02:28:06,920
Speaker 6: Corinth very quickly, Yeah, just a question for Jay and

2785
02:28:07,040 --> 02:28:10,920
the analogy used for the Trinity using written out to

2786
02:28:11,000 --> 02:28:13,600
number three. You were trying to use this to show

2787
02:28:13,680 --> 02:28:16,120
that the Trinity can be one and many. In this sense,

2788
02:28:16,959 --> 02:28:20,319
this was relative to the critique of mazkinformant, so we're

2789
02:28:20,440 --> 02:28:24,879
saying it like three is in the numerical sense it's

2790
02:28:25,000 --> 02:28:27,479
three and in the amount of figures being put forward

2791
02:28:27,479 --> 02:28:29,520
there one. Do you think that this is analogous to

2792
02:28:29,719 --> 02:28:31,799
the Trinity in so far as you think in some

2793
02:28:32,000 --> 02:28:35,040
senses Christ is God, but in other senses christis in God.

2794
02:28:35,520 --> 02:28:36,799
Speaker 1: No, it's not about Christ.

2795
02:28:36,920 --> 02:28:40,280
Speaker 5: It's a question of just that even objects in the world,

2796
02:28:41,079 --> 02:28:45,920
even mundane created objects, have both multiplicity and unity that.

2797
02:28:46,000 --> 02:28:47,120
Speaker 1: Are trading different senses.

2798
02:28:47,239 --> 02:28:51,040
Speaker 5: Right, So the relationship of one and many in the

2799
02:28:51,120 --> 02:28:53,840
triad is obviously not the same. But it's just an

2800
02:28:53,840 --> 02:28:56,760
analogy that if it exists in the created order, there's

2801
02:28:56,760 --> 02:28:59,360
no reason why it couldn't exist in God, in the Creator.

2802
02:28:59,440 --> 02:29:01,520
Speaker 6: Or we see it exists in different senses. So if

2803
02:29:01,559 --> 02:29:04,280
we look at something in one sense another sense, it's

2804
02:29:04,319 --> 02:29:07,319
different senses. In the Trinity, we're not doing that, right,

2805
02:29:07,399 --> 02:29:10,159
We're not why it's an analogy, But it's not an

2806
02:29:10,159 --> 02:29:12,559
analogy because you're the thing that we're looking at. There

2807
02:29:12,760 --> 02:29:16,559
is dis analogous. They are identical. Christ and God, the

2808
02:29:16,639 --> 02:29:20,280
One and the three are identical, not just different invocations.

2809
02:29:19,799 --> 02:29:23,799
Speaker 1: The nature Nature in person, the Trinity are distinct. They're

2810
02:29:23,840 --> 02:29:24,440
not identical.

2811
02:29:24,920 --> 02:29:26,600
Speaker 6: So you don't think Christ is identical to God.

2812
02:29:27,479 --> 02:29:32,280
Speaker 5: He possesses the divine nature, but Alatari all trinitarian theology

2813
02:29:32,319 --> 02:29:33,920
hinges on the nature person distinction.

2814
02:29:34,319 --> 02:29:36,120
Speaker 6: So Christ is not God or Christ is God.

2815
02:29:36,760 --> 02:29:38,920
Speaker 1: Christ has a divine nature, but he's God the son.

2816
02:29:40,239 --> 02:29:43,120
So Christ is God or Christ is not God. Christ

2817
02:29:43,280 --> 02:29:46,360
has the divine nature which is shared amongst three persons.

2818
02:29:47,200 --> 02:29:48,959
So Christ is God or Christ is not God?

2819
02:29:49,120 --> 02:29:51,399
Speaker 5: And you're equivocating on the word God, which the heart

2820
02:29:51,440 --> 02:29:53,079
explained to gnostic and format.

2821
02:29:53,639 --> 02:29:58,440
Speaker 1: I'm not last last question. Make it good, Okay. I

2822
02:29:58,559 --> 02:29:59,879
know this is going to be a new question. But

2823
02:30:00,040 --> 02:30:01,479
Christ is God or Christ is not God?

2824
02:30:02,000 --> 02:30:02,040
Speaker 10: No?

2825
02:30:02,440 --> 02:30:03,079
Speaker 1: Christ is God?

2826
02:30:03,159 --> 02:30:06,040
Speaker 2: This yeah, out of here, Corinth. Thank you for the question.

2827
02:30:06,120 --> 02:30:08,319
I appreciate it. Please drop out on the back end.

2828
02:30:09,959 --> 02:30:12,360
I appreciate that very much so that other callers can

2829
02:30:12,479 --> 02:30:15,159
get in. Bishop, how are you?

2830
02:30:15,399 --> 02:30:18,520
Speaker 1: Can you hear? Good to see your Bishop?

2831
02:30:19,000 --> 02:30:20,319
Speaker 10: What's what's up?

2832
02:30:20,440 --> 02:30:20,639
Speaker 4: Neil?

2833
02:30:23,079 --> 02:30:28,520
Speaker 2: You're kind of you're a little bit choppy, so please

2834
02:30:28,559 --> 02:30:29,680
die your question.

2835
02:30:29,840 --> 02:30:31,719
Speaker 1: We can hear you. Good to see you.

2836
02:30:31,760 --> 02:30:35,520
Speaker 10: Man, Right on, man, Neil, you did a great job.

2837
02:30:36,159 --> 02:30:38,440
I had to say you did a great job.

2838
02:30:39,440 --> 02:30:40,879
Speaker 1: Uh and uh.

2839
02:30:41,120 --> 02:30:45,799
Speaker 10: I was had a question for Jay why why would

2840
02:30:45,879 --> 02:30:50,559
you want to believe or worship with God who dashes

2841
02:30:50,639 --> 02:30:55,760
babies against rocks and orders the slaughter of many people,

2842
02:30:55,840 --> 02:30:57,120
why would you consider him.

2843
02:30:57,040 --> 02:30:57,520
Speaker 1: A good God?

2844
02:30:59,120 --> 02:31:01,079
Speaker 5: Well, God is the power of life and death, and

2845
02:31:01,159 --> 02:31:04,120
in the ancient world, he gave that command to the

2846
02:31:04,239 --> 02:31:08,120
Israelites to get rid of any of the opponents who

2847
02:31:08,239 --> 02:31:12,079
would conceivably be future problems for the Israelites. So God

2848
02:31:12,200 --> 02:31:14,920
knows all things. And if he decides that certain people

2849
02:31:14,959 --> 02:31:17,760
should be gotten rid of because they're opposing the people

2850
02:31:17,840 --> 02:31:21,680
that would produce the Messiah, then it's it's within God's

2851
02:31:21,760 --> 02:31:24,079
rights to get rid of people, because, as scripture says,

2852
02:31:24,159 --> 02:31:26,680
he has right, he has the power of life and death.

2853
02:31:26,719 --> 02:31:29,479
He can make that decision because he's God. But even

2854
02:31:29,719 --> 02:31:32,920
if let's say Neil Platonism is true, I mean that's

2855
02:31:33,600 --> 02:31:36,360
infants being dashed against rocks is just another manifestation of

2856
02:31:36,440 --> 02:31:36,719
the one.

2857
02:31:38,360 --> 02:31:44,319
Speaker 10: Well, also, why would God send himself to kill himself

2858
02:31:44,840 --> 02:31:47,959
and then beg himself not to kill himself.

2859
02:31:49,559 --> 02:31:52,600
Speaker 5: Yeah, well, that's not what happened. The atonement is a

2860
02:31:53,120 --> 02:31:55,639
deifying of the human nature. It's not a paying off.

2861
02:31:56,000 --> 02:31:58,040
Speaker 10: Didn't get that. That did not happen.

2862
02:31:59,200 --> 02:32:01,879
Speaker 1: I'm explaining the word box view of atonement, which is

2863
02:32:01,920 --> 02:32:02,360
in color.

2864
02:32:02,360 --> 02:32:04,239
Speaker 2: You gotta let him answer, you gotta let Jay, answer

2865
02:32:04,399 --> 02:32:05,600
the question you asked, go ahead.

2866
02:32:05,600 --> 02:32:08,799
Speaker 5: You not the Protestant view that God is punishing himself.

2867
02:32:09,040 --> 02:32:11,920
It's that God the Son willingly took on death to

2868
02:32:12,040 --> 02:32:14,920
destroy the power of death, which is a demonic power.

2869
02:32:15,000 --> 02:32:17,920
It's the power of Satan, and so he's deifying our nature.

2870
02:32:17,959 --> 02:32:20,120
He's not paying the Father off with some sort of

2871
02:32:20,200 --> 02:32:22,799
created thing, because God doesn't need anything, so he's not

2872
02:32:22,879 --> 02:32:23,600
being paid off.

2873
02:32:25,040 --> 02:32:27,559
Speaker 1: Last follow up, color, but you.

2874
02:32:27,639 --> 02:32:32,200
Speaker 10: Guys did mention that God incited David to create a census,

2875
02:32:32,639 --> 02:32:38,079
but also Satan incited David to create a census. Wouldn't

2876
02:32:38,079 --> 02:32:43,680
that be the same character you said that that was Satan.

2877
02:32:44,319 --> 02:32:47,639
Speaker 1: No, Marcy Knight in the house. It's just it's primary

2878
02:32:47,680 --> 02:32:50,920
and secondary causation, right. So if I know that a

2879
02:32:51,040 --> 02:32:54,840
bank is going to be robbed, and I overhear them

2880
02:32:55,000 --> 02:32:56,639
that they're going to rob a bank, and then they

2881
02:32:56,719 --> 02:32:58,479
go and rob the bank, like the fact that I

2882
02:32:58,600 --> 02:33:00,280
know of thing's happening, or I let a thing happen

2883
02:33:00,360 --> 02:33:03,000
doesn't make me the immediate cause of it makes me

2884
02:33:03,040 --> 02:33:05,040
approximate cause or a secondary cause.

2885
02:33:06,040 --> 02:33:07,520
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, I got to leave it there. Caller, thank

2886
02:33:07,559 --> 02:33:09,000
you so much for calling in. I hope you have

2887
02:33:09,040 --> 02:33:12,799
a wonderful evening. If you don't mind drop out back

2888
02:33:12,959 --> 02:33:14,520
in the back. We still got a ton of callers

2889
02:33:14,559 --> 02:33:16,920
coming in. I'm sorry that these are very brief, but

2890
02:33:17,000 --> 02:33:18,399
I want to try to get to as many people

2891
02:33:18,440 --> 02:33:18,879
as we can.

2892
02:33:19,520 --> 02:33:22,920
Speaker 1: Not your dude, go ahead. Hey guys, thanks for having

2893
02:33:22,959 --> 02:33:25,879
me on. I enjoyed the civility of the debate, and

2894
02:33:25,920 --> 02:33:28,719
I'll chalk that up to Father Turbo keeping Jay honest.