1
00:00:13,640 --> 00:02:49,599
Speaker 1: It it it it it it it it it it.

2
00:03:00,240 --> 00:03:01,960
Speaker 2: H m hm.

3
00:03:03,800 --> 00:03:19,639
Speaker 1: Hm m hm hm h m hm hm h m

4
00:03:19,800 --> 00:03:32,199
hm hm mm hmmm h m hmm.

5
00:03:36,159 --> 00:03:37,680
Speaker 3: I I I I, oh.

6
00:03:39,080 --> 00:03:39,479
Speaker 4: What do you wait?

7
00:03:39,599 --> 00:03:39,719
Speaker 1: Wait?

8
00:03:39,800 --> 00:03:43,479
Speaker 3: Wait do wit what? What's going on? What's going on?

9
00:03:45,719 --> 00:03:49,560
What's up? Shout out h tur about what's going on?

10
00:03:54,479 --> 00:04:01,759
Both and Philip Jessica, we'll get the rip in the house.

11
00:04:04,199 --> 00:04:06,840
All right, are you guys ready. I wasn't gonna do

12
00:04:06,879 --> 00:04:09,080
a stream today because I had planned to take my

13
00:04:09,280 --> 00:04:13,199
kids to like go kart racing and all stuff, and

14
00:04:13,319 --> 00:04:16,120
it turns out it's the only day it's closed.

15
00:04:18,360 --> 00:04:19,319
Speaker 5: A god A.

16
00:04:21,360 --> 00:04:28,800
Speaker 3: God a So instead, let's do a stream now. I

17
00:04:28,879 --> 00:04:31,639
tried to plan this with Jay because I did want

18
00:04:31,680 --> 00:04:34,399
to do this stream, but he's a busy dude, and

19
00:04:35,639 --> 00:04:37,920
today opened up. I was going to do a Thursday.

20
00:04:40,040 --> 00:04:43,720
But you know, maybe in the future we'll take a

21
00:04:43,800 --> 00:04:47,439
couple of these questions and we'll do another stream with Jay,

22
00:04:48,120 --> 00:04:51,000
maybe even add in other questions that atheists can't answer.

23
00:04:51,680 --> 00:04:54,560
So we're gonna look at that. But of course, first

24
00:04:55,319 --> 00:04:59,519
before that, we have to look at another terrible argument

25
00:04:59,639 --> 00:05:02,319
from breakfast Tacos. I mean, it just wouldn't be fair.

26
00:05:05,000 --> 00:05:12,519
I have an obligation. I have an obligation to constantly

27
00:05:12,879 --> 00:05:18,560
push back on any new atheist coming up the ladder,

28
00:05:18,839 --> 00:05:25,279
any of them. Dummerdox, He says, you're so silly, jam Bob,

29
00:05:25,560 --> 00:05:28,040
don't you know that logic grounds logic? Wait, wait until

30
00:05:28,079 --> 00:05:32,800
you hear this one, doomer, Wait until you hear breakfast tacos,

31
00:05:34,480 --> 00:05:40,720
other plate of garbage. It's gonna be great. Did Becky

32
00:05:40,839 --> 00:05:43,800
help you plan the go kart racing? Now Becky doesn't

33
00:05:43,839 --> 00:05:57,480
help with anything, Okay, Becky extreme? Maybe I don't know.

34
00:05:57,639 --> 00:06:00,560
We'll see, we'll get we'll get into that. I guess

35
00:06:00,600 --> 00:06:02,480
we can just start, you know, get going. Got one

36
00:06:02,560 --> 00:06:06,560
hundred and fifty people here, So before we go to

37
00:06:06,600 --> 00:06:08,800
the big video, we're gonna go to the small video.

38
00:06:11,399 --> 00:06:16,920
Smaller guy, breakfast tacos. Now, his audience is not doing

39
00:06:17,000 --> 00:06:19,439
him any favors. It was good to see that even

40
00:06:19,639 --> 00:06:22,120
some of the atheists there were like, well, you're kind

41
00:06:22,160 --> 00:06:24,720
of interrupting them and not letting him cross examine you,

42
00:06:26,439 --> 00:06:37,839
which was obvious. But this next argument is rather silly

43
00:06:37,920 --> 00:06:42,720
as well. Okay, so you don't need to read the premises.

44
00:06:43,120 --> 00:06:45,319
I'll read them to you, and he'll read them and

45
00:06:45,399 --> 00:06:50,079
we'll go one by one. Okay, let's start with the

46
00:06:50,199 --> 00:06:54,240
beginning of it. He's trying to argue again, this is

47
00:06:54,279 --> 00:06:56,279
what the naturalists are trying to do. They're trying to

48
00:06:56,360 --> 00:06:59,279
press up, they're trying to tag They're trying to say

49
00:06:59,600 --> 00:07:02,800
that there is a necessary precondition for all things, and

50
00:07:02,879 --> 00:07:08,720
that necessary precondition for all things is just in this case,

51
00:07:09,319 --> 00:07:13,199
the universal quantum field, which is hilarious. It's like, you

52
00:07:13,279 --> 00:07:20,439
can't even locate such a thing. Plus, you need time

53
00:07:20,480 --> 00:07:25,920
space matter for there to be a universal quantum field. Logically,

54
00:07:26,120 --> 00:07:31,319
could there be time space matter hypothetically without a universal

55
00:07:31,399 --> 00:07:35,199
quantum field. If the universal quantum field ends up being false,

56
00:07:35,439 --> 00:07:38,560
you still have time space matter. So that's already a

57
00:07:38,639 --> 00:07:41,759
problem here. But let's just hear them out. Okay, let's

58
00:07:41,759 --> 00:07:42,360
just hear them out.

59
00:07:42,680 --> 00:07:43,399
Speaker 5: Premis one.

60
00:07:43,879 --> 00:07:47,199
Speaker 6: A necessary being is something that exists by its own nature,

61
00:07:47,600 --> 00:07:51,360
is not dependent on anything else, exists in all possible worlds,

62
00:07:51,519 --> 00:07:55,399
and provides a complete and sufficient explanation for the universe.

63
00:07:57,639 --> 00:08:01,879
The universal quantum field is the necessary being because it

64
00:08:02,000 --> 00:08:05,240
exists by its own nature, is not dependent on anything else,

65
00:08:05,360 --> 00:08:08,959
It exists in all possible worlds, and provides a complete

66
00:08:09,000 --> 00:08:15,240
and sufficient explanation for the universe invoking unnecessary metaphysical speculation.

67
00:08:15,560 --> 00:08:19,360
Speaker 3: Metaphysical speculation. Can you tell me how the quantum field

68
00:08:19,879 --> 00:08:23,279
accounts for everything in the universe if the universe includes

69
00:08:23,399 --> 00:08:37,120
metaphysics rot Row Becky, Oh, Breakfast Tacos, Oh, Breakfast Tacos. Okay,

70
00:08:38,120 --> 00:08:42,879
the universal quantum field is the necessary being. It's non dependent.

71
00:08:43,000 --> 00:08:46,080
I'm sorry, Breakfast Tacos. I know you won't answer these

72
00:08:46,159 --> 00:08:47,799
questions in a one on one, so I'll just do

73
00:08:47,879 --> 00:08:50,679
it and pretend I'm having a good faith conversation with you.

74
00:08:51,720 --> 00:08:55,080
Is the universal quantum field dependent on time, space, and matter?

75
00:08:58,840 --> 00:09:02,960
Is the universal quantum field identical to time? If it's not,

76
00:09:03,519 --> 00:09:11,159
and it's dependent on time, then premise through is false? Becky. Yeah,

77
00:09:13,200 --> 00:09:20,600
is too easy. This is just too easy. How did

78
00:09:20,639 --> 00:09:25,039
you determine the universal quantum field exists in all possible worlds?

79
00:09:26,080 --> 00:09:28,919
What was the methodology for that that you smuggled into

80
00:09:28,960 --> 00:09:32,559
premise to Breakfast Tacos. I don't think you have I

81
00:09:32,600 --> 00:09:36,000
don't think you can tell me. And lastly, in premise

82
00:09:36,080 --> 00:09:42,039
to again, I have to reiterate it provides the universal

83
00:09:42,159 --> 00:09:45,679
quantum field provides a complete and sufficient explanation for the

84
00:09:45,840 --> 00:09:50,960
universe without evoking unnecessary metaphysical speculation. It sounds like that's

85
00:09:51,039 --> 00:10:00,559
unnecessary metaphysical speculation. How does the universal quantum field account

86
00:10:00,720 --> 00:10:03,399
for I don't know, you don't like this one, but

87
00:10:03,519 --> 00:10:10,519
the regularity of nature? How does it account for the

88
00:10:10,639 --> 00:10:15,919
relations the logical consistent relations between parts? How does it

89
00:10:15,960 --> 00:10:20,159
account for that? How does it account for mind? Wait

90
00:10:20,200 --> 00:10:25,080
a second, how does it account for truth? Please tell

91
00:10:25,159 --> 00:10:28,559
me how a universal quantum field, which is not a

92
00:10:28,720 --> 00:10:32,000
being a person with a mind, how does the universal

93
00:10:32,120 --> 00:10:36,440
quantum field breakfast tacos account for everything in the universe?

94
00:10:36,480 --> 00:10:41,840
If what we include in the universe's knowledge, information, and truth?

95
00:10:43,440 --> 00:10:48,399
Excuse me, you can't answer.

96
00:10:48,200 --> 00:10:49,600
Speaker 5: That primis three.

97
00:10:50,200 --> 00:10:53,639
Speaker 6: Any proposed necessary being that does not provide a complete

98
00:10:53,720 --> 00:10:56,480
explanation for the universe is incoherent.

99
00:10:56,679 --> 00:11:02,919
Speaker 3: Primis conclusion your necessary being being. The universal quantum field

100
00:11:03,080 --> 00:11:07,799
is an incoherent because it's a proposed necessary being and

101
00:11:07,919 --> 00:11:15,399
it doesn't provide a complete explanation of truth, knowledge, metaphysics. Okay,

102
00:11:16,960 --> 00:11:21,159
doesn't provide an explanation for let's say, if morality exists. Now,

103
00:11:21,200 --> 00:11:25,080
I don't know under this argument whether he's included including

104
00:11:25,120 --> 00:11:31,399
such things as morality, something that's immoral, evil, good? Does

105
00:11:31,440 --> 00:11:33,879
it account for the good? Is a good an actual thing?

106
00:11:34,039 --> 00:11:34,200
Speaker 2: Is it?

107
00:11:34,360 --> 00:11:37,679
Speaker 3: Is it good something you appeal to? How does it

108
00:11:37,679 --> 00:11:40,360
account for the laws of thought that are conceptual and

109
00:11:40,480 --> 00:11:46,759
not identical to the universal quantum field. Hmm, it's incoherent.

110
00:11:48,360 --> 00:11:52,440
Throw your arguments in the dumpster, light them on fire,

111
00:11:52,960 --> 00:11:54,279
and eat another sandwich.

112
00:11:55,200 --> 00:11:58,960
Speaker 6: As far, any proposed necessary being that overlaps with the

113
00:11:59,039 --> 00:12:04,879
universal quantum field old explanation without adding anything new is redundant. Conclusion. Therefore,

114
00:12:05,039 --> 00:12:08,840
all proposed necessary beings other than the universal quantum field

115
00:12:08,919 --> 00:12:14,200
or false because they are either incoherent or redundant. Just one.

116
00:12:14,919 --> 00:12:18,159
Speaker 3: That's That's pretty much the end of his argument. Why

117
00:12:18,279 --> 00:12:24,120
because he would argue that anything any other proposed necessary

118
00:12:24,200 --> 00:12:28,399
being in this case the Christian God, doesn't add anything.

119
00:12:28,840 --> 00:12:32,559
If it adds anything additional, then it's false. And if

120
00:12:32,600 --> 00:12:37,039
it's doesn't add anything additional, then it's redundant. Well, no,

121
00:12:38,360 --> 00:12:41,799
you have a problem of intentionality here. So if the

122
00:12:41,919 --> 00:12:45,960
universe is unintentional and completely accidental and random, that's that

123
00:12:46,120 --> 00:12:48,720
doesn't give an account for the universe that we see today.

124
00:12:50,000 --> 00:12:54,080
If the universal quantum field is ultimately random, and has

125
00:12:54,159 --> 00:12:57,720
no purpose or direction. It cannot account for the reality

126
00:12:57,759 --> 00:13:01,600
that we exist in today. Why because you arguing the

127
00:13:01,720 --> 00:13:05,879
fact the act of you arguing is inconsistent with a

128
00:13:06,000 --> 00:13:12,000
result that a random quantum field would produce. Why would

129
00:13:12,000 --> 00:13:19,480
a random quantum field produce an intentional, an intentional, seemingly

130
00:13:19,720 --> 00:13:25,120
intentional outcome in which argumentation is possible? Rationality? Where's where's

131
00:13:25,240 --> 00:13:29,399
rationality in the universal quantum field? How does universal quantum

132
00:13:29,519 --> 00:13:33,480
field account for argumentation itself? This is why the tag

133
00:13:33,600 --> 00:13:37,960
is superior to this nonsense, because once you remove a mind,

134
00:13:38,840 --> 00:13:44,159
you remove the necessary component for truth. Things that are

135
00:13:44,200 --> 00:13:47,519
mind dependent that are also in the universe but don't

136
00:13:48,480 --> 00:13:53,320
aren't identical to matter or physicality. This is where physicalism

137
00:13:53,440 --> 00:14:01,559
leads you, folks. It leads you to obscene gibberish, just complete,

138
00:14:01,840 --> 00:14:07,639
complete gibberating. Now it's a disservice that has owned audience.

139
00:14:08,080 --> 00:14:11,120
They want this to be true because it's fun, but

140
00:14:11,200 --> 00:14:14,120
they're not really rigorous. Some of them are. There's a

141
00:14:14,159 --> 00:14:16,600
couple I'll hand it to you. There are a couple

142
00:14:16,639 --> 00:14:20,480
of atheists who follow this guy who go, hmmm, I

143
00:14:20,559 --> 00:14:23,799
don't thinks so, dude, because they would say you're you're

144
00:14:23,840 --> 00:14:27,639
doing the same smuggling or the same appealing to mystery,

145
00:14:28,639 --> 00:14:31,720
appealing to ignorance that the theist is doing. If they're

146
00:14:31,759 --> 00:14:34,639
if the atheist is consistent, they'll have the same objections

147
00:14:35,679 --> 00:14:43,679
to Breakfast Tacos. They all have the same objections. Those

148
00:14:43,759 --> 00:14:46,320
are the consistent atheists. So you know, in a sense,

149
00:14:46,399 --> 00:14:51,039
Breakfast Tacos is doing a service by demonstrating and weeding

150
00:14:51,080 --> 00:14:56,679
out the consistent atheists versus the inconsistent. This is metaphysical speculation.

151
00:14:57,399 --> 00:15:05,960
It literally is metaphysical specula yeah, complete fancy pants. So

152
00:15:10,440 --> 00:15:15,919
so that's the end of another argument, unfortunately from Breakfast Tacos,

153
00:15:16,120 --> 00:15:20,840
and it happened very quickly. Josiah, thank you so much

154
00:15:20,879 --> 00:15:23,679
for your five gifted memberships and whoever got those welcome

155
00:15:26,320 --> 00:15:29,440
Dustin says, how does the universal quantum feel, explain? Star

156
00:15:29,720 --> 00:15:46,720
wail fart music checkmate atheist, I did end Breakfast Tacos definitively. Yeah, well,

157
00:15:46,919 --> 00:15:49,919
premise three disqualifies premise too. Yeah, let's look at that again.

158
00:15:50,120 --> 00:15:53,879
Just to just to reiterate here, any proposed necessary being

159
00:15:53,960 --> 00:15:56,360
that does not provide a complete explanation for the universe,

160
00:15:56,919 --> 00:16:01,480
right premise to universal quantum feeling is a necessary being

161
00:16:01,519 --> 00:16:04,480
because it exists its own nature, not dependent on anything else. Yes,

162
00:16:04,519 --> 00:16:07,639
it is, it's dependent on time. Time is not identical

163
00:16:07,679 --> 00:16:15,399
to the universal quantum field. Matter relations the universal quantum field.

164
00:16:17,399 --> 00:16:20,559
The way you're positing it theoretically, by the way, requires

165
00:16:20,799 --> 00:16:24,799
that existence itself has some sort of nature to it.

166
00:16:28,960 --> 00:16:31,759
But time is a killer right there. Right to say

167
00:16:31,840 --> 00:16:37,039
it's non dependent. This is where this is where eternality uncreated.

168
00:16:37,120 --> 00:16:41,600
Eternality is necessitated in this argument. So what's the difference

169
00:16:41,639 --> 00:16:49,759
between an eternal universe that's personless and forever existed. Eternal

170
00:16:49,960 --> 00:16:55,600
does not mean uncreated. So they're ambiguous when they don't

171
00:16:55,639 --> 00:16:57,919
know what they're saying. They're not sure what position to

172
00:16:57,960 --> 00:17:01,279
take when they say the universe is eternal, right, okay,

173
00:17:01,519 --> 00:17:07,039
is it uncreated? Is it uncreated? They don't know where

174
00:17:07,079 --> 00:17:09,279
to go with that. They might think that's the same.

175
00:17:10,839 --> 00:17:13,319
I think that's the point Heisenberg, that he's doing a

176
00:17:13,440 --> 00:17:16,480
sort of parody, and I don't even think he really

177
00:17:16,599 --> 00:17:20,400
believes this. I think he's doing a parody, you know,

178
00:17:20,440 --> 00:17:26,559
and it's a fun parody, but it's ultimately incoherent. Brenda's

179
00:17:26,640 --> 00:17:32,720
back as Billy Bob Billy Joel decided on Earth is flat. No, Now,

180
00:17:32,920 --> 00:17:37,160
I don't really think it matters. Brenda, have you decided

181
00:17:37,200 --> 00:17:38,880
if you're a man or a woman yet? I mean,

182
00:17:39,319 --> 00:17:41,400
if all these things are up in the air and arbitrary,

183
00:17:41,400 --> 00:17:44,799
I don't understand why it matters. If A doesn't equal a,

184
00:17:45,279 --> 00:17:50,440
why would it matter. Huh? Flat is definitely a shape.

185
00:17:50,599 --> 00:17:55,920
No it's not. No, it's not. Flat is not a shape. Okay,

186
00:17:58,960 --> 00:18:01,519
it's not a shape. It's a description of a surface.

187
00:18:03,359 --> 00:18:04,000
Speaker 7: Is bad.

188
00:18:05,400 --> 00:18:09,839
Speaker 3: Now, I guess mathematically you can do like theoretical geometry

189
00:18:10,759 --> 00:18:14,880
and like imagine some sort of crazy plane that's the

190
00:18:15,039 --> 00:18:20,119
thinnest thing ever and it itself is like the shape

191
00:18:20,160 --> 00:18:22,559
of a square or a circle or whatever you want

192
00:18:23,279 --> 00:18:25,480
from the top view. But then from the side view

193
00:18:25,920 --> 00:18:29,799
it's completely flat. But even that would have some sort

194
00:18:29,839 --> 00:18:32,759
of height dimension to the side, like the ridge, you

195
00:18:32,839 --> 00:18:38,759
know what I mean, like the like the it would

196
00:18:38,799 --> 00:18:42,880
have something some other angle to it. So no, flat

197
00:18:43,079 --> 00:18:44,279
can't be a shape.

198
00:18:44,720 --> 00:18:44,880
Speaker 5: You know.

199
00:18:50,920 --> 00:18:52,839
Speaker 3: Joseph says, I'm not an atheist, but I think it

200
00:18:52,880 --> 00:18:55,200
would be pretty easy to debate. Debate what at the

201
00:18:55,279 --> 00:18:57,480
end of the day, you grant just about anything, and

202
00:18:57,559 --> 00:19:02,400
your point really wouldn't be refuted. I'm not sure exactly

203
00:19:02,519 --> 00:19:09,319
what you're Can your God change? No, the nature of

204
00:19:09,400 --> 00:19:18,160
God doesn't change as soon as God changes. They introduced time. No,

205
00:19:18,359 --> 00:19:22,400
God doesn't change. No, the creation of time, the temporal

206
00:19:22,559 --> 00:19:26,279
state state uh that we exist in from a Christian view,

207
00:19:26,400 --> 00:19:29,200
is not God changing. I don't know what you're talking about,

208
00:19:32,400 --> 00:19:36,960
but it's nice to see some of the common atheists

209
00:19:37,000 --> 00:19:39,799
here so confused and dumb. I know, it's rough.

210
00:19:40,000 --> 00:19:40,400
Speaker 5: It's rough.

211
00:19:40,440 --> 00:19:42,720
Speaker 3: They got a long they got a long way to go,

212
00:19:42,839 --> 00:19:50,119
but they're here. But they're here, okay, So okay, so

213
00:19:50,200 --> 00:19:52,839
we got that under the belt. Breakfast taco is another

214
00:19:52,880 --> 00:19:58,000
failed argument. You failed, You keep failing. I look at

215
00:19:58,039 --> 00:20:03,000
your arguments and I think no as to how easily

216
00:20:03,319 --> 00:20:07,200
they're refuted. And it's easy. It is easy. It's like

217
00:20:07,279 --> 00:20:10,680
getting on a bike, just like jumping on a bike,

218
00:20:10,880 --> 00:20:15,440
doing a little lap around the up around the neighborhood,

219
00:20:16,160 --> 00:20:19,799
you know, kicking over a person and a scooter naked

220
00:20:19,839 --> 00:20:22,880
Big says. Keep in mind that the name Iron Charoit

221
00:20:23,000 --> 00:20:26,519
here has another Bible verse taken out of contacts, and no,

222
00:20:26,599 --> 00:20:30,880
Yahweh was not defeated by Iron Charity. Its yeah, I mean,

223
00:20:31,759 --> 00:20:36,880
that's why I don't get into her her menuetics. Not

224
00:20:37,039 --> 00:20:42,640
only is my study not sufficient, but even if it was,

225
00:20:44,279 --> 00:20:46,319
the only thing that's ever being debated when you get

226
00:20:46,359 --> 00:20:50,119
into that is someone taking their interpretation and the measuring

227
00:20:50,279 --> 00:20:54,519
up against the normative authority. That's all that's happening every time.

228
00:20:54,559 --> 00:20:58,200
And if the person wouldn't engage with the normative authority

229
00:20:58,440 --> 00:21:01,839
or rejected wholesale, it really doesn't matter from their view,

230
00:21:02,079 --> 00:21:08,839
it just it just doesn't matter. I butchered the word. No,

231
00:21:08,920 --> 00:21:18,200
I didn't her menuetics. For those of you not the

232
00:21:18,279 --> 00:21:23,559
debate is today Trump fans, that's gonna be interesting, I guess.

233
00:21:24,480 --> 00:21:27,039
I mean, there's gonna be a whole shit ton of

234
00:21:27,039 --> 00:21:29,400
people who cover that. I won't be covering that. Maybe

235
00:21:29,440 --> 00:21:30,599
I'll get some clips or something.

236
00:21:33,920 --> 00:21:35,119
Speaker 5: Her menuetics.

237
00:21:36,079 --> 00:21:40,519
Speaker 3: No over on this channel. We forever use her menuetics,

238
00:21:41,119 --> 00:21:44,559
because that's what Owen Benjamin said. He didn't know in

239
00:21:44,680 --> 00:21:50,200
a debate about Christianity and scripture. He didn't know what

240
00:21:50,319 --> 00:21:57,480
her hermaneutics was, so he said her menuetics. He said

241
00:21:57,839 --> 00:22:01,400
her menuetics. So it's forever her menus and not hermoneutics,

242
00:22:06,240 --> 00:22:11,480
her menu etics. All right, let's move over to this Okay,

243
00:22:11,599 --> 00:22:20,160
Popular Channel, a couple of crumpet tea drinkers, Alex O'Connor,

244
00:22:20,759 --> 00:22:23,680
one of the most famous young atheists, and this other

245
00:22:23,839 --> 00:22:27,759
atheists unsolicited advice. I don't know his name. They cover

246
00:22:28,880 --> 00:22:33,559
nine questions that are proposed by feists in general that

247
00:22:33,640 --> 00:22:35,440
the atheists can answer, and we're gonna see if they

248
00:22:35,519 --> 00:22:38,799
can answer. We'll see if they can honestly navigate them.

249
00:22:39,519 --> 00:22:41,200
I watched a little bit of this. I found that

250
00:22:43,119 --> 00:22:46,720
Alex O'Connor, even though I he falls into some really

251
00:22:46,799 --> 00:22:51,119
bad reasoning a lot, that he he does have like

252
00:22:51,200 --> 00:22:56,000
this open mind when he engages with people, he kind

253
00:22:56,039 --> 00:22:58,359
of like goes, well, let me think about that. And

254
00:22:58,480 --> 00:23:06,319
I do appreciate that, but ultimately British people are unbearable.

255
00:23:09,480 --> 00:23:14,640
So so I'm more watching it for this guy because

256
00:23:14,680 --> 00:23:17,920
he has a more refreshing approach.

257
00:23:18,000 --> 00:23:18,480
Speaker 5: I think.

258
00:23:19,839 --> 00:23:22,359
Speaker 4: It's gonna be sort of aious, facetious response.

259
00:23:23,119 --> 00:23:26,240
Speaker 3: So the first question is I thought about this, why

260
00:23:26,359 --> 00:23:28,599
is there something rather than nothing? I was thinking about

261
00:23:28,640 --> 00:23:33,039
this yesterday and it's a you know, a question. It's

262
00:23:33,119 --> 00:23:35,920
a natural question to come up to a rise. It's

263
00:23:35,960 --> 00:23:38,319
something we think of when we're like thirteen. We look

264
00:23:38,400 --> 00:23:40,519
up at the stars in the first there's this moment,

265
00:23:40,599 --> 00:23:46,279
the first time a philosophical a jarring question hits us

266
00:23:46,640 --> 00:23:49,440
in our youth. At least that's what I remember going

267
00:23:49,480 --> 00:23:53,039
with the I was sitting with my friends, going, what

268
00:23:53,240 --> 00:23:56,559
the hell, what the hell?

269
00:23:59,279 --> 00:23:59,839
Speaker 5: What is that?

270
00:24:00,039 --> 00:24:04,920
Speaker 3: Yes, what are we doing? What are we doing?

271
00:24:06,640 --> 00:24:06,799
Speaker 5: Why?

272
00:24:06,920 --> 00:24:07,720
Speaker 3: Space so big?

273
00:24:09,440 --> 00:24:09,480
Speaker 5: So?

274
00:24:10,599 --> 00:24:17,720
Speaker 3: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why? I thought

275
00:24:17,720 --> 00:24:21,799
about this? And let's say you came to some strange

276
00:24:21,960 --> 00:24:27,279
naturalistic conclusion of why there's something instead of something rather

277
00:24:27,400 --> 00:24:32,000
than nothing? Something rather than nothing? Well, not that the

278
00:24:32,240 --> 00:24:34,880
naturalists could answer that, because it's endless regress. You'd always

279
00:24:35,000 --> 00:24:37,599
be going back in time to more matter like breakfast tacos?

280
00:24:37,640 --> 00:24:41,559
Does stuff comes from stuff? But even if you granted it,

281
00:24:41,680 --> 00:24:44,000
even if you didn't argue that view, let's imagine that

282
00:24:45,000 --> 00:24:50,160
there was something, and there was a decent reason mechanically

283
00:24:53,920 --> 00:24:57,640
why there's something. This doesn't answer another question because when

284
00:24:57,680 --> 00:25:00,160
you ask why is there something, if you answer it

285
00:25:00,240 --> 00:25:03,400
from a mechanical view, a mechanistic view, you have some

286
00:25:03,599 --> 00:25:07,880
sort of explanation or description of a process that then

287
00:25:08,000 --> 00:25:10,839
produced a new thing. Even if we granted that, which

288
00:25:10,880 --> 00:25:13,400
we wouldn't concede that because it's endless. It ends up

289
00:25:13,440 --> 00:25:16,440
in endless regress. But even if you granted it for

290
00:25:16,480 --> 00:25:19,799
a second, I thought, yesterday I was thinking about this,

291
00:25:19,920 --> 00:25:23,880
and I thought, wow. When you ask the question why,

292
00:25:24,000 --> 00:25:30,920
you're asking a teleological question, not just an explanatory question

293
00:25:31,079 --> 00:25:38,279
about mechanics. Because once you answer try to answer why

294
00:25:38,759 --> 00:25:42,559
is there something, you're also answering a question about the

295
00:25:42,640 --> 00:25:45,759
future of that something. So you're answering a question about

296
00:25:45,759 --> 00:25:48,319
the past of something, the presence of something, and the

297
00:25:48,400 --> 00:25:52,240
future of something. Because if you came to some mechanical

298
00:25:52,319 --> 00:25:56,200
explanation of why there is something, you need to then

299
00:25:56,720 --> 00:25:59,359
keep going with that of well, there has to be

300
00:25:59,440 --> 00:26:03,319
a direction to that then, And that's why in Christianity

301
00:26:03,400 --> 00:26:06,680
it isn't in fact coherent. When we ask why is

302
00:26:06,720 --> 00:26:12,359
there something? And if we appeal to God's creation, there's

303
00:26:12,400 --> 00:26:15,319
a pre existence, there's an existence, and there's a direction,

304
00:26:15,519 --> 00:26:21,079
there's a there's a tel us to the why, there's

305
00:26:21,079 --> 00:26:24,960
a whole reason to it. But a naturalist, even if

306
00:26:25,000 --> 00:26:29,240
they came to the nearest, best coherent explanation of why

307
00:26:29,359 --> 00:26:33,279
something rather than nothing, they can't tell you further the direction.

308
00:26:33,400 --> 00:26:38,000
They've only granted themselves. What they're doing they have no

309
00:26:38,119 --> 00:26:42,119
direction after that. Like let's say you just granted them time, space, matter,

310
00:26:42,319 --> 00:26:46,480
material regularity, logic, and you just PLoP them down in

311
00:26:46,599 --> 00:26:49,480
the universe, and you told them why is there something?

312
00:26:49,559 --> 00:26:52,519
Because you know this, this mechanical thing happened, it's a

313
00:26:52,640 --> 00:26:55,799
weird misfire or some crazy shit. They don't understand, Okay,

314
00:26:57,079 --> 00:27:00,759
to ask why is there something? You're really asking why.

315
00:27:00,960 --> 00:27:03,880
Ultimately in the future there's that thing too, not just

316
00:27:03,960 --> 00:27:06,200
why is it now? Why is it now and now

317
00:27:06,279 --> 00:27:14,519
and now? So you can't separate the teloss from the

318
00:27:14,599 --> 00:27:18,960
question of why. You can't separate the direction of why

319
00:27:19,240 --> 00:27:22,640
from the explanation of why. That's why Christianity it makes

320
00:27:22,680 --> 00:27:28,880
perfect sense. Alpha and Omega. It does make sense that

321
00:27:29,240 --> 00:27:34,680
you can't separate all of the all of it, all

322
00:27:34,799 --> 00:27:41,079
the story. You can't separate it from its direction. But

323
00:27:41,200 --> 00:27:43,720
they try to, and I don't know if they'd sufficiently

324
00:27:43,759 --> 00:27:44,160
do it here.

325
00:27:44,240 --> 00:27:47,319
Speaker 4: This is still something that for instance, like David Hume addresses,

326
00:27:48,119 --> 00:27:49,759
which I think is an interesting spect for the very

327
00:27:49,839 --> 00:27:53,480
least worth considering, is that he suggests that questions like

328
00:27:53,559 --> 00:27:56,799
why is there something rather than nothing? The domain in

329
00:27:56,839 --> 00:28:00,000
which they're operating is fundamentally unlike the domain through way

330
00:28:00,000 --> 00:28:03,680
which we've acquired most of our knowledge gathering apparatus, so

331
00:28:04,599 --> 00:28:08,240
you know, humans and empiricis, and he talks about how

332
00:28:08,480 --> 00:28:11,000
well we're gathering our ideas from the material world around

333
00:28:11,079 --> 00:28:13,480
us or that's not let's not be that controversial, just

334
00:28:13,559 --> 00:28:19,640
the world around us, and yeah, and that and additionally.

335
00:28:19,480 --> 00:28:21,559
Speaker 3: If Megan wasn't a good enough reason to never do

336
00:28:21,680 --> 00:28:25,279
a sort of clean face mustache, if that wasn't a

337
00:28:25,319 --> 00:28:27,559
good enough reason, Alex O'Connor.

338
00:28:27,200 --> 00:28:31,039
Speaker 4: Is thinks that we learn reason, even if even if

339
00:28:31,119 --> 00:28:33,440
he's not, you know, goes not entirely sure what the

340
00:28:33,559 --> 00:28:36,200
kind of metaphysical grounding of reason is. He thinks that

341
00:28:36,319 --> 00:28:40,000
our reasoning faculties are attuned to this reality that we

342
00:28:40,079 --> 00:28:42,839
live in. And so something that he brings up, which

343
00:28:42,880 --> 00:28:46,559
I think is very interesting, is the notion that questions

344
00:28:46,680 --> 00:28:50,720
like why is there something rather than nothing are in

345
00:28:50,920 --> 00:28:52,799
principle unanswerable.

346
00:28:53,440 --> 00:28:57,559
Speaker 3: Is his idea at least well, under his model, he's consistent,

347
00:28:57,599 --> 00:29:01,559
at least one of the rare consistent impirist Of course

348
00:29:01,640 --> 00:29:09,519
it's inconsistent. You couldn't answer it from empiricism. Now, the

349
00:29:09,599 --> 00:29:11,880
fact that you can't answer it from a certain standard

350
00:29:11,920 --> 00:29:14,720
doesn't mean it can't be answered regardless if you don't

351
00:29:14,839 --> 00:29:17,559
like the answer. So the statement that it can't be

352
00:29:17,599 --> 00:29:20,359
answered by anybody, which is what the conclusion they come to,

353
00:29:21,640 --> 00:29:26,880
is presupposing empiricism. They just don't like the answer. They

354
00:29:26,920 --> 00:29:30,160
don't like a non empirical answer to a question that

355
00:29:30,279 --> 00:29:34,759
can't be empirical. This is why atheist and naturalist physicalists

356
00:29:34,880 --> 00:29:40,000
have to believe in miracles. Hence my fourth episode Upcoming

357
00:29:40,440 --> 00:29:42,799
answers against arguments against atheism.

358
00:29:44,119 --> 00:29:45,960
Speaker 4: And it's not that he thinks that. It's not that

359
00:29:46,039 --> 00:29:48,920
he thinks necessarily, just that they are unverifiable, Like why

360
00:29:48,960 --> 00:29:51,039
is that something rather than nothing? Oh, maybe that's a gould.

361
00:29:51,079 --> 00:29:53,599
Maybe that's like a platonic ordering to the world that

362
00:29:53,880 --> 00:29:55,720
dwells in a realm of forms. It's not so much

363
00:29:56,319 --> 00:29:58,680
that's not so much as issue that becomes an issue

364
00:29:58,759 --> 00:30:01,359
for a lot of like twentieth century pipe boot Hume,

365
00:30:02,400 --> 00:30:05,880
through his kind of skeptical method UH basically raises the

366
00:30:05,960 --> 00:30:08,839
idea that it's just unanswerable because the the tools that

367
00:30:08,880 --> 00:30:10,599
we've got to form beliefs.

368
00:30:10,279 --> 00:30:14,640
Speaker 3: And there we go, the tools we have to form

369
00:30:14,720 --> 00:30:20,519
beliefs are reduced to sense data analysis evaluation. But that's

370
00:30:20,559 --> 00:30:25,920
actually that's not true from the Christian view, like we

371
00:30:26,160 --> 00:30:31,799
accept logic and mind evaluation, and yet we don't verify

372
00:30:31,960 --> 00:30:36,599
mind evaluation through sense data, like we don't we assume

373
00:30:37,559 --> 00:30:41,079
mind to do sense data stuff. There's no sense data

374
00:30:41,160 --> 00:30:44,519
called the mind that we're evaluating. There's no sense data

375
00:30:44,960 --> 00:30:49,079
attached to the laws of logic that are identical to

376
00:30:49,119 --> 00:30:52,160
the laws of logic that we we empirically weigh and

377
00:30:52,240 --> 00:30:59,279
look at meaning information truth. None of these things are weighable, measurable.

378
00:31:00,839 --> 00:31:03,519
They're not They're not as items in the world, and

379
00:31:03,599 --> 00:31:08,480
yet they're assumed when we talk about this stuff. So

380
00:31:09,039 --> 00:31:11,799
even if you granted some weird answer to why is

381
00:31:11,839 --> 00:31:15,559
there something and not nothing? You have a bigger question

382
00:31:15,599 --> 00:31:18,599
to ask. Anyway, even if you granted the something, great, well,

383
00:31:18,640 --> 00:31:22,160
grant you something. You shouldn't grant them something, but grant

384
00:31:22,200 --> 00:31:25,119
them something, Grant them the word you know, the world

385
00:31:25,160 --> 00:31:29,000
as it is, Grant them regularity. They still can't answer,

386
00:31:29,079 --> 00:31:33,920
why is their rationality and reasoning and not? You know

387
00:31:33,960 --> 00:31:37,279
what I mean? Why is their rationality and reasoning and not?

388
00:31:37,680 --> 00:31:42,480
By the way they simul simultaneously exist. From their view,

389
00:31:43,359 --> 00:31:46,279
there's a there's a number of beings in their view

390
00:31:46,559 --> 00:31:49,480
that are rational and do reasoning and do metaphysics and

391
00:31:49,559 --> 00:31:52,640
do philosophy. They use the laws of logic, and they

392
00:31:52,720 --> 00:31:56,640
do moral reasoning, and they do debate, and they do calculus,

393
00:31:56,720 --> 00:31:59,400
and they do engineering. All of these things you could

394
00:31:59,480 --> 00:32:01,519
just as well the atheists. Why do we have that?

395
00:32:01,920 --> 00:32:03,079
Why is that a thing?

396
00:32:04,160 --> 00:32:04,319
Speaker 1: You so?

397
00:32:04,480 --> 00:32:06,279
Speaker 3: Well, it's just the way it has to be. Well, no,

398
00:32:06,359 --> 00:32:08,920
it doesn't, because you could look at other animals and

399
00:32:09,039 --> 00:32:12,440
they don't have the same qualities traits status as a

400
00:32:12,519 --> 00:32:23,319
human being. Why is it that humans specifically in their

401
00:32:23,640 --> 00:32:26,200
account of the universe, Why is it that there's only

402
00:32:26,400 --> 00:32:32,839
one peculiar known type of being in the known universe

403
00:32:33,839 --> 00:32:38,279
that has the capacity that we have? Why is that,

404
00:32:39,839 --> 00:32:44,599
you know, they grant themselves the whole other slew of things.

405
00:32:45,480 --> 00:32:50,599
It's basically special pleading. The atheist does constant special pleading

406
00:32:50,759 --> 00:32:54,200
when they start doing reasoning. Why because everything they know

407
00:32:54,279 --> 00:32:57,759
about induction says everything else else out there in the

408
00:32:57,839 --> 00:33:01,160
world that's alive. A tree, a crab, a dear, even

409
00:33:01,200 --> 00:33:05,960
an ape is not doing the kind of philosophy and

410
00:33:06,039 --> 00:33:10,720
metaphysics we're doing about that stuff. It's the same same

411
00:33:10,799 --> 00:33:13,880
reason they are special pleading when they talk about if

412
00:33:13,920 --> 00:33:16,920
they take a physical disposition, and they say, all other

413
00:33:17,039 --> 00:33:20,559
effects of physics out there are non propositional, but there's

414
00:33:20,680 --> 00:33:24,599
this one that is truth appt. There's this one and

415
00:33:24,920 --> 00:33:29,680
only one effect of physics that's purely an effect of

416
00:33:29,720 --> 00:33:33,240
physics that happens to be truth appt in contrast to

417
00:33:33,440 --> 00:33:36,920
every other single one virtually we know of. And that's

418
00:33:36,960 --> 00:33:42,079
a that's evaluation in a mind dependent proposition. It's all.

419
00:33:42,480 --> 00:33:45,400
It's all special pleading. They're constantly special pleading.

420
00:33:47,039 --> 00:33:50,839
Speaker 4: Full opinions on reason aren't suited to the domain in

421
00:33:50,960 --> 00:33:54,160
which that question needs to be answered, which is sort

422
00:33:54,160 --> 00:33:54,839
of a cup pound answer.

423
00:33:54,920 --> 00:33:56,599
Speaker 2: Suppose, what does it mean that the question is right?

424
00:33:56,680 --> 00:33:59,480
That this is a question that atheist human.

425
00:33:59,319 --> 00:34:01,880
Speaker 4: Sits a question no one can answer. Yeah, which is

426
00:34:01,920 --> 00:34:04,599
which I think I think may may end up potentially

427
00:34:04,680 --> 00:34:05,599
becoming a bit of a theme.

428
00:34:06,559 --> 00:34:09,000
Speaker 3: Did I disagree with that whether or not someone could

429
00:34:09,079 --> 00:34:12,480
answer it or like come to the full veracity of

430
00:34:12,559 --> 00:34:15,519
the answer from just pure rationality or empiricism. It's a

431
00:34:15,559 --> 00:34:17,719
different question of whether that not they can answer it,

432
00:34:18,000 --> 00:34:21,880
And you don't like the answer. So the irony here

433
00:34:22,360 --> 00:34:25,119
is God done it. God done it. They always make

434
00:34:25,119 --> 00:34:27,159
fun of the theists. God done it is still a

435
00:34:27,239 --> 00:34:31,079
better answer. God done It is a better answer. It's

436
00:34:31,079 --> 00:34:35,079
a more coherent answer if we're using coherency alone. God

437
00:34:35,239 --> 00:34:42,280
done It, coincidentally, is a better answer than accidentalism. It's

438
00:34:42,360 --> 00:34:46,159
more coherent. It's and as dumb as it sounds, I mean,

439
00:34:46,199 --> 00:34:48,320
it's almost like a fun troll. God done it is

440
00:34:48,400 --> 00:34:50,239
still more coherent than accidentalism.

441
00:34:51,079 --> 00:34:54,000
Speaker 4: Well, because you know I and the other presupposition of

442
00:34:54,039 --> 00:34:55,639
the of the wise, that's something rather than nothing right

443
00:34:55,679 --> 00:34:57,639
you can't answer because it has this kind of like

444
00:34:57,719 --> 00:35:00,119
TD logical bents to it, which I think is I

445
00:35:00,199 --> 00:35:01,039
find really interesting.

446
00:35:01,440 --> 00:35:03,599
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah, he does a little look a little rough.

447
00:35:03,960 --> 00:35:06,679
He looks like one of the characters from uh, what

448
00:35:06,840 --> 00:35:10,920
was that movie where Matthew McConaughey played like an AIDS

449
00:35:11,039 --> 00:35:14,760
victim at a rodeo. He kind of looks like is

450
00:35:14,840 --> 00:35:17,639
someone who didn't make the cut, but he was prepared

451
00:35:17,679 --> 00:35:18,239
at the audition.

452
00:35:18,400 --> 00:35:22,119
Speaker 4: Because I think one of the presuppositional differences in almost

453
00:35:22,199 --> 00:35:24,639
temperament between a lot of atheists and a lot of

454
00:35:24,679 --> 00:35:28,719
theists is that I think that a lot of people

455
00:35:29,519 --> 00:35:32,559
then I think that's a lot of theistic answers appeal

456
00:35:32,599 --> 00:35:34,519
to this, like tediological instinct we have.

457
00:35:35,599 --> 00:35:39,559
Speaker 3: Well, no, it's not just an instinct, a teleological instinct.

458
00:35:40,239 --> 00:35:44,880
It's that the teleological aspect needs to be embedded in

459
00:35:45,000 --> 00:35:48,320
the answer. I just explained this in the beginning. When

460
00:35:48,360 --> 00:35:51,039
you ask a why question, why does something exist and

461
00:35:51,159 --> 00:35:54,719
not and not exist? Well, anything we know inductively that

462
00:35:54,840 --> 00:35:59,440
exists that we can bring into reality has a purpose.

463
00:36:01,719 --> 00:36:06,199
We even look at the natural world and we can't

464
00:36:06,400 --> 00:36:10,159
escape looking at it through a purposeful lens, that this

465
00:36:10,280 --> 00:36:12,880
thing has a purpose. Even if you reduced it to survival,

466
00:36:13,079 --> 00:36:21,800
you're still assuming purpose, right exactly, Marcus, exactly exactly. Biology

467
00:36:21,840 --> 00:36:24,840
presupposes to teleology. Yeah, it does. You can't escape it.

468
00:36:25,599 --> 00:36:28,320
So it's not an impulse. It's not just an impulse.

469
00:36:29,639 --> 00:36:31,679
He's acting like it's just some sort of impulse that

470
00:36:31,760 --> 00:36:34,039
we have, like a random like, oh, there's a spark.

471
00:36:34,079 --> 00:36:40,760
Everyone has this impulse. Why would everyone have the impulse? Why?

472
00:36:41,360 --> 00:36:43,119
Why would it matter if you had the impulse or not?

473
00:36:46,000 --> 00:36:49,679
Speaker 4: In order to find not just mechanistic explanation.

474
00:36:49,480 --> 00:36:54,880
Speaker 3: To ask why is the impulse? To ask why is

475
00:36:54,920 --> 00:37:02,840
there something and not nothing? Is an expression of a

476
00:37:02,920 --> 00:37:09,079
person that holds that is, that's pursuing a teleological position.

477
00:37:10,360 --> 00:37:12,320
There's no there's no way around it. The moment you

478
00:37:12,480 --> 00:37:21,719
ask why you're already in a teleological position, you're already

479
00:37:21,760 --> 00:37:22,440
You're already in it.

480
00:37:22,519 --> 00:37:25,159
Speaker 4: You're already assuming it actions and not just kind of

481
00:37:25,400 --> 00:37:29,840
causal explanatory theories, but reasonable ones. So you know, you know,

482
00:37:29,960 --> 00:37:30,960
I I if I.

483
00:37:32,519 --> 00:37:36,559
Speaker 3: With a you know, drop this rain drops and roses

484
00:37:36,679 --> 00:37:37,280
and whisks.

485
00:37:37,280 --> 00:37:40,559
Speaker 4: Oh no, not that, And if you drink can, then

486
00:37:41,519 --> 00:37:43,360
there's this new tonic, this new tonic.

487
00:37:43,519 --> 00:37:46,159
Speaker 2: Wait at the camera. Oh yes, we're not sponsored, but

488
00:37:47,679 --> 00:37:48,239
maybe one day.

489
00:37:48,320 --> 00:37:49,599
Speaker 4: But if I were, if I were to drop it,

490
00:37:50,559 --> 00:37:53,639
two ways of approaching that. One is approaching explaining that.

491
00:37:54,079 --> 00:37:56,039
One is to say, well, the force of gravity actor

492
00:37:56,079 --> 00:37:57,920
on the can and all of the muscles in my

493
00:37:58,000 --> 00:37:58,880
hand unclenched.

494
00:37:59,000 --> 00:38:01,599
Speaker 3: And they don't say gravity is a forest.

495
00:38:01,679 --> 00:38:05,320
Speaker 4: Dude, Okay, stop, there was a natural signal that went

496
00:38:05,360 --> 00:38:07,320
from my brain to the hand, and that would be

497
00:38:07,360 --> 00:38:12,159
a kind of a mechanistic explanation, right, poppy explanation, like

498
00:38:12,280 --> 00:38:14,480
quite right, always missed the l But that would be

499
00:38:14,599 --> 00:38:18,840
a mechanistic explanation, and whereas a teleological one one in

500
00:38:18,960 --> 00:38:20,079
terms of uh.

501
00:38:20,559 --> 00:38:27,480
Speaker 3: Again, when we argue against physicalists who who try to

502
00:38:28,199 --> 00:38:32,480
defend some purely mechanistic, you know, examination of the whole

503
00:38:32,639 --> 00:38:39,360
entire universe, including their own reasoning, they're assuming, again a

504
00:38:39,480 --> 00:38:43,800
teleological position, that examination has a purpose. They're in a

505
00:38:43,880 --> 00:38:47,679
performative contradiction to say, like a mechanistic universe if it

506
00:38:47,800 --> 00:38:53,760
reduces to note uh, teleology if no purpose, no higher

507
00:38:53,840 --> 00:38:59,559
purpose can be derived from pure mechanics, just effects of

508
00:38:59,639 --> 00:39:08,039
mechanic then asking from a mechanistic universe universal position, what

509
00:39:08,199 --> 00:39:12,360
about teleology is already a contradiction anyway. I mean, it's like,

510
00:39:13,920 --> 00:39:16,199
this is what the problem is with the modern atheist

511
00:39:16,239 --> 00:39:20,920
philosophy is that it holds a basket of the branches

512
00:39:20,960 --> 00:39:27,000
of philosophy, right, just the more basic branches that everything

513
00:39:27,039 --> 00:39:32,119
else kind of falls under. Is epistemology, which is knowledge, metaphysics,

514
00:39:33,000 --> 00:39:38,119
and morality. They like to say ethics, but ultimately it's

515
00:39:38,199 --> 00:39:41,559
morality and everything under that ontology. It's all mixed in

516
00:39:42,119 --> 00:39:44,639
into this basket. And they think they can pick up

517
00:39:45,119 --> 00:39:49,079
parts of the worldview and and divorce them while they're

518
00:39:49,119 --> 00:39:51,280
talking from the other in a basket. But no, that

519
00:39:51,880 --> 00:39:53,920
can't be the case. It's never the case. It could

520
00:39:53,920 --> 00:39:57,280
be demonstrated, it's not the case. For instance, someone says, well,

521
00:39:57,280 --> 00:40:01,960
I'm arguing ontology, not epistemology. They'll do things like this. No,

522
00:40:03,559 --> 00:40:08,519
to make an ontological statement is to make an epistemic statement.

523
00:40:09,719 --> 00:40:13,800
To make an epistemic statement is to assume a metaphysical position.

524
00:40:15,360 --> 00:40:20,920
To take a metaphysical position assumes an ontological and epistemic system.

525
00:40:21,440 --> 00:40:24,320
To argue, we ought to come to some conclusion about it,

526
00:40:24,320 --> 00:40:28,360
and there's a direction A quote good is to assume

527
00:40:28,480 --> 00:40:31,760
the moral branch of philosophy. Now, from a Christian worldview,

528
00:40:32,480 --> 00:40:35,880
we can look at this and make sense of it. Why,

529
00:40:36,039 --> 00:40:40,079
because all of the branches tie into one root, and

530
00:40:40,199 --> 00:40:44,440
the root is a necessary mind, a divine being that's unchanging.

531
00:40:45,920 --> 00:40:48,840
We don't pretend we can hang out on the one

532
00:40:48,920 --> 00:40:51,760
branch without assuming the other two branches. But these guys

533
00:40:51,840 --> 00:40:55,039
do all the time. It's pretty much the foundation of

534
00:40:55,119 --> 00:41:01,159
their entire careers is picking up the roots of the

535
00:41:01,400 --> 00:41:04,760
branches of philosophy like their chopsticks, separated from.

536
00:41:05,400 --> 00:41:09,199
Speaker 4: The rest reasons or purposes. One might say, kind of

537
00:41:09,199 --> 00:41:12,239
broadly construed would be that I wanted to and then

538
00:41:12,320 --> 00:41:17,519
I did, and those two types of explanatory hypothesis often

539
00:41:17,599 --> 00:41:21,760
run parallel in everyday life. Especially Boo and I think

540
00:41:21,800 --> 00:41:22,719
the why is there something wrong?

541
00:41:22,800 --> 00:41:23,039
Speaker 5: Is why?

542
00:41:23,400 --> 00:41:25,400
Speaker 3: This is why I can never get these guys to

543
00:41:25,440 --> 00:41:31,079
talk to me. I'm such a arrogant child. I cannot

544
00:41:31,159 --> 00:41:32,360
listen to these people without.

545
00:41:32,159 --> 00:41:36,119
Speaker 7: Going skippity poppity Boo, eat a hard boiled egg in

546
00:41:36,199 --> 00:41:37,320
a bowl with a tiny.

547
00:41:37,159 --> 00:41:41,159
Speaker 4: Spoon rather than nothing, you know that one, oarsions. I

548
00:41:41,199 --> 00:41:44,400
think that the kind of oh, well there was a

549
00:41:44,480 --> 00:41:47,320
bad bang or like stuff like that, or well, because

550
00:41:47,639 --> 00:41:49,719
you know, we have this causal story that runs towards

551
00:41:49,800 --> 00:41:50,079
this thing.

552
00:41:50,519 --> 00:41:51,800
Speaker 2: Okay, talking about the same thing.

553
00:41:51,840 --> 00:41:54,079
Speaker 3: Okay, let's skip. This is a large section, so let's

554
00:41:54,239 --> 00:41:56,599
let's uh, let's go to the next section.

555
00:41:57,960 --> 00:41:59,679
Speaker 2: Okay, the real question.

556
00:41:59,559 --> 00:42:03,000
Speaker 7: Too, Scooby de bu and it's raining out that starts

557
00:42:03,079 --> 00:42:06,039
with a why I'm in England. It's raining and dark

558
00:42:06,119 --> 00:42:06,920
and dreary out.

559
00:42:08,800 --> 00:42:10,320
Speaker 4: There's a question that atheists can't answer.

560
00:42:10,400 --> 00:42:12,400
Speaker 2: Yeah, that is that is? That is the word? Why

561
00:42:12,519 --> 00:42:13,559
not the letter why? Yes?

562
00:42:13,639 --> 00:42:16,599
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's oh no, that's fantastic. And again I actually

563
00:42:16,639 --> 00:42:19,440
think that this this ties in quite nicely to talking

564
00:42:19,440 --> 00:42:22,199
about before about brilliant we do have this kind of

565
00:42:22,239 --> 00:42:26,599
crying out for teleology in our why questions because that

566
00:42:26,679 --> 00:42:30,639
there there are two like why is wonderfully ambiguous as

567
00:42:30,679 --> 00:42:33,760
a question in everyday life when we ask why, we

568
00:42:33,880 --> 00:42:35,920
often have Yeah, we have. We we mean it in

569
00:42:36,000 --> 00:42:37,639
two ways. What's caused this to be the case and

570
00:42:37,719 --> 00:42:38,960
what is the reason this is the case?

571
00:42:39,199 --> 00:42:41,440
Speaker 3: Yeah, you can't separate the two. What causes it to

572
00:42:41,519 --> 00:42:44,639
be the case cannot be separated from the future reason

573
00:42:44,719 --> 00:42:47,400
to be the case. You can never separate it. It's

574
00:42:47,480 --> 00:42:50,119
never separated. But the atheist view, it is separated. It's

575
00:42:50,159 --> 00:43:01,639
not it's irrelevant. It's irrelevant. I'm bearable. I can't even

576
00:43:01,719 --> 00:43:07,320
do it myself, or you know, it's the hardest accent.

577
00:43:08,159 --> 00:43:13,159
Speaker 4: This is interesting. Richard Bolty kind of offhandedly almost define

578
00:43:13,199 --> 00:43:20,320
this distinction between reasonable and causal explanatory hypotheses. And I

579
00:43:20,400 --> 00:43:22,159
think it's really touch to the point right now, you.

580
00:43:22,199 --> 00:43:26,119
Speaker 3: Can't do that from atheism. Why is he assuming that

581
00:43:26,320 --> 00:43:30,119
from an atheistic view, which is ultimately reduced to mechanisms.

582
00:43:30,719 --> 00:43:33,960
Why would he think that there's this separation between a

583
00:43:34,079 --> 00:43:39,559
causal mechanism and a reasonable explanation, a causal explanation and

584
00:43:39,599 --> 00:43:43,119
a reason well no, you can't have that, you know why,

585
00:43:43,880 --> 00:43:49,000
because under the atheistic view, your reason is caused, Your

586
00:43:49,079 --> 00:43:53,239
reason is caused. So he's trying to now smuggle in

587
00:43:54,639 --> 00:43:59,280
this distinction that you don't actually have called there's reasoning

588
00:43:59,360 --> 00:44:02,920
and it's separate from the mechanistic determine universe that we

589
00:44:03,039 --> 00:44:05,559
hold true. So yeah, we can go back in time

590
00:44:05,639 --> 00:44:08,920
and develop causes and causal explanations until it comes to

591
00:44:09,039 --> 00:44:12,599
my reasoning. Then I must hold that my reasoning is

592
00:44:12,679 --> 00:44:16,840
somehow immune to the mechanistic constraints. They would say, well, no,

593
00:44:17,000 --> 00:44:20,840
I'm not saying that. Well no, it's worse than you think.

594
00:44:22,360 --> 00:44:24,920
Even if you came around and said, well, no, my

595
00:44:25,119 --> 00:44:29,480
reasoning is not immune from the constraints of the mechanical universe.

596
00:44:30,159 --> 00:44:33,719
Well no, I would say, whatever you're calling reasoning is

597
00:44:33,880 --> 00:44:37,800
the mechanical universe. There's no like vantage point where you're

598
00:44:37,840 --> 00:44:42,239
granted some sort of privileged position about your thoughts and

599
00:44:42,360 --> 00:44:47,079
evaluations in your view. The atheist view doesn't matter if

600
00:44:47,119 --> 00:44:50,519
you're an atheist who borrows a platonic view and grants

601
00:44:50,599 --> 00:44:56,239
themselves some immaterial transcendental categories floating in the sky. Ultimately,

602
00:44:57,639 --> 00:45:02,519
the what, the cause, and the the effect all reduced

603
00:45:02,639 --> 00:45:08,079
to pure physical mechanics. But now here he is, Oh,

604
00:45:08,159 --> 00:45:14,000
I grant myself, there's this lovely there's this lovely philosopher

605
00:45:14,119 --> 00:45:19,280
who makes this distinction of cause and reason. Your reason

606
00:45:19,519 --> 00:45:21,239
is caused from your view.

607
00:45:22,800 --> 00:45:26,079
Speaker 4: In certainly in materialist atheism, and that there is no

608
00:45:26,199 --> 00:45:29,440
materialist atheism, which is again it's so fascinating topic, but

609
00:45:29,639 --> 00:45:31,159
it's I think it's about to say that most atheists

610
00:45:31,199 --> 00:45:34,039
are coming up coming at it from a materialist standpoint, right, Yeah,

611
00:45:34,079 --> 00:45:38,840
that that that you you eliminate teleology, You eliminate reasoning.

612
00:45:38,960 --> 00:45:43,840
Speaker 3: Forget teleology, dude, you eliminate reasoning and truth and evaluation.

613
00:45:44,440 --> 00:45:46,960
You eliminate it if you're coming at it from an

614
00:45:46,960 --> 00:45:52,760
atheist perspective, and that reduces to physicalism naturalism. Everything you're doing,

615
00:45:52,920 --> 00:45:55,800
all the things you're saying, is all just downstream from

616
00:45:55,800 --> 00:45:59,639
that initial cause Domino's turtles stuff all the way down.

617
00:46:00,000 --> 00:46:03,079
Speaker 4: You don't have, you know, arguably, you don't have purpose

618
00:46:03,280 --> 00:46:07,360
trumpet and rice pudding reasons in this sense of why

619
00:46:07,440 --> 00:46:07,639
is the.

620
00:46:07,800 --> 00:46:15,039
Speaker 3: Hold an umbrella slide down the banister Scotch eggs.

621
00:46:15,840 --> 00:46:17,599
Speaker 4: Yeah, it basically in the sense of purpose, right in

622
00:46:17,639 --> 00:46:20,760
this teleogical fashion, at which point, yeah, you you actually

623
00:46:20,800 --> 00:46:26,079
do lose questions of why. But it is worth noting

624
00:46:26,159 --> 00:46:28,639
that that's not necessarily that's not actually an implication of atheism.

625
00:46:28,679 --> 00:46:30,880
Speaker 2: It's material material to say that, no.

626
00:46:30,920 --> 00:46:32,880
Speaker 3: No, no, you can't. This is what they always try

627
00:46:32,920 --> 00:46:37,599
to do. They're like, I'm an athist. No, I'm an

628
00:46:37,599 --> 00:46:48,880
asians an interior. I haven't had one atheist who claims

629
00:46:48,880 --> 00:46:55,199
they're nano materialists are able to defend how it is

630
00:46:56,079 --> 00:47:02,719
they deny materialism, if they deny God, not one. All

631
00:47:02,760 --> 00:47:06,320
they do is positive They oh, well, I just hold well,

632
00:47:06,320 --> 00:47:08,719
I'm an atheist. I just you know, I just come

633
00:47:08,760 --> 00:47:11,320
to the conclusion that God. You know, I'm not. It's

634
00:47:11,360 --> 00:47:13,840
not a reasonable belief for me to hold that God exists.

635
00:47:13,880 --> 00:47:17,559
But it is even though I'm using empiricism to deny God,

636
00:47:17,880 --> 00:47:24,039
I'm using evidentialism to deny God's existence. But grant me mind. Also,

637
00:47:24,159 --> 00:47:29,719
something you can't verify through empiricism or evidentialism, knowledge, truth,

638
00:47:29,960 --> 00:47:35,360
laws of thought, meaning regularity of nature, none of which

639
00:47:35,440 --> 00:47:40,480
you can actually verify or or justify. Let's say a

640
00:47:40,519 --> 00:47:46,920
bigger challenge. You can't justify any of it yet, yet

641
00:47:46,960 --> 00:47:52,239
you just hold it to be true. Your very standard

642
00:47:52,280 --> 00:47:58,079
that you use to reject God's existence is not used

643
00:47:58,360 --> 00:48:01,599
for the entire category of things that are outside your

644
00:48:01,679 --> 00:48:05,360
naturalistic paradigm. You just this is the Enlightenment bullshit that

645
00:48:05,400 --> 00:48:07,480
they've been trained in. Well, you don't need to justify

646
00:48:07,519 --> 00:48:13,960
there are oxioms. They're oxioms. No, he hasn't addressed me.

647
00:48:14,039 --> 00:48:16,440
I'm small fish. You kidding me. You got to be

648
00:48:16,519 --> 00:48:19,760
like Ben Shappier or Daily Wire to engage with this guy.

649
00:48:20,239 --> 00:48:23,599
Speaker 2: It's it's not a problem for atheists because you, I mean,

650
00:48:24,880 --> 00:48:27,719
the real problem is when you reduce everything to the material,

651
00:48:27,760 --> 00:48:32,239
which I suppose almost materials. All materialists are going to

652
00:48:32,280 --> 00:48:35,280
be atheists. But it doesn't mean little atheists are going

653
00:48:35,320 --> 00:48:36,039
to be materialist.

654
00:48:36,079 --> 00:48:38,239
Speaker 3: No, no, no, it does. It does mean that. Now

655
00:48:38,280 --> 00:48:42,159
you think that it sounds reasonable to say that, doesn't it? Well, logically, yeah,

656
00:48:42,239 --> 00:48:45,480
we could probably say, well not you know, all materialists

657
00:48:45,519 --> 00:48:49,159
must be atheists, or all atheists or will be materialists,

658
00:48:49,199 --> 00:48:51,320
but not all materials will be atheist. That's not true.

659
00:48:52,199 --> 00:48:56,280
Now you think that's true, But you're just being lazy

660
00:48:56,320 --> 00:48:59,079
about it. No offense, You're just being lazy. All you

661
00:48:59,159 --> 00:49:00,840
have to do is push them by the way. This

662
00:49:00,960 --> 00:49:06,519
still applies to spiritual, not religious. Still applies to spiritual

663
00:49:06,599 --> 00:49:10,880
not religious, the spiritual New Age not religious people. When

664
00:49:10,920 --> 00:49:13,599
you press them, they're like, no, I'm not a materialist,

665
00:49:13,679 --> 00:49:15,519
and you go you press them and guess what they do.

666
00:49:15,599 --> 00:49:20,679
They reduce God to material to energy, to frequencies, to stars,

667
00:49:22,119 --> 00:49:25,800
to you know, feelings, to vibes, whatever it is. They

668
00:49:25,840 --> 00:49:30,280
are materialists, and so are the atheists they are.

669
00:49:32,320 --> 00:49:34,559
Speaker 2: You could be an atheist who believes that, you know,

670
00:49:34,719 --> 00:49:37,239
consciousness is immaterial or something, but you still don't believe

671
00:49:37,239 --> 00:49:37,519
in God.

672
00:49:37,760 --> 00:49:40,239
Speaker 3: Now you can't justify that. We're not talking about beliefs.

673
00:49:41,880 --> 00:49:44,360
This is why Jay Dyer sighs so much in his

674
00:49:45,119 --> 00:49:49,840
engagements is because they constantly conflate whether or not you

675
00:49:49,960 --> 00:49:53,960
can believe something and whether or not you can coherently

676
00:49:54,079 --> 00:49:57,800
defend it in your paradigm. So these people come to

677
00:49:57,840 --> 00:50:01,519
the oh, well, no, an atheist can believe in the

678
00:50:01,599 --> 00:50:05,239
mind and the consciousness is immaterial, so therefore they're not materials. No,

679
00:50:05,679 --> 00:50:08,599
when you ask them to justify the consciousness, they will

680
00:50:08,639 --> 00:50:13,039
show up as materialists immediately. That's why justification is a

681
00:50:13,079 --> 00:50:16,280
good question, not something you just you don't just grant

682
00:50:16,360 --> 00:50:20,679
an atheist axiomatically that consciousness is immaterial. Even though we

683
00:50:20,760 --> 00:50:23,559
agree with that, you don't just grant it to them

684
00:50:23,840 --> 00:50:26,960
under their view. You don't let them borrow from the

685
00:50:27,039 --> 00:50:30,960
supernatural the Christian worldview without justification.

686
00:50:33,320 --> 00:50:33,840
Speaker 5: But he does.

687
00:50:33,960 --> 00:50:37,239
Speaker 3: Oh, they believe it. So so that's like saying, well,

688
00:50:37,280 --> 00:50:42,199
there are Christians who believe in Christ isn't divine, so

689
00:50:42,559 --> 00:50:46,679
you can be a Christian. No, no, you can't. You

690
00:50:46,760 --> 00:50:48,559
can claim that that's different.

691
00:50:48,679 --> 00:50:50,599
Speaker 2: Like the problem I've always had with the example you

692
00:50:50,679 --> 00:50:53,559
gave of that sort of being these two competing styles

693
00:50:53,599 --> 00:50:57,719
of explanation. It's it's something I hate commonly and religious discourse.

694
00:50:57,360 --> 00:50:59,599
Speaker 3: Like, okay, let's go to the next one. Atheists, that

695
00:51:00,760 --> 00:51:02,519
is art.

696
00:51:01,920 --> 00:51:06,840
Speaker 2: Atheists cannot get an ord from it. Is well to

697
00:51:06,920 --> 00:51:08,719
a some extent that that's a strong Argment's just that

698
00:51:08,760 --> 00:51:11,440
no one can make some this is this is a

699
00:51:11,559 --> 00:51:12,599
fairly common.

700
00:51:13,239 --> 00:51:15,599
Speaker 3: I've actually explored this, and even though it's a really

701
00:51:15,679 --> 00:51:19,440
good counter to someone who's committing the naturalistic fallacy or

702
00:51:19,639 --> 00:51:23,480
you know, like answers and atheism saying morality is biological

703
00:51:23,880 --> 00:51:26,199
or whatever it is. I thought about this and I

704
00:51:26,280 --> 00:51:29,920
still haven't fully exhausted it. And maybe you guys can

705
00:51:29,960 --> 00:51:33,440
give me feedback in the chat here when they say

706
00:51:34,400 --> 00:51:37,800
there's the is art gap that famously has been put

707
00:51:37,880 --> 00:51:50,480
on the marquee of philosophy, Hume, it removes am I

708
00:51:50,559 --> 00:51:56,039
getting throttled already? It removes the capability of saying we

709
00:51:56,159 --> 00:51:58,719
ought to come to truth like the art claim we

710
00:51:58,880 --> 00:52:03,880
ought to come to truth that I was thinking, well,

711
00:52:08,599 --> 00:52:11,719
if looking at the world as it is and describing

712
00:52:11,760 --> 00:52:13,400
the world as it is could never give you the

713
00:52:13,559 --> 00:52:17,800
ought to be question, which I agree with. There is

714
00:52:17,920 --> 00:52:22,480
one road that I've explored whether or not this gets

715
00:52:22,519 --> 00:52:23,760
out of it out of it, and I don't know

716
00:52:23,840 --> 00:52:27,159
that it does, so you guys can tell me. But

717
00:52:29,119 --> 00:52:32,079
if it's the case, if the is a if the

718
00:52:32,280 --> 00:52:36,559
isness of reality is that there's not a single person

719
00:52:39,000 --> 00:52:47,159
who can demonstrate not valuing truth. Now I'm not talking

720
00:52:47,159 --> 00:52:56,519
about someone who's incapacitated. I'm saying with their faculties intact,

721
00:52:59,360 --> 00:53:02,840
with their faculty, these faculties intact. Is it the case

722
00:53:02,960 --> 00:53:11,039
that everybody who exists can't escape valuing truth? And you think, well,

723
00:53:11,079 --> 00:53:15,000
what's valuing truth? Like you're consciously thinking, I value this claim,

724
00:53:15,039 --> 00:53:17,960
I value this claim like this active, which it is active.

725
00:53:18,360 --> 00:53:21,599
I'm not talking about that. I'm more fundamentally I'm talking

726
00:53:21,599 --> 00:53:24,360
about can you even exist in the world. You wake up,

727
00:53:24,639 --> 00:53:28,199
you get out of bed, just waking up and getting

728
00:53:28,239 --> 00:53:32,639
out of bed? Can you is it? It's impossible from

729
00:53:32,679 --> 00:53:35,280
my view, to wake up and do the action of

730
00:53:35,360 --> 00:53:44,800
getting out of bed without even unknowingly or unconsciously valuing truth.

731
00:53:46,840 --> 00:53:49,719
What's the foundation? What is the that you exist, that

732
00:53:50,039 --> 00:53:52,760
there's a bed, that you're trusting your senses, that your

733
00:53:53,400 --> 00:53:56,719
your body is following the commands of your mind and

734
00:53:56,800 --> 00:54:04,039
your brain. You're already appealing to truth. You're already appealing

735
00:54:04,079 --> 00:54:08,719
to the truth. So if the argument is, if it's

736
00:54:08,800 --> 00:54:12,639
the case that everybody who exists, who has their faculties,

737
00:54:12,960 --> 00:54:17,239
values truth and they can't not, then now you have

738
00:54:17,280 --> 00:54:22,519
an If you have an if if you value truth,

739
00:54:26,000 --> 00:54:28,960
then how can you escape the aught? I'm not sure

740
00:54:29,119 --> 00:54:32,480
how you can escape the aught of that. So if

741
00:54:32,519 --> 00:54:34,880
the question if the like frame like this, if you

742
00:54:35,039 --> 00:54:38,360
value truth, then you ought to be consistent. I think

743
00:54:38,400 --> 00:54:41,559
most people agree with that. If you value because there's

744
00:54:41,559 --> 00:54:45,039
an if there's a conditional. If you value truth, you

745
00:54:45,239 --> 00:54:50,199
ought to be consistent, you ought to be coherent. Well,

746
00:54:51,000 --> 00:54:54,440
if it's the case that everybody who exists values truth,

747
00:54:54,599 --> 00:54:57,280
and you can't not value truth unless you're just like,

748
00:54:57,760 --> 00:55:02,039
you know, brain dead, your faculty are gone. If it's

749
00:55:02,079 --> 00:55:06,119
the case that everybody who exists values truth, then everybody

750
00:55:06,239 --> 00:55:07,239
ought to be consistent.

751
00:55:12,400 --> 00:55:16,840
Speaker 2: Theme in this genre of response video I find because

752
00:55:17,280 --> 00:55:21,760
you know, why does the universe exist? The smammy atheist says,

753
00:55:22,280 --> 00:55:22,679
I like that.

754
00:55:22,760 --> 00:55:25,440
Speaker 3: He says they're smarmy atheists at least, I mean they're

755
00:55:25,440 --> 00:55:28,840
smarmy theists too. Marcus says, I would say, more broadly,

756
00:55:28,880 --> 00:55:31,679
you are appealing to intelligibility, but truth is not separate

757
00:55:31,800 --> 00:55:36,119
from that. Really well, yeah, I would say to point

758
00:55:36,159 --> 00:55:40,199
to intelligibility assumes the laws of logic, law of identity,

759
00:55:40,360 --> 00:55:44,320
that there's a you intelligibly interacting with an intelligible world

760
00:55:44,360 --> 00:55:46,920
that's not identical to your mind and brain and body.

761
00:55:49,119 --> 00:55:52,000
But that the really the thing that I'm trying to

762
00:55:52,320 --> 00:55:55,239
present is that they say you can't get in is

763
00:55:55,440 --> 00:55:58,400
an ought from it is, But you could only get

764
00:55:58,440 --> 00:56:00,519
an aught from it is if there is an if.

765
00:56:01,320 --> 00:56:04,639
But the on there's the reality we're in has an

766
00:56:04,760 --> 00:56:13,280
unescapable If I'm not inconsistent with veganism, Veganism is garbage.

767
00:56:14,599 --> 00:56:18,639
Veganism is absolute trash. It's never rising, it's always going

768
00:56:18,719 --> 00:56:24,920
to be under one percent. Veganism is complete trash. Vegan

769
00:56:25,039 --> 00:56:32,880
metaphysics is garbage. It's it's a it's a horrific position.

770
00:56:33,760 --> 00:56:36,320
Speaker 2: I don't know, and neither do you. And the point

771
00:56:36,400 --> 00:56:39,840
is like, like, you're asking a legitimate question, but it's

772
00:56:39,880 --> 00:56:42,360
a legitimate question that your answer to is either, like

773
00:56:42,480 --> 00:56:44,599
you say, a bit sort of ad hoc or a

774
00:56:44,679 --> 00:56:48,800
bit unsatisfactory or a bit silly, or you know, subject

775
00:56:48,920 --> 00:56:52,400
to its own analysis and questions. So can an atheist

776
00:56:52,400 --> 00:56:55,639
get an orphroman is no, But like you say, cannethists

777
00:56:55,639 --> 00:56:57,360
do it either. I had this debate with Ben Shapiro

778
00:56:57,760 --> 00:56:58,400
and Ben Shapier.

779
00:56:58,639 --> 00:57:00,880
Speaker 3: Wow, Ben Shapira can't get an art from it is

780
00:57:01,000 --> 00:57:04,039
even if he appeals to the ultimate circularity of God.

781
00:57:04,159 --> 00:57:09,719
He has a unknowable God. He has an unknowable bagel

782
00:57:09,760 --> 00:57:10,840
God Bagel.

783
00:57:12,320 --> 00:57:14,480
Speaker 5: Cool it with the anti Semitic remarks.

784
00:57:15,199 --> 00:57:17,599
Speaker 3: It makes sense that you would debate Ben Shapiro, who

785
00:57:17,639 --> 00:57:22,800
couldn't possibly defend the ultimate circularity of is to art,

786
00:57:23,119 --> 00:57:31,719
is to morality, which can only be God. He's gonna

787
00:57:31,800 --> 00:57:34,199
he can't, he can't do it, And I.

788
00:57:34,360 --> 00:57:36,920
Speaker 2: Think I didn't express this particular point well enough on

789
00:57:37,000 --> 00:57:40,719
basically everything he was saying. You know, well, if you're

790
00:57:40,719 --> 00:57:43,840
an atheist, free will can't exist. If you're an atheist,

791
00:57:43,920 --> 00:57:46,280
you know, there's there's no way to get aught if

792
00:57:46,280 --> 00:57:47,840
you're an And I was just sort of like, yeah,

793
00:57:48,599 --> 00:57:50,840
like totally, you're you're you're right, But but where the

794
00:57:50,880 --> 00:57:52,679
hell are you getting it from? What difference does it

795
00:57:52,719 --> 00:57:55,039
make if if there's a god? And I think with

796
00:57:55,119 --> 00:57:59,079
the question even even if just to be clear, like

797
00:57:59,119 --> 00:58:01,559
there are sort of two questions to I mean, the

798
00:58:01,639 --> 00:58:06,559
question actually have written down, is or rather the subject

799
00:58:06,599 --> 00:58:09,159
to the statement, the question of why we ought to

800
00:58:09,199 --> 00:58:11,199
do anything aside from arbitrary p.

801
00:58:11,559 --> 00:58:15,360
Speaker 3: Whoa, I had no idea. Rachel shout out to Rachel

802
00:58:15,400 --> 00:58:22,119
Wilson getting a question up on I didn't see that,

803
00:58:22,280 --> 00:58:31,440
Rachel spotted in the wild. Nice Alex O'Connor brings your

804
00:58:31,519 --> 00:58:33,920
question up, the question of why we ought to do

805
00:58:34,039 --> 00:58:37,719
anything aside from arbitrary preference right preference?

806
00:58:38,400 --> 00:58:40,159
Speaker 2: And so there are sort of two questions hovering here.

807
00:58:40,239 --> 00:58:43,960
There's can atheists have a concept of aught? And I

808
00:58:44,039 --> 00:58:46,679
think it's legitimate to maybe say that, you know, the

809
00:58:46,719 --> 00:58:50,119
concept of aught can only come from God. But if

810
00:58:50,159 --> 00:58:52,280
the question specifically as can you get an aught from

811
00:58:52,360 --> 00:58:56,079
an is? Even God doesn't help you there or God does,

812
00:58:56,159 --> 00:58:59,239
is just gives you the aught to derive more aughts from.

813
00:58:59,480 --> 00:59:01,400
Speaker 4: Yes, I mean I think, well, yeah, and that makes

814
00:59:01,400 --> 00:59:03,239
sense right because it's it's yeah.

815
00:59:03,280 --> 00:59:06,159
Speaker 3: But here's here's my point is that when someone's arguing,

816
00:59:07,920 --> 00:59:10,840
they're already assuming and ought to be consistent by arguing

817
00:59:10,880 --> 00:59:15,760
the isart problem. So here they are debating the is

818
00:59:15,880 --> 00:59:21,719
aught while while while assuming an otness toward consistency. This

819
00:59:21,880 --> 00:59:26,239
is where atheism breaks down. If it's unavoidable to argue

820
00:59:26,480 --> 00:59:29,599
without assuming an oughtness to consistency and some sort of

821
00:59:29,679 --> 00:59:34,880
direction toward truth. If it's unavoidable, the atheist doesn't have

822
00:59:34,920 --> 00:59:42,320
any reason to pursue truth, and the Christian does. The

823
00:59:42,440 --> 00:59:48,159
Christian does have a position that's coherent toward truth. Why

824
00:59:49,119 --> 00:59:53,159
pursue truth? This is why it falls apart. The same

825
00:59:53,280 --> 00:59:56,920
reason why atheists don't like to be precept or tagged

826
00:59:57,000 --> 01:00:00,719
is because what's in question is why you're even standing

827
01:00:00,800 --> 01:00:03,519
in front of me arguing. From your view, can you

828
01:00:03,599 --> 01:00:08,280
even justify coming to the debate arena? Moving the needle

829
01:00:08,400 --> 01:00:12,239
toward truth. In the atheist world, it's descriptions of reality.

830
01:00:12,320 --> 01:00:15,800
In the Christian world, it's toward a being, a participation

831
01:00:16,559 --> 01:00:20,800
unity with the being, a likeness to the being, not

832
01:00:21,000 --> 01:00:25,840
descriptions of the world. They have no reason to show

833
01:00:25,920 --> 01:00:30,159
up for a debate. They're just saying, well, for the

834
01:00:30,199 --> 01:00:32,760
sake of business and the sake of traveling, the think

835
01:00:32,800 --> 01:00:36,159
of debating, I have an intellectual and Prouns mean we

836
01:00:36,480 --> 01:00:38,320
assume that we need to come to trade with me

837
01:00:38,679 --> 01:00:40,840
or to debate. Well, why debate?

838
01:00:40,960 --> 01:00:41,119
Speaker 5: Then?

839
01:00:46,199 --> 01:00:50,000
Speaker 3: Why debate? They're in their own conundrum right now. That's

840
01:00:50,039 --> 01:00:52,400
the difference between a Christian view and an atheist view

841
01:00:52,480 --> 01:00:56,880
is if you're arguing, is ought is something we ought

842
01:00:56,960 --> 01:01:04,079
to acknowledge the same way we ought to acknowledge it? Consistencies, fallacies, uh, wrong, wrong,

843
01:01:05,920 --> 01:01:11,960
the wrong approach to logic, in formal fallacies, the fact

844
01:01:11,960 --> 01:01:15,719
that you debate this stuff as intellectuals, in doing philosophy,

845
01:01:16,679 --> 01:01:21,320
you're already assuming and ought. If you want to be consistent, well,

846
01:01:21,320 --> 01:01:25,599
why be consistent? Then that's the ultimate defeat or to atheism,

847
01:01:26,159 --> 01:01:28,159
why come to truth? That's why when they call in

848
01:01:28,639 --> 01:01:31,159
and less and less of them do now, But you

849
01:01:31,280 --> 01:01:34,519
remember Danny, the little squeaky teacher called in and he's

850
01:01:34,599 --> 01:01:36,599
arguing about tag and stuff, and I said, yeah, well,

851
01:01:36,679 --> 01:01:39,719
the you know, forget X is the necessary precondition for

852
01:01:40,159 --> 01:01:44,920
why God, necessary precondition for knowledge for a second, why

853
01:01:45,159 --> 01:01:49,320
from your atheistic view, is an important to rearrange what

854
01:01:49,480 --> 01:01:54,880
people believe toward truthness whatever you call that. And they can't.

855
01:01:56,039 --> 01:02:03,360
They have no reason. I don't know. They say progress. Well, no,

856
01:02:03,480 --> 01:02:04,199
that's arbitrary.

857
01:02:05,480 --> 01:02:05,679
Speaker 4: JB.

858
01:02:05,920 --> 01:02:08,760
Speaker 3: Weezer says. I asked Breakfast Tacos how the universal quantum

859
01:02:08,800 --> 01:02:12,039
field theory could even minimally account for morality when by

860
01:02:12,159 --> 01:02:15,440
its own admission, it can't even model gravity, he refused,

861
01:02:15,519 --> 01:02:19,239
he won't answer direct questions. I do recommend many of

862
01:02:19,320 --> 01:02:21,719
you go to the Politics Discord and ask him the

863
01:02:21,800 --> 01:02:24,679
same hard hitting, simple questions that I have, and just

864
01:02:24,920 --> 01:02:30,119
flood him. Go there, flood him with the questions, simple

865
01:02:30,480 --> 01:02:33,400
simple questions for breakfast Taco in his own server, he

866
01:02:33,559 --> 01:02:38,920
runs the Politics Discord. I invite you flood the Politics

867
01:02:39,000 --> 01:02:44,480
Discord focusing on Breakfast tacos inability to answer a simple question.

868
01:02:45,599 --> 01:02:48,880
Is the arising of the sun not the rising the

869
01:02:49,000 --> 01:02:52,840
arising of it as an object from previous objects? Is

870
01:02:52,920 --> 01:02:53,760
that a process.

871
01:02:57,400 --> 01:03:00,800
Speaker 4: It's the problem of the old problem. This is kind

872
01:03:00,840 --> 01:03:02,199
of controversial me to say, but I think it's a

873
01:03:02,239 --> 01:03:07,760
logical problem. Right, You're your attempt from an is because

874
01:03:08,039 --> 01:03:10,119
because of the idea that you know, basically, anything within

875
01:03:10,119 --> 01:03:13,199
the logical closure of the statements you write must in

876
01:03:13,400 --> 01:03:16,920
some way be contained within those original statements. Otherwise we

877
01:03:16,960 --> 01:03:19,360
would be doing otherwise we wouldn't be doing logic, would

878
01:03:19,360 --> 01:03:22,679
be doing something else, or we wouldn't be doing deduction,

879
01:03:22,760 --> 01:03:23,599
we'd be doing something else.

880
01:03:24,639 --> 01:03:27,719
Speaker 3: Imagine they both had those mustaches. This would be very uncomfortable.

881
01:03:27,840 --> 01:03:30,920
Speaker 4: Would suggest that it is. It is primarily it just

882
01:03:31,039 --> 01:03:32,000
is an intractable problem.

883
01:03:32,079 --> 01:03:32,199
Speaker 5: Right.

884
01:03:32,239 --> 01:03:35,119
Speaker 4: You cannot get an aught from an is because if

885
01:03:35,159 --> 01:03:37,800
you could via if you could get deductively go from

886
01:03:38,000 --> 01:03:40,480
is to aught, then the aught must have been there originally.

887
01:03:40,639 --> 01:03:42,519
Speaker 2: Well, here's a question that I spoke about on a

888
01:03:42,599 --> 01:03:50,719
recent queen A Can you get an is from an aught?

889
01:03:52,519 --> 01:03:54,719
Because if you have an aught statement like you know,

890
01:03:54,920 --> 01:03:59,559
you ought, you know, like tidy the garden, then it

891
01:03:59,599 --> 01:04:02,559
does seem to contain within that the is statement that

892
01:04:02,639 --> 01:04:05,400
there is a garden, even even though it's like not

893
01:04:05,639 --> 01:04:08,639
really there explicitly, because the statement is just you ought to,

894
01:04:09,480 --> 01:04:11,960
you know, tidy the garden. It seems like you can say,

895
01:04:12,159 --> 01:04:14,159
therefore there is a garden.

896
01:04:14,480 --> 01:04:15,159
Speaker 4: Yes, I think that.

897
01:04:16,159 --> 01:04:18,079
Speaker 2: And if it were a logical problem, if it were

898
01:04:18,119 --> 01:04:19,679
like these are just two total.

899
01:04:20,079 --> 01:04:26,199
Speaker 3: That's not deep. That's like saying, well, if I'm using

900
01:04:26,280 --> 01:04:30,320
words that refer to things we already assume exist. Does

901
01:04:30,360 --> 01:04:34,960
an art statement make a garden exist? No, you don't

902
01:04:35,000 --> 01:04:39,360
get the is from the art statement. You're you're saying,

903
01:04:39,519 --> 01:04:42,840
we ought to attend to the garden already assumes there's

904
01:04:42,880 --> 01:04:45,880
a garden. It's not after you make the statement. Are

905
01:04:45,920 --> 01:04:51,800
these people retarded? All caps? Breakfast Tacos? You fell into

906
01:04:51,840 --> 01:04:53,960
my trap? No you didn't. You didn't set a trap.

907
01:04:55,119 --> 01:04:58,480
You couldn't answer basic questions. Breakfast taco I already went

908
01:04:58,519 --> 01:04:58,800
over it.

909
01:04:58,880 --> 01:04:59,079
Speaker 5: Dude.

910
01:05:01,280 --> 01:05:05,440
Speaker 3: Your premise one is everything we observe to exist arises

911
01:05:05,519 --> 01:05:09,719
from previous stuff. I asked you, does regularity and nature

912
01:05:09,760 --> 01:05:13,519
exist as a phenomenon? You have to say yes. If

913
01:05:13,599 --> 01:05:17,679
it's true that the regularity of nature exists and we

914
01:05:17,800 --> 01:05:20,679
observe it, then you have to say the regularity of

915
01:05:20,800 --> 01:05:23,840
nature arises from previous stuff. And you can't do that.

916
01:05:24,000 --> 01:05:26,480
It's the end of your argument. Dude, that's why you

917
01:05:26,719 --> 01:05:28,840
fail to answer the question because you know it is.

918
01:05:30,360 --> 01:05:36,480
You said in our quote conversation Breakfast Tacos that what's

919
01:05:36,559 --> 01:05:39,639
more fundamental is that stuff arises from stuff. Well, that's

920
01:05:39,679 --> 01:05:46,760
a process. You said, the stuff arising from stuff developed

921
01:05:47,320 --> 01:05:50,519
the regularity. That's what you said. Can you imagine that

922
01:05:51,599 --> 01:05:55,360
you said the stuff arising from stuff developed the regularity.

923
01:05:55,440 --> 01:05:59,199
I'm sorry. The reason I asked, Breakfast Tacos is is

924
01:05:59,280 --> 01:06:02,480
if stuff arises from stuff is a process, which you

925
01:06:02,559 --> 01:06:06,000
fail to answer. The answer is yes, it's a process.

926
01:06:06,679 --> 01:06:11,800
That means stuff arises from stuff is regular That means

927
01:06:11,920 --> 01:06:17,920
your statement stuff arises from stuff develops regularity. It requires regularity.

928
01:06:17,960 --> 01:06:21,440
You can't say develop anything without regularity. So it's the

929
01:06:21,559 --> 01:06:24,480
end of your argument. Some of the atheists following you

930
01:06:24,639 --> 01:06:28,599
know this. Most of them don't, but it's the end

931
01:06:28,639 --> 01:06:33,199
of your argument. Your premise is flawed. Premise one is flawed.

932
01:06:35,360 --> 01:06:39,000
Another problem is you're attempting to make an inductive argument

933
01:06:39,000 --> 01:06:42,360
about particulars, and your conclusion isn't about a particular it's

934
01:06:42,360 --> 01:06:47,199
about a universal premise one. Everything we see to exist

935
01:06:47,320 --> 01:06:52,920
arises from previous stuff. Premise too. The universe exists. The

936
01:06:53,079 --> 01:06:57,960
universe isn't a particular therefore the universe arises from previous stuff.

937
01:06:58,000 --> 01:07:01,119
That's your argument. That's your argument. The problem with your

938
01:07:01,199 --> 01:07:04,039
argument is when you make an inductive argument about the

939
01:07:04,119 --> 01:07:07,440
particulars in the world, you can only conclude about other

940
01:07:07,559 --> 01:07:10,519
particulars in the world. That's what an inductive argument would be.

941
01:07:10,880 --> 01:07:13,280
I see particulars in the world act like this. Here's

942
01:07:13,320 --> 01:07:15,559
a particular in the world. I'm gonna assume it acts

943
01:07:15,599 --> 01:07:18,719
like that thing. That's an inductive argument. You can't say

944
01:07:18,760 --> 01:07:21,760
the particulars in the world act a certain way, therefore

945
01:07:21,840 --> 01:07:28,000
the whole acts the same way. That's a composition fallacy.

946
01:07:30,119 --> 01:07:35,679
So again, you got your breakfast tacos, got sent into

947
01:07:35,760 --> 01:07:38,840
the microwave by mister Jimbob, I put it on high

948
01:07:39,000 --> 01:07:44,119
for four minutes, and now you just have leftover components.

949
01:07:44,639 --> 01:07:49,199
It's over the fact that you failed to answer very

950
01:07:49,320 --> 01:07:55,960
basic cross examination questions means that you're not confident in

951
01:07:56,079 --> 01:07:59,320
your argument. The fact that you yelled, talked over me.

952
01:07:59,519 --> 01:08:05,360
You basically rage quit rage quitting is this You failed

953
01:08:05,639 --> 01:08:09,760
deliberately avoided questions and failed to answer questions simple as this.

954
01:08:10,400 --> 01:08:14,559
You couldn't answer whether the sun arising from previous stuff

955
01:08:14,800 --> 01:08:17,760
is itself a process? That's how simple the question was. Dude,

956
01:08:19,760 --> 01:08:21,079
he demonstrated bad faith.

957
01:08:21,520 --> 01:08:29,279
Speaker 2: Okay, totally separate logical categories. Then it would seem like

958
01:08:29,680 --> 01:08:31,119
you wouldn't be able to go either way.

959
01:08:31,359 --> 01:08:32,720
Speaker 4: Well, so as in the.

960
01:08:33,119 --> 01:08:35,720
Speaker 3: Now, back to this, just to show how stupid what

961
01:08:35,920 --> 01:08:38,680
Alex just said. And this is a problem with high

962
01:08:38,800 --> 01:08:43,239
level philosophy. They assume each other our past stupid stupid statements.

963
01:08:43,359 --> 01:08:46,119
That's not none of us are past making stupid statements,

964
01:08:46,199 --> 01:08:49,560
none of us. But when your higher level philosophy, it's

965
01:08:49,600 --> 01:08:52,000
more likely that you're gonna assume someone didn't make a

966
01:08:52,039 --> 01:08:54,640
stupid statement. But he did, and the stupid statement was well,

967
01:08:54,920 --> 01:08:57,000
can't we get an is from an aught? So if

968
01:08:57,039 --> 01:09:00,720
I say we ought to tend to the garden, that

969
01:09:00,840 --> 01:09:06,600
doesn't necessitate a garden. That means the garden already existed

970
01:09:06,680 --> 01:09:10,279
as a referend So no, the aught statement about the garden,

971
01:09:10,840 --> 01:09:13,359
the garden would still exist even if you didn't need

972
01:09:13,439 --> 01:09:16,159
to tend to the garden. So the ought state and

973
01:09:16,319 --> 01:09:20,000
didn't produce the is of the garden. The garden existed

974
01:09:20,439 --> 01:09:22,880
as a reference that you can say tend to the

975
01:09:22,920 --> 01:09:25,439
garden or not tend to the garden. You can say,

976
01:09:25,760 --> 01:09:27,880
don't tend to the garden, and the garden still exists.

977
01:09:27,920 --> 01:09:35,920
So that was really stupid. You saw what happened, Mendoza.

978
01:09:36,800 --> 01:09:41,359
You saw the absolute destruction of breakfast tacos. Just just

979
01:09:42,720 --> 01:09:46,279
I just ripped, ripped it to shreds. Simple questions. That's

980
01:09:46,319 --> 01:09:51,840
what I'm learning, Simple questions, less talking, simple questions. Toast

981
01:09:53,640 --> 01:10:00,279
toasted tacos. He by the way, between the two of us,

982
01:10:00,359 --> 01:10:05,479
who did four to five consecutive COPE analysis streams of

983
01:10:05,560 --> 01:10:10,399
the conversation, me or you, Joy says ten dollars, Thank you, Joy.

984
01:10:10,439 --> 01:10:13,960
I wonder if they both tacked tacitly know if the

985
01:10:14,039 --> 01:10:16,399
other isn't being consistent or honest. Atheists tend to allow

986
01:10:16,439 --> 01:10:19,920
each other. I always say this, Joy. I think whether

987
01:10:20,000 --> 01:10:22,880
they know it or not, I don't know. But I

988
01:10:23,039 --> 01:10:27,399
find that theists, even general feists or umbrella Christians who

989
01:10:27,520 --> 01:10:29,960
kind of you know, debate each other. They don't let

990
01:10:30,000 --> 01:10:33,439
each other off the hook just because they kind of

991
01:10:33,920 --> 01:10:38,039
wholesale agree with each other's general assumptions about the reality

992
01:10:38,079 --> 01:10:40,840
about a Christian view or whatever. They don't let each

993
01:10:40,840 --> 01:10:43,680
other off the hook. I mean they infight a lot.

994
01:10:45,760 --> 01:10:47,119
They don't do this in atheism.

995
01:10:47,199 --> 01:10:49,479
Speaker 4: There it would be if you were saying you ought

996
01:10:49,640 --> 01:10:54,199
to tidy the golden someone might respond by saying, well,

997
01:10:54,600 --> 01:10:56,119
the reason you can get it there is a golden

998
01:10:56,159 --> 01:10:59,279
from there is because within the you alt to tidy

999
01:10:59,319 --> 01:11:03,279
the goblin is the sub idea that the garden exists. Right,

1000
01:11:03,319 --> 01:11:05,720
it's and it's it's sort of a it's just sort

1001
01:11:05,720 --> 01:11:08,159
of within the within the constraints of deductive logic.

1002
01:11:08,279 --> 01:11:11,039
Speaker 3: That but maybe because like I mean, that was really

1003
01:11:11,760 --> 01:11:12,720
he just corrected him.

1004
01:11:12,760 --> 01:11:16,039
Speaker 2: But like it could be incorrect that there exists a garden.

1005
01:11:16,079 --> 01:11:18,960
Somebody could could think you ought to tie to the garden.

1006
01:11:18,760 --> 01:11:21,119
Speaker 3: And this is where you have to go five dollars,

1007
01:11:21,399 --> 01:11:23,479
Thank you so much, Bob Chat. The fact that Breakfast

1008
01:11:23,560 --> 01:11:26,680
Tacos is listening, probably recording for specific responses instead of

1009
01:11:26,720 --> 01:11:28,920
engaging in debate and discussion shows he's not about truth

1010
01:11:28,960 --> 01:11:29,359
but ego.

1011
01:11:29,920 --> 01:11:30,159
Speaker 8: He is.

1012
01:11:30,239 --> 01:11:33,960
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's he's doing a pig snake approach, right, you

1013
01:11:34,319 --> 01:11:37,800
fill the pig snake. He can engage with my cross examination.

1014
01:11:38,000 --> 01:11:40,119
That's all we need to know. He can do all

1015
01:11:40,199 --> 01:11:42,319
this other stuff. He could do all this ranting and

1016
01:11:42,399 --> 01:11:52,600
raving he cannot engage with very basic questions like is

1017
01:11:52,720 --> 01:11:54,760
the sun arising from previous matter?

1018
01:11:54,840 --> 01:11:58,640
Speaker 2: A process be wrong but still derived from that, I guess,

1019
01:11:58,680 --> 01:12:01,079
I guess, like okay, to fine, like it like sub

1020
01:12:01,199 --> 01:12:04,319
contains the like assertion that a god can exist.

1021
01:12:04,439 --> 01:12:07,640
Speaker 3: Oh stop, Alex, just stop it ultra void five dollars.

1022
01:12:07,680 --> 01:12:10,000
Professor Tacos tell him that the statement has changed to

1023
01:12:10,159 --> 01:12:13,760
stuff evolves from previous stuff. Right, Yeah, well he also

1024
01:12:13,880 --> 01:12:15,359
changed his argument a little bit.

1025
01:12:18,399 --> 01:12:20,199
Speaker 2: But is there any way for somebody to say that

1026
01:12:20,319 --> 01:12:23,720
some is statements sort of subcontain automatic ords.

1027
01:12:23,800 --> 01:12:25,439
Speaker 4: Well, I think that is kind of what the theists.

1028
01:12:25,720 --> 01:12:27,399
That is kind of a theist position, right, because if

1029
01:12:27,439 --> 01:12:30,760
as in what it is a position that if it

1030
01:12:30,800 --> 01:12:33,960
gets in called to solve morality, then that is part

1031
01:12:33,960 --> 01:12:35,479
of your position, right, because you're saying.

1032
01:12:36,399 --> 01:12:42,319
Speaker 3: Well, not just that using God is a better explanation

1033
01:12:42,479 --> 01:12:46,039
for why we ought to pursue truthful beliefs or true

1034
01:12:46,239 --> 01:12:50,079
statements about reality. The atheist has no reason this is

1035
01:12:50,560 --> 01:12:55,800
so this whole thing can an atheists in and off

1036
01:12:55,800 --> 01:13:01,520
from is explain divine senses worked civilization guide to truth

1037
01:13:01,640 --> 01:13:04,640
that might exist? I mean their section in trusting human

1038
01:13:04,720 --> 01:13:07,119
rational as a guide to truth might cover this. Where

1039
01:13:07,159 --> 01:13:08,960
do the laws from logic come from? That's a good one.

1040
01:13:09,000 --> 01:13:11,359
What's consciousness of great we'll get to all these What

1041
01:13:11,800 --> 01:13:14,279
one question that's brutal that you don't need any of

1042
01:13:14,319 --> 01:13:17,319
these other questions for. So there's actually one question the

1043
01:13:17,359 --> 01:13:21,199
atheists can't answer. That the fact that they can't answer

1044
01:13:21,239 --> 01:13:25,279
this one question any other question in this video that's listed,

1045
01:13:25,359 --> 01:13:28,560
it doesn't really matter. And the one question they can't

1046
01:13:28,560 --> 01:13:32,279
answer that renders all the other questions in this video

1047
01:13:32,760 --> 01:13:39,399
irrelevant or secondary at best, is why ought we come

1048
01:13:39,520 --> 01:13:43,720
to truth? Why ought we pursue truth? This is a

1049
01:13:43,800 --> 01:13:56,079
teleological question. Teleology and ontology are It's a cryptonite. It's

1050
01:13:56,119 --> 01:13:58,960
a kryptonite. Now, would someone say epistemology too, because the

1051
01:13:59,039 --> 01:14:04,560
atheist has to take an autonomous approach, but ontologies. You

1052
01:14:04,600 --> 01:14:10,439
couldn't even do epistemology without referring to the ontological status

1053
01:14:10,520 --> 01:14:13,520
of things that aren't identical to nature, which is impossible

1054
01:14:13,520 --> 01:14:17,319
from the atheist view too. But why should we pursue truth?

1055
01:14:17,479 --> 01:14:21,359
Is the end game? It's what Bonson argued. But he

1056
01:14:21,600 --> 01:14:25,760
argued when he debated from a materialist position that the

1057
01:14:25,880 --> 01:14:30,880
consequence of strict materialism and mechanistic universe produces an atheist

1058
01:14:30,920 --> 01:14:33,800
that just shows up to the debate. But it's not

1059
01:14:33,880 --> 01:14:37,000
really them debating, and there's no reason to debate. It's

1060
01:14:37,159 --> 01:14:39,560
just that he can't help himself because there is no himself.

1061
01:14:39,960 --> 01:14:43,479
There's just a meat sack. That's the end of the debate.

1062
01:14:44,520 --> 01:14:47,279
You're coming to the debate and your opening statement is

1063
01:14:47,359 --> 01:14:50,279
I'm a meat sack who has no knowledge of what

1064
01:14:50,359 --> 01:14:52,640
I'm saying is true. It's just an effect of physics

1065
01:14:52,760 --> 01:14:57,439
and everything is determined. I'm not even here.

1066
01:14:58,000 --> 01:15:03,279
Speaker 4: Basically, well, Gold's will is good, you know, that's in

1067
01:15:03,680 --> 01:15:05,680
that that that that is in. It's not that I

1068
01:15:05,720 --> 01:15:07,920
think that you can't have mixed is old statements. Is

1069
01:15:07,960 --> 01:15:09,680
that I think that if you just have his statements

1070
01:15:09,920 --> 01:15:11,800
getting an alt it seems like it's.

1071
01:15:11,680 --> 01:15:16,119
Speaker 3: A George tacobis sure Taco Lips Rising nine ninety nine

1072
01:15:16,199 --> 01:15:18,760
says it. It's like that libertarian guy you had on

1073
01:15:18,880 --> 01:15:22,439
with Jay and Chad. I'm not an atheist, Chad goes,

1074
01:15:22,600 --> 01:15:35,239
how dumb? Becky, right right, No, you are, yeast. The

1075
01:15:35,359 --> 01:15:38,319
breakfast Tacos also get roasted in the chat. Dude, We're

1076
01:15:38,359 --> 01:15:40,920
not falling for your nonsense. It works on your dumb audience.

1077
01:15:41,119 --> 01:15:43,600
It doesn't work on mine. My audience is smarter than yours.

1078
01:15:47,199 --> 01:15:49,760
My audience is way smarter than yours. They saw the exchange.

1079
01:15:50,119 --> 01:15:52,000
I don't need to you know, there's not even a

1080
01:15:52,119 --> 01:15:55,079
need to do like you know, subsequent videos about it.

1081
01:15:55,560 --> 01:15:58,600
They saw your inability to answer basic questions.

1082
01:15:58,720 --> 01:16:00,520
Speaker 4: It seems like a problem that strikes me likely to

1083
01:16:00,560 --> 01:16:03,039
be intractable. I'm not saying it definitely is wrong.

1084
01:16:03,319 --> 01:16:03,800
Speaker 5: So maybe what.

1085
01:16:04,199 --> 01:16:11,720
Speaker 2: Theism does here is imparts certain is statements. Next question,

1086
01:16:13,359 --> 01:16:18,920
how can you explain census divinitatis, which I believe is

1087
01:16:18,960 --> 01:16:22,520
a term coined by John Calvin to describe the sense

1088
01:16:22,960 --> 01:16:24,960
of the divine that I'm not doing.

1089
01:16:25,000 --> 01:16:27,479
Speaker 3: There's another question we're not going to engage with Calvinism.

1090
01:16:29,119 --> 01:16:32,039
Speaker 2: Provide me with a single civilization that has ever succeeded

1091
01:16:32,159 --> 01:16:36,680
under an atheistic paradigm. Also, name me a civilization that

1092
01:16:36,800 --> 01:16:41,479
has come into being without a preceding binding myth. So

1093
01:16:42,000 --> 01:16:43,199
this practical question, like.

1094
01:16:43,279 --> 01:16:45,279
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, this is a good question, and I don't

1095
01:16:45,279 --> 01:16:47,159
know if they'll cover it, but you know, if you guys,

1096
01:16:47,239 --> 01:16:51,079
remember Jay Dyer was on my mixed Bag and Derek

1097
01:16:51,159 --> 01:16:53,760
from myth Vision was on there. And it was pretty

1098
01:16:53,840 --> 01:16:56,840
much a soft conversation, and then Jay came on challenged

1099
01:16:56,920 --> 01:17:02,279
him on his assumption of the path and the definition

1100
01:17:02,399 --> 01:17:06,079
of a myth, according to the atheists, ultimately will lead

1101
01:17:06,159 --> 01:17:12,279
them to accepting that they have a myth uh position

1102
01:17:12,479 --> 01:17:17,039
on the past and progress of the future. So they

1103
01:17:17,119 --> 01:17:21,239
do they do engage with myth from their own by

1104
01:17:21,279 --> 01:17:23,079
their own standards, they engage with myth.

1105
01:17:25,079 --> 01:17:27,680
Speaker 2: How does the atheists respond to the fact, like implied

1106
01:17:27,720 --> 01:17:30,039
in this question, that there's never been a successful atheist

1107
01:17:30,079 --> 01:17:32,479
in paradigm, and that there's never been this is big

1108
01:17:32,520 --> 01:17:35,720
brain down, hasn't had some kind of like mythological founding.

1109
01:17:36,399 --> 01:17:38,199
Speaker 4: I suppose that, I mean one. I mean, obviously I'm

1110
01:17:38,199 --> 01:17:40,039
not an anthropologists, so all of these ants are going

1111
01:17:40,079 --> 01:17:41,920
to be teriably unreliable and you shouldn't listen to me.

1112
01:17:42,279 --> 01:17:45,800
Speaker 2: But oh no, no, no, they're not the onst thing

1113
01:17:45,800 --> 01:17:46,520
I would point out here.

1114
01:17:46,760 --> 01:17:48,840
Speaker 3: I don't think tacos are you know, if you say

1115
01:17:48,920 --> 01:17:52,520
we're having tacos for breakfast. The fact that you have

1116
01:17:52,600 --> 01:17:55,439
to say we're having tacos for breakfast and it doesn't

1117
01:17:55,439 --> 01:17:58,079
occur as redundant means it's not really in the realm

1118
01:17:58,119 --> 01:18:02,119
of breakfast, Johnny, Now, is it awesome to have pizza

1119
01:18:02,199 --> 01:18:07,199
for breakfast? And yeah, but when you have it, there's

1120
01:18:07,279 --> 01:18:10,960
no family who wakes up and when they say, you know,

1121
01:18:11,119 --> 01:18:15,039
breakfast is ready, that there's not someone one or two

1122
01:18:15,079 --> 01:18:17,000
people in the family who go, oh my gosh, tacos

1123
01:18:17,039 --> 01:18:20,439
for breakfast. That reaction means that it's out of the ordinary.

1124
01:18:21,119 --> 01:18:25,760
So they're not a breakfast food. That's why it's special

1125
01:18:26,000 --> 01:18:30,800
to have them for breakfast. You know what I mean,

1126
01:18:32,800 --> 01:18:37,960
breakfast burrito. When you say a burrito, a breakfast burrito,

1127
01:18:38,079 --> 01:18:41,560
now you've made the jump. But when you say a

1128
01:18:41,640 --> 01:18:46,079
breakfast tacos, it's just not as assimilated a breakfast A

1129
01:18:46,159 --> 01:18:51,640
breakfast burrito is very assimilated. A breakfast taco hasn't made

1130
01:18:51,680 --> 01:18:55,279
the jump, hasn't done its truons. It's a full transition.

1131
01:18:59,159 --> 01:18:59,319
Speaker 5: You know.

1132
01:18:59,560 --> 01:19:01,800
Speaker 3: I'm not of those people that as long as you're

1133
01:19:01,840 --> 01:19:03,439
sitting on something it's a chair.

1134
01:19:03,920 --> 01:19:06,520
Speaker 2: There was that this This this at least implies that,

1135
01:19:06,720 --> 01:19:09,199
like I mean, the way the question says, also name

1136
01:19:09,239 --> 01:19:11,680
me a civilization that has come into being without a

1137
01:19:11,720 --> 01:19:14,600
preceding binding myth well prompt that it might not be true.

1138
01:19:14,640 --> 01:19:15,439
Speaker 4: Also preceding it.

1139
01:19:16,079 --> 01:19:18,479
Speaker 3: I think it may find the video Calvinism or Calvin

1140
01:19:18,600 --> 01:19:22,720
Nislam interesting. That's that is interesting because I I always

1141
01:19:23,239 --> 01:19:25,520
make that correlation. I'm sure I'm not the only.

1142
01:19:25,399 --> 01:19:28,199
Speaker 4: Ones interesting that right, because I suppose that that's that

1143
01:19:28,319 --> 01:19:30,039
might be a sort of chicken eg problem. I'm something

1144
01:19:30,119 --> 01:19:30,640
interesting that.

1145
01:19:30,840 --> 01:19:36,199
Speaker 3: Chicken over the egg? Well, it's a hot boiled egg

1146
01:19:36,600 --> 01:19:39,399
in a little bowl, eat with a tiny spoon to

1147
01:19:39,479 --> 01:19:41,640
nubble it for four months. Good lord. These two remind

1148
01:19:41,720 --> 01:19:43,880
me of the old c Span panel where people just

1149
01:19:43,960 --> 01:19:46,159
speak in monotone. It puts you to sleep. I'm sorry,

1150
01:19:46,239 --> 01:19:49,560
we have to cover it. I agree, though, ultra void

1151
01:19:49,600 --> 01:19:51,680
five dollars. I have request? Can you can you slow

1152
01:19:51,720 --> 01:19:54,119
down how fast you to bunk breakfast tacos? I don't

1153
01:19:54,159 --> 01:19:56,760
want to figure out a new topic for my super chats.

1154
01:19:56,800 --> 01:20:02,000
That's funny, ah, breakfast talk goes hey, breakfast Ta goes.

1155
01:20:02,159 --> 01:20:05,680
I jumped on your panel. How about you come onto

1156
01:20:05,800 --> 01:20:06,399
my channel?

1157
01:20:06,479 --> 01:20:06,640
Speaker 1: Now?

1158
01:20:07,119 --> 01:20:12,920
Speaker 3: Okay, I went to your little server. You owe me one.

1159
01:20:13,479 --> 01:20:15,680
Get one of your people to come and defend your argument.

1160
01:20:15,960 --> 01:20:17,960
Speaker 4: Interest conservations as he thought that we often got CAUs

1161
01:20:18,000 --> 01:20:20,880
as an effects really confused. So like you know, again,

1162
01:20:21,399 --> 01:20:23,640
come on to essential issues in a second, like I'm not.

1163
01:20:23,640 --> 01:20:25,840
Speaker 3: Gonna cover this part. The question is has there ever

1164
01:20:25,920 --> 01:20:32,359
been an atheist civilization that really that really planted its

1165
01:20:32,399 --> 01:20:35,399
feet and was long lasting without some sort of mythos?

1166
01:20:35,479 --> 01:20:37,479
I don't think there has been, but that's not a

1167
01:20:37,560 --> 01:20:41,239
great argument for whether it's true or not, which ultimately,

1168
01:20:41,479 --> 01:20:45,319
when you're debating an atheist about anything, again, the only

1169
01:20:45,439 --> 01:20:49,640
really important starting point is, let's say something's not true,

1170
01:20:49,800 --> 01:20:52,319
why should I pursue the true part of it?

1171
01:20:52,640 --> 01:20:52,760
Speaker 5: Right?

1172
01:20:53,119 --> 01:20:56,119
Speaker 3: This was again I keep going back to Andrew's quote

1173
01:20:56,560 --> 01:20:59,159
almost debate with Dilla Hunty, where he just said, you

1174
01:20:59,199 --> 01:21:03,720
know what I'm gonna grant, Christianity is a complete delusion.

1175
01:21:03,920 --> 01:21:10,399
We're a bunch of delusional retards. Why why should we

1176
01:21:10,520 --> 01:21:15,520
avoid true beliefs? The question is if a secularism, if

1177
01:21:15,560 --> 01:21:19,600
an atheism is true, If secularism is true, then what

1178
01:21:19,720 --> 01:21:23,600
if you came to just the pragmatic application of a

1179
01:21:23,680 --> 01:21:27,479
Christian ethical system and you didn't believe anything, How could

1180
01:21:27,520 --> 01:21:31,760
you possibly argue against it? Well we saw that you

1181
01:21:31,880 --> 01:21:41,000
can't because Matt Della Hunty ran out, you can't. They

1182
01:21:41,039 --> 01:21:44,239
can't argue why you should pursue truth? If Ultimately, the

1183
01:21:44,279 --> 01:21:47,399
goal of pursuing truth from their view is pragmatism, and

1184
01:21:47,520 --> 01:21:50,000
it could be very pragmatic to believe false things. It's

1185
01:21:50,039 --> 01:21:50,800
the end of their argument.

1186
01:21:50,800 --> 01:21:51,239
Speaker 5: It's over.

1187
01:21:54,119 --> 01:21:55,920
Speaker 3: Toast toasted tacos Uh.

1188
01:21:56,199 --> 01:22:00,279
Speaker 4: He thought that it wasn't that ninistic people. He wasn't

1189
01:22:00,319 --> 01:22:02,800
that a belief in God led sorry, disbelieving. It wasn't

1190
01:22:02,800 --> 01:22:05,680
necessarily that a disbelief in values led to nihilism. He

1191
01:22:05,800 --> 01:22:10,039
was pursuing the door emotionally because of the disorganization of

1192
01:22:10,079 --> 01:22:12,079
their wills, and then it didn't make sense for them

1193
01:22:12,119 --> 01:22:13,680
to value things. And it's like, you know that that

1194
01:22:14,000 --> 01:22:14,640
he had a kind of.

1195
01:22:16,479 --> 01:22:18,600
Speaker 3: You're going to need to make full statements, vegan, or

1196
01:22:18,640 --> 01:22:24,159
I'm going to ban you. I like this new method

1197
01:22:24,279 --> 01:22:26,720
I have is if if someone says stuff in the

1198
01:22:26,840 --> 01:22:29,880
chat and I feel inclined to bring them on to

1199
01:22:29,960 --> 01:22:32,520
defend their statements, and they don't come on, they get

1200
01:22:32,640 --> 01:22:38,039
kicked out of out of George Landia, George Tacolyp's Rising,

1201
01:22:38,079 --> 01:22:40,399
four ninety nine. It's true. I think she's a lady.

1202
01:22:41,119 --> 01:22:46,079
I think she's a lady. I'm not convinced. I'm not

1203
01:22:46,239 --> 01:22:47,359
convinced she's not a lady.

1204
01:22:50,760 --> 01:22:53,760
Speaker 4: To, you know, simplifying somewhat, but was broadly someone who

1205
01:22:53,840 --> 01:22:56,039
just thought, well, my will inherently has value, Like, what

1206
01:22:56,119 --> 01:22:58,439
do you mean my will doesn't have value? I want something?

1207
01:22:58,720 --> 01:23:00,800
What moude can you ask of me? And so and

1208
01:23:00,880 --> 01:23:04,119
that's so. And to bring it back to this question,

1209
01:23:04,920 --> 01:23:07,239
one potential atheist answer is to say, well, yeah, if

1210
01:23:07,239 --> 01:23:09,560
you get if you get a group of people together

1211
01:23:09,600 --> 01:23:11,880
in a room of really any significant size, they'll come

1212
01:23:11,960 --> 01:23:15,159
up with with all sorts of like awesome ideas and

1213
01:23:15,279 --> 01:23:19,399
and and it could be that the civilization begets a family.

1214
01:23:19,640 --> 01:23:21,039
Speaker 2: If there's no God, there's no divining.

1215
01:23:21,399 --> 01:23:23,000
Speaker 3: So yeah, he just admitted that if you get a

1216
01:23:23,039 --> 01:23:24,399
bunch of people in the room, if they come up

1217
01:23:24,399 --> 01:23:27,359
with a bunch of ideas, the only question is why

1218
01:23:27,399 --> 01:23:31,720
abandon uh false ideas if they actually serve utility. You

1219
01:23:31,760 --> 01:23:34,399
can't answer that from an atheist perspective. That's a better question.

1220
01:23:36,840 --> 01:23:41,039
If false beliefs can produce utility. From an atheist perspective,

1221
01:23:42,319 --> 01:23:45,600
a question is why abandon the false beliefs. They can't

1222
01:23:45,600 --> 01:23:48,239
answer that question. That's way more, way more of a

1223
01:23:48,319 --> 01:23:49,000
crucial question.

1224
01:23:49,119 --> 01:23:53,319
Speaker 2: He's atheist divine guiding principle. Just to sort of lay

1225
01:23:53,399 --> 01:23:58,000
this out for the materialist, like the brain is just

1226
01:23:58,039 --> 01:24:00,640
a bunch of atoms bumping into each other. It's just

1227
01:24:00,720 --> 01:24:02,159
like it's kind of like a rock.

1228
01:24:02,359 --> 01:24:04,199
Speaker 3: That's the end of his all right, this is the

1229
01:24:04,359 --> 01:24:10,800
end of fucking Alex's position here. It's amazing how they'll

1230
01:24:10,840 --> 01:24:15,079
say this and then they'll follow without the entailment of that.

1231
01:24:15,159 --> 01:24:17,159
They'll just be like, the brain is just a bumping

1232
01:24:17,239 --> 01:24:20,800
bumping particles, right, bumping particles. We have no say in

1233
01:24:20,840 --> 01:24:25,479
the matter, you know, Evaluation it's more bumping particles. Evaluation

1234
01:24:25,600 --> 01:24:30,359
of those. Evaluation is more bumping particles, and we're basically arguing. Okay,

1235
01:24:30,399 --> 01:24:32,159
I want to see where he goes with this. The

1236
01:24:32,279 --> 01:24:35,479
covenant theology of Christianity is the false part that I reject.

1237
01:24:35,680 --> 01:24:38,680
The ethical system is not the problem. Well, I mean

1238
01:24:41,000 --> 01:24:43,199
these are I don't know if you're late here, but

1239
01:24:44,159 --> 01:24:48,479
you can't really argue for pursuing the truthfulness of an

1240
01:24:48,520 --> 01:24:55,479
ethical system, right, So rejecting false things in your system

1241
01:24:55,680 --> 01:24:59,520
is an ethical system. So you have embedded a meta

1242
01:24:59,560 --> 01:25:03,399
ethical position because everyone does that. You ought to pursue

1243
01:25:03,720 --> 01:25:06,239
the truth things. Now you pointed out something you think

1244
01:25:06,359 --> 01:25:09,000
is false and you reject it. That assumes that you

1245
01:25:09,119 --> 01:25:14,079
ought reject false things, right, should we reject false things

1246
01:25:14,159 --> 01:25:17,680
or not? If we shouldn't reject false things, And it's

1247
01:25:17,680 --> 01:25:20,319
all arbitrary. It doesn't matter that you reject the something

1248
01:25:20,359 --> 01:25:25,039
you find false the ethical system. You can't divorce the

1249
01:25:25,119 --> 01:25:28,560
ethical system big tech from your pursuit of true beliefs

1250
01:25:29,520 --> 01:25:34,279
because the act of engaging in argumentation towards something called truth,

1251
01:25:34,319 --> 01:25:37,199
you're already assuming an aught claim that you should be consistent.

1252
01:25:38,000 --> 01:25:42,239
So where do you get without the theology of Christianity,

1253
01:25:42,720 --> 01:25:46,000
Where do you get the oughtness toward truth? You don't

1254
01:25:46,039 --> 01:25:48,760
have one, at which case, if you don't have one,

1255
01:25:49,039 --> 01:25:51,479
there's really no debate. There's really no point in debating

1256
01:25:51,600 --> 01:25:54,159
the false parts of Christianity or the ethical parts that

1257
01:25:54,279 --> 01:25:58,760
you agree with, because when it comes down to it,

1258
01:25:58,880 --> 01:26:02,199
you don't have a standard, a basis, a justification for

1259
01:26:02,319 --> 01:26:07,279
your meta ethical oughtness toward the truth. Anyway, it doesn't matter,

1260
01:26:08,640 --> 01:26:14,039
just doesn't matter. The Coptic Orthodox Christians disagree, Well, that

1261
01:26:14,159 --> 01:26:17,479
doesn't matter because we reject the Coptic Coptics anyway, So

1262
01:26:17,720 --> 01:26:21,960
that says nothing. That's like saying, there's another church that

1263
01:26:22,119 --> 01:26:25,439
started that that abides by some of the traditions and

1264
01:26:26,000 --> 01:26:28,159
some of the theology, but not all of it that

1265
01:26:28,399 --> 01:26:32,279
disagrees with veganism or your beliefs on veganism that doesn't

1266
01:26:32,560 --> 01:26:37,000
mean anything to us, okay, or a.

1267
01:26:37,000 --> 01:26:39,000
Speaker 2: Piece of wood or something that happens to have developed

1268
01:26:39,000 --> 01:26:40,560
this weird thing cool consciousness.

1269
01:26:40,640 --> 01:26:48,239
Speaker 3: But so non Christians can't justify we ought not do things. Yes,

1270
01:26:48,600 --> 01:26:55,399
you can't, not from a moral position. No, no, you

1271
01:26:55,560 --> 01:26:59,399
just prefer it, right, Your justification ends up being at

1272
01:26:59,479 --> 01:27:01,960
best a reference Like I prefer not to be harmed,

1273
01:27:02,000 --> 01:27:03,920
but there are people who do like to be harmed.

1274
01:27:04,279 --> 01:27:06,880
So if it's reciprocal, if you're arguing some sort of

1275
01:27:06,960 --> 01:27:11,319
reciprocal metathical position, the moments where people want to do harm,

1276
01:27:12,039 --> 01:27:15,039
it follows that you can do harm to them because

1277
01:27:15,039 --> 01:27:18,439
they want it. So until while ten dollars, thank you

1278
01:27:18,520 --> 01:27:21,119
so much. I'm working but listening. Thanks for the great content. Jimbob,

1279
01:27:21,159 --> 01:27:25,640
Breakfast Talk Beard, Sorry, breakfast burritos are better than breakfast tacos,

1280
01:27:25,640 --> 01:27:29,079
I agree, easier to eat tacos in general. Like if

1281
01:27:29,079 --> 01:27:31,319
you don't have a beer and you're just you know,

1282
01:27:31,399 --> 01:27:33,800
accept it, you know, accepting the sloppiness of it, Like

1283
01:27:33,880 --> 01:27:38,119
it's some shitty restaurant or whatever table whatever. It's silly

1284
01:27:38,199 --> 01:27:44,239
to eat tacos. Honestly, it's like burritos. A burrito is contained,

1285
01:27:44,279 --> 01:27:47,560
it's a proper technology. A burrito is just a better

1286
01:27:48,479 --> 01:27:54,439
or organized taco. Anyway, let's face it, Mexicans, I mean,

1287
01:27:54,520 --> 01:27:57,000
this has been covered so many times as a cliche

1288
01:27:57,079 --> 01:28:03,079
at this point, Mexicans have really no food. They have

1289
01:28:03,279 --> 01:28:07,279
three things. They have no food. They somehow convinced everybody

1290
01:28:08,359 --> 01:28:12,640
that they have a variety of food. They don't. They don't.

1291
01:28:14,920 --> 01:28:17,800
It's tasty, but don't pretend it's a variety, like.

1292
01:28:18,319 --> 01:28:20,279
Speaker 2: It seems no necessary reason why it would have to

1293
01:28:20,359 --> 01:28:22,079
be formed in relation to truth.

1294
01:28:22,960 --> 01:28:25,359
Speaker 4: Like we were just talking a.

1295
01:28:25,359 --> 01:28:27,560
Speaker 2: Moment ago about how it makes sense to believe certain

1296
01:28:27,600 --> 01:28:30,199
things that are false because it's like beneficial for us.

1297
01:28:30,239 --> 01:28:31,359
Speaker 3: There we go, there we go.

1298
01:28:31,720 --> 01:28:34,359
Speaker 2: If it happens to be true that that actually applied

1299
01:28:34,399 --> 01:28:36,920
writ large to things like the laws of logic and

1300
01:28:36,960 --> 01:28:42,239
mathematical truths, we literally be incapable of knowing because it

1301
01:28:42,399 --> 01:28:45,439
might be the case that it's not the two plus

1302
01:28:45,479 --> 01:28:48,079
two equals four. It's that believing two plus two equals

1303
01:28:48,119 --> 01:28:52,159
four is beneficial for my survival. And that's why my rationality.

1304
01:28:52,279 --> 01:28:55,439
Speaker 3: Now this is planting. This is parallel to planting goes

1305
01:28:56,000 --> 01:29:00,479
argument evolutionary argument against the truth essentially, which is saying

1306
01:29:00,560 --> 01:29:04,960
that evolution as a process doesn't pursue truths. Ultimately, it

1307
01:29:05,319 --> 01:29:08,359
can come to well, the truth about the external world

1308
01:29:08,399 --> 01:29:10,800
and I'm gonna survive, So there are some fundamental truths

1309
01:29:10,840 --> 01:29:14,960
there that it does from its paradigm say well, no,

1310
01:29:15,079 --> 01:29:16,800
it has to come to the truth that there's a

1311
01:29:16,960 --> 01:29:19,920
threat out in the world, right. If it's gonna survive,

1312
01:29:21,239 --> 01:29:25,000
it needs to determine threat. So that's true, that's a truth,

1313
01:29:25,800 --> 01:29:29,720
but ultimately, like philosophical truths, it's not the ultimate goal.

1314
01:29:29,800 --> 01:29:32,279
Survival is the goal. So if it if there was

1315
01:29:32,319 --> 01:29:38,479
an event or a circumstance where believing something false like

1316
01:29:38,640 --> 01:29:42,840
paranoia in the jungle did in fact keep you safe, Like,

1317
01:29:42,960 --> 01:29:45,800
for instance, you thought there was a lion tracking you

1318
01:29:46,159 --> 01:29:48,840
that wasn't true, or ty panther tracking you through the

1319
01:29:48,920 --> 01:29:52,119
jungle it wasn't true. It turned out that it was

1320
01:29:52,199 --> 01:29:55,560
something else that you were able to defend against. But

1321
01:29:55,680 --> 01:29:59,880
you actually your preparation was based on a lie, something

1322
01:30:00,079 --> 01:30:06,039
not true. Are you saying burritos evolved from tacus? I'm

1323
01:30:06,079 --> 01:30:09,279
not actually sure what came first. That's a chat GPT

1324
01:30:09,840 --> 01:30:15,119
Mexican style, thank you for the five dollars. Cringe veganism,

1325
01:30:15,199 --> 01:30:19,279
there's I think cringe and veganism are redundancy, redund.

1326
01:30:18,960 --> 01:30:21,119
Speaker 2: Believe that kind of thing, and somebody will come along

1327
01:30:21,159 --> 01:30:24,079
and say, yeah, but hold on, like you know, it

1328
01:30:24,239 --> 01:30:28,000
just can't like my brain just can't conceive of the opposite,

1329
01:30:28,319 --> 01:30:29,840
like we can know it to be true, Albayori, And

1330
01:30:29,840 --> 01:30:33,199
I'm like, that's because that's how your brain evolved. Right,

1331
01:30:33,439 --> 01:30:36,199
there were people who believed the two plus two is fine.

1332
01:30:36,359 --> 01:30:38,640
Speaker 3: Here's the problem with his view, which I use as

1333
01:30:38,680 --> 01:30:41,279
a defeater to all of these people, which comes up

1334
01:30:41,319 --> 01:30:43,000
a lot. Came up with Big Tech and the other

1335
01:30:43,079 --> 01:30:47,800
dude in the in the in the spaces conversation. No,

1336
01:30:48,239 --> 01:30:51,239
he's arguing whether or not believing the laws of thought,

1337
01:30:51,880 --> 01:30:55,119
mathematic math being derivative of the laws of thought. Right,

1338
01:30:56,720 --> 01:31:00,479
the sister, the sister to the laws of logic in

1339
01:31:01,279 --> 01:31:07,279
its expression, would be math. No, we didn't develop to

1340
01:31:07,439 --> 01:31:10,560
believe the laws of thought because under an evolutionary view,

1341
01:31:10,640 --> 01:31:16,520
Alex O'Connor, the very process of evolution, if it produced

1342
01:31:16,560 --> 01:31:21,239
a brain and rationality, needed to abide by those laws,

1343
01:31:21,720 --> 01:31:24,319
and those laws are not found in nature, they're conceptual.

1344
01:31:24,399 --> 01:31:28,239
So now you have a mind dependent concept that has

1345
01:31:28,319 --> 01:31:36,800
its own ontology before your own brain exists. He's acting

1346
01:31:37,000 --> 01:31:40,760
like the laws of thought are identical to the descriptions

1347
01:31:41,520 --> 01:31:45,920
that our brain, in its development enabled us to discern. Well, no,

1348
01:31:46,000 --> 01:31:49,520
if we're discerning something, that means it existed before we

1349
01:31:49,640 --> 01:31:52,039
discerned it. We didn't discern it into existence.

1350
01:31:54,039 --> 01:31:56,760
Speaker 2: It's just that believing that was not beneficial to the survival,

1351
01:31:56,800 --> 01:31:58,920
and so they died out, leaving only us. Now people

1352
01:31:58,960 --> 01:32:00,680
will want to say, like, this is stupid. What do

1353
01:32:00,720 --> 01:32:02,640
you mean that the reason they died out and the

1354
01:32:02,760 --> 01:32:06,199
reason why believing two plus two equals five was not

1355
01:32:06,319 --> 01:32:09,039
beneficial to the survival was because it's not true.

1356
01:32:10,239 --> 01:32:13,880
Speaker 3: Do you think design designer argument refutes the non smart atheists?

1357
01:32:15,119 --> 01:32:24,800
Not necessarily, because someone could do a very basic bitch

1358
01:32:25,000 --> 01:32:28,680
design argument and presuppose like aliens. So it doesn't really

1359
01:32:29,119 --> 01:32:33,319
get us to God. It just pushes the argument further, right,

1360
01:32:34,479 --> 01:32:36,960
It just pushes it further. For instance, someone could argue

1361
01:32:37,000 --> 01:32:41,239
design and not believe in God at one level, they'd

1362
01:32:41,359 --> 01:32:45,079
eventually be pushed in morality, knowledge and all these other

1363
01:32:45,199 --> 01:32:48,399
transcendental things, but they could hold a position. At least

1364
01:32:49,239 --> 01:32:52,159
an atheist can hold a design. By the way he kinock,

1365
01:32:53,039 --> 01:32:56,680
I have a prediction that the secularists are going to

1366
01:32:56,760 --> 01:32:59,039
adopt in the next ten years, ten to fifteen years.

1367
01:32:59,520 --> 01:33:04,560
They're going to adopt an intelligent design perspective, but they're

1368
01:33:04,600 --> 01:33:08,640
going to attribute the intelligence to some larger sort of

1369
01:33:08,840 --> 01:33:13,520
naturalistic entity that they're gonna say has some sort of beingness,

1370
01:33:14,039 --> 01:33:17,279
because already they're trying to say some of these philosophical

1371
01:33:17,359 --> 01:33:24,079
circles are arguing that any object that can interact with

1372
01:33:24,119 --> 01:33:28,359
another object has some type of like consciousness. It's like panpsychism,

1373
01:33:28,560 --> 01:33:34,760
but develop it's being developed by a secular position. It's

1374
01:33:34,800 --> 01:33:42,520
really wild. That's why new neo paganism, technological paganism, pan psychism,

1375
01:33:42,760 --> 01:33:48,359
new agism is getting popularized because he can't avoid tying

1376
01:33:48,399 --> 01:33:51,960
it to some mythos or some sort of some sort

1377
01:33:52,000 --> 01:33:56,720
of larger paradigm that necessitates a greater mind, if that

1378
01:33:56,800 --> 01:34:01,399
makes sense, or a greater more complex set of operations, right,

1379
01:34:01,439 --> 01:34:05,000
because they hold that the brain is peculiar to all

1380
01:34:05,039 --> 01:34:08,720
of their objects because it's so complex. Well, complexity doesn't

1381
01:34:08,760 --> 01:34:13,520
really get you anywhere. So so the answer is, yeah,

1382
01:34:13,600 --> 01:34:16,960
you can use design to trap a dumb atheist, but

1383
01:34:17,840 --> 01:34:21,079
it really doesn't get you to God, a specific God,

1384
01:34:21,199 --> 01:34:24,680
so it's not ultimately a good starting point. You should

1385
01:34:24,720 --> 01:34:27,039
just go for the jugular with atheists.

1386
01:34:27,439 --> 01:34:29,079
Speaker 4: Right, And do you think that that's a well a

1387
01:34:29,119 --> 01:34:31,119
good response to this. I think this is a one

1388
01:34:31,199 --> 01:34:35,439
instance of what a huge of just a general problem

1389
01:34:35,560 --> 01:34:36,239
of se Well.

1390
01:34:36,479 --> 01:34:39,439
Speaker 3: It makes sense. It makes sense by the way, if

1391
01:34:39,479 --> 01:34:42,600
they try to extrapolate evolution, which they don't even have

1392
01:34:42,680 --> 01:34:47,000
a biogenesis covered, but they're already trying Carpenter to posit

1393
01:34:47,119 --> 01:34:49,920
some sort of evolutionary theory applying to planets and the

1394
01:34:50,000 --> 01:34:53,920
cosmos that's not identical to biology, but akin to it.

1395
01:34:54,840 --> 01:34:56,600
So if you do that, what's the logical end. Well,

1396
01:34:57,079 --> 01:34:59,520
if that's the case, you're going to take this approach,

1397
01:34:59,640 --> 01:35:05,520
that's that there was an initial organism, the same way

1398
01:35:05,520 --> 01:35:09,199
you have to apply that to evolution. There's this initial

1399
01:35:10,279 --> 01:35:12,920
Then the question of what's considered a biogenesis but for

1400
01:35:13,039 --> 01:35:15,119
the cosmos is going to be brought up. I mean,

1401
01:35:15,720 --> 01:35:19,439
there's no escaping the endless regress of this stuff. The

1402
01:35:19,560 --> 01:35:22,800
universe abides by the laws of physics because it's physical. No,

1403
01:35:23,079 --> 01:35:27,600
that doesn't follow. Even from our last conversation. Well, that's

1404
01:35:27,680 --> 01:35:30,600
just oh sorry, I thought you meant logic. Okay, laws

1405
01:35:30,640 --> 01:35:33,399
of physics because it's physical. No, No, that doesn't follow.

1406
01:35:34,680 --> 01:35:39,119
Like the way the status Big Tech of something physical,

1407
01:35:39,399 --> 01:35:42,880
it doesn't follow that there's a law on the behavior

1408
01:35:43,039 --> 01:35:46,119
of it with other things doesn't follow. That's a jump.

1409
01:35:47,399 --> 01:35:48,840
It doesn't abide by the laws of logic.

1410
01:35:48,920 --> 01:35:49,199
Speaker 6: It does.

1411
01:35:49,359 --> 01:35:52,680
Speaker 3: To say something exists and it's physical means that there's

1412
01:35:52,680 --> 01:35:55,960
a distinction of what physical means, which means it abides

1413
01:35:56,039 --> 01:35:59,560
by the law of identity and non contradiction. We use

1414
01:35:59,600 --> 01:36:02,680
logic think about the world. No, the ability to think

1415
01:36:02,720 --> 01:36:07,079
about the world presupposes a process that produced your thinker.

1416
01:36:08,720 --> 01:36:11,359
If there's a process that presupposes your thinker, Big Tech,

1417
01:36:12,600 --> 01:36:15,760
you should be getting this by now. With the example

1418
01:36:16,119 --> 01:36:20,159
of your parents existing, it demonstrates that the laws of thought,

1419
01:36:21,720 --> 01:36:25,600
law of identity non contradiction, that your father couldn't have

1420
01:36:25,760 --> 01:36:30,199
sex with himself another version of himself to have you.

1421
01:36:31,039 --> 01:36:34,359
It needed to be specifically, there was a father who

1422
01:36:34,479 --> 01:36:36,479
is your father, and there was a mother who's your mother,

1423
01:36:36,800 --> 01:36:39,279
and there was a set of operations which also abide

1424
01:36:39,279 --> 01:36:42,279
by the law of identity, and the operation has a

1425
01:36:42,359 --> 01:36:44,800
result that abides by the regularity of nature and law

1426
01:36:44,800 --> 01:36:47,600
of identity, and then nine months later there's a result

1427
01:36:47,640 --> 01:36:49,800
that abides by the law of identity in the regularity

1428
01:36:49,800 --> 01:36:53,239
of nature, and so on. So No, saying the universe

1429
01:36:53,319 --> 01:36:55,800
abides by the laws of physics because it's physical. No,

1430
01:36:55,960 --> 01:36:58,600
you don't grant yourself that there are laws simply because

1431
01:36:58,600 --> 01:37:05,479
there's physicality. It's logically possible from your worldview that something

1432
01:37:05,560 --> 01:37:09,720
could exist and have no logical relation, no, no causal relations.

1433
01:37:11,079 --> 01:37:14,720
It could have been the case that water existed and

1434
01:37:15,039 --> 01:37:19,119
heat Putting heat to water didn't produce boiling. See you

1435
01:37:19,239 --> 01:37:23,960
see this same problem breakfast Taco's ad. By granting yourself physicality,

1436
01:37:24,680 --> 01:37:31,159
you think you can automatically smuggle behaviors. You can't. You

1437
01:37:31,239 --> 01:37:40,279
can't smuggle behaviors. To say something exists is a thought. Yeah,

1438
01:37:40,479 --> 01:37:44,239
it's a thought that required No. No, no, no, no, no,

1439
01:37:44,359 --> 01:37:46,399
you don't understand. You still don't. You're still not engaging

1440
01:37:46,479 --> 01:37:50,760
with the defeater here. Okay, saying I'm confused doesn't engage

1441
01:37:50,760 --> 01:37:53,279
with the defeater. It's clear who's confused here, and I

1442
01:37:53,319 --> 01:38:00,239
don't need to say so okay again, to say any thing.

1443
01:38:01,079 --> 01:38:03,479
To have a thought, Big Tech, to have a thought

1444
01:38:04,079 --> 01:38:07,399
means there's a previous existence that existed before you were

1445
01:38:07,479 --> 01:38:10,560
capable of having a thought. If there is a previous

1446
01:38:10,720 --> 01:38:14,960
existence that occurred in a certain way for you to

1447
01:38:15,079 --> 01:38:18,560
even exist, that means the law of identity existed before

1448
01:38:18,640 --> 01:38:24,239
you had a thought. You were born as a baby

1449
01:38:24,720 --> 01:38:28,319
before you had a thought. Now, break I've almost called

1450
01:38:28,319 --> 01:38:32,560
you breakfast tacos. Listen to what you're saying, Big Tech.

1451
01:38:34,760 --> 01:38:39,239
Is it is you existing as a one day old baby?

1452
01:38:40,039 --> 01:38:41,960
Does that abide by the law of identity and the

1453
01:38:42,039 --> 01:38:47,840
laws of thought even though you're not having a thought. No,

1454
01:38:51,279 --> 01:38:54,600
the things existing it's outside of your thinking. Yeah, I

1455
01:38:54,720 --> 01:39:02,319
just demonstrated that the law of identity, it's ontology. You're thinking,

1456
01:39:02,840 --> 01:39:08,640
what part don't you understand? You have to admit it.

1457
01:39:08,720 --> 01:39:11,479
That's why when I asked you, Big Tech, do you

1458
01:39:11,600 --> 01:39:14,159
have a pass that includes two parents? And you're like, well,

1459
01:39:14,199 --> 01:39:15,720
I don't know. That's why you have to go to

1460
01:39:15,880 --> 01:39:19,159
like nihilism, because I'm not sure why you would just

1461
01:39:19,279 --> 01:39:21,600
not just answer that question, be like yeah, yeah, yeah,

1462
01:39:22,239 --> 01:39:24,920
why don't you just say you know, Jimbob you're right

1463
01:39:24,920 --> 01:39:27,880
about this. I have to rethink this. If there's a

1464
01:39:27,960 --> 01:39:32,760
process that produces the capability for humans to think, if

1465
01:39:32,800 --> 01:39:37,920
there's a process, the law of identity is upheld in

1466
01:39:38,039 --> 01:39:41,279
that process, the process itself can't violate the law of identity.

1467
01:39:43,560 --> 01:39:46,359
And you're like, no, I have to think it first.

1468
01:39:46,720 --> 01:39:51,079
No law of identity equals the stuff is the same

1469
01:39:51,439 --> 01:39:54,720
as other stuff. No, that's the opposite of law of identity.

1470
01:39:54,760 --> 01:39:56,399
What are you talking about? What do you I don't

1471
01:39:56,399 --> 01:39:58,399
know if you're following this. You're not following this anymore.

1472
01:39:59,199 --> 01:40:00,239
You're out of the convers.

1473
01:40:00,399 --> 01:40:02,640
Speaker 4: You've got two claims. You've got one about a pistemology

1474
01:40:02,640 --> 01:40:05,159
and one about ontology. And effectively, the question is how

1475
01:40:05,159 --> 01:40:06,640
we're going to get them to play nice together. And

1476
01:40:07,399 --> 01:40:10,960
the trouble is, I mean, on the classic Aristotelian model philosophy,

1477
01:40:10,960 --> 01:40:12,079
you have a bunch of branches.

1478
01:40:12,520 --> 01:40:15,399
Speaker 3: By the way, this section is called trusting human rationality

1479
01:40:15,479 --> 01:40:20,439
as a guide to truth. It's perfectly, perfectly parallel to

1480
01:40:20,680 --> 01:40:22,399
the engagement I'm having with big tech right now.

1481
01:40:22,680 --> 01:40:24,159
Speaker 4: The outer branch of the tree, and you get to

1482
01:40:24,199 --> 01:40:26,319
the middle and it's metaphysics orontology. It's like the stuff

1483
01:40:26,319 --> 01:40:29,199
that is. This is why Descartes meditations on Metaphysics is

1484
01:40:29,239 --> 01:40:32,279
called meditations on first philosophies, because metaphysics is the first philosophy.

1485
01:40:33,039 --> 01:40:35,520
And I think that the trouble is that there is

1486
01:40:36,119 --> 01:40:39,279
in practice, there's an interplay. There is mutual dependence between

1487
01:40:39,279 --> 01:40:42,039
your pistemology and your ontology, because your ontology.

1488
01:40:41,720 --> 01:40:43,359
Speaker 3: Could will justify your phenology, but.

1489
01:40:43,399 --> 01:40:45,760
Speaker 4: Your epistomology has to justify why you believe in your ontology.

1490
01:40:45,840 --> 01:40:50,760
Speaker 3: What is Finally the atheist who actually properly assesses the

1491
01:40:51,079 --> 01:40:56,760
interconnectivity and the inseparable nature of the branches of philosophy.

1492
01:40:57,359 --> 01:40:58,920
Now I don't know if he's going to continue there

1493
01:40:59,000 --> 01:41:05,279
to meritfit to morality. But yeah, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, you

1494
01:41:05,439 --> 01:41:09,640
cannot talk about any of this stuff without assuming the

1495
01:41:09,720 --> 01:41:13,319
other branches constantly. You're just constant. It's like three circles,

1496
01:41:14,359 --> 01:41:17,960
three spheres of influence that are always overlapping. You cannot

1497
01:41:18,159 --> 01:41:23,640
separate them ever. Do you even know how to engage people?

1498
01:41:23,840 --> 01:41:28,199
Brough just so fucking dumb.

1499
01:41:29,560 --> 01:41:35,199
Speaker 4: Yeah, epistemology like the study of how you can come

1500
01:41:35,239 --> 01:41:37,479
to know things, and ontology the study of what is

1501
01:41:37,920 --> 01:41:41,439
so my epistemology is in that. That's a really good

1502
01:41:41,439 --> 01:41:43,840
example of where somebody is put forward the argument that

1503
01:41:44,000 --> 01:41:47,239
the ontology has undermined epistemology. The idea that we are

1504
01:41:47,439 --> 01:41:50,399
simply evolved creatures atoms bumping together and that's all our

1505
01:41:50,439 --> 01:41:53,640
brains are, and that's what our rationality is, has undermined

1506
01:41:53,720 --> 01:41:57,960
or pulsively undermined the epistemology. And then the.

1507
01:41:59,520 --> 01:42:03,520
Speaker 3: See now he's already ahead of most atheists, all the

1508
01:42:03,600 --> 01:42:06,119
atheists that we engage with, all of these discords, they

1509
01:42:06,279 --> 01:42:09,199
fundamentally would spur get this. They probably are in the

1510
01:42:09,560 --> 01:42:12,439
in the in the comments, honestly going no, no, you

1511
01:42:12,479 --> 01:42:18,439
can't say that that if the ontology of rationality is

1512
01:42:18,520 --> 01:42:23,680
purely physical molecules bumping together, if you're ontology. If if,

1513
01:42:24,000 --> 01:42:28,640
then you're epistemology is reduced to molecules bumping together. So

1514
01:42:29,119 --> 01:42:30,159
they undermine each other.

1515
01:42:31,119 --> 01:42:33,279
Speaker 4: And this is it's kind of fascinating, right, But then

1516
01:42:33,680 --> 01:42:36,359
the you have to assume the reliability of epistemology in

1517
01:42:36,439 --> 01:42:38,079
order to come to any sort of ontology.

1518
01:42:38,439 --> 01:42:42,279
Speaker 3: So the so when the theists, so, I don't know

1519
01:42:42,319 --> 01:42:44,199
what you mean by that, ian the extent, no, I

1520
01:42:44,319 --> 01:42:47,760
do reviews. And then I open up the panel sometimes

1521
01:42:47,880 --> 01:42:49,319
or I'll go on, what are you talking about? I

1522
01:42:49,439 --> 01:42:55,039
engage constantly. What are you talking about? It's actually you

1523
01:42:55,199 --> 01:42:58,399
guys who don't engage. Iron Charioteer has been here for

1524
01:42:58,680 --> 01:43:06,279
year a year plus and he's never called in. That's

1525
01:43:06,359 --> 01:43:09,920
called not engaging with me. It's you guys, project You're

1526
01:43:10,000 --> 01:43:13,199
just a bunch of chat pussies. All. You a bunch

1527
01:43:13,239 --> 01:43:14,000
of chat pussies.

1528
01:43:14,119 --> 01:43:16,439
Speaker 4: Not just that the theist argument is circular. When they

1529
01:43:16,479 --> 01:43:18,439
would say, oh, well God would ground that's, well, how

1530
01:43:18,520 --> 01:43:20,560
do you have the prans to gold grounding it?

1531
01:43:20,640 --> 01:43:21,279
Speaker 3: How do you know that?

1532
01:43:21,720 --> 01:43:25,359
Speaker 4: What's what's the pre considered reliability of your pistemology?

1533
01:43:26,520 --> 01:43:30,439
Speaker 3: Now he's using some sort of criteria problem, right, And

1534
01:43:30,560 --> 01:43:32,880
it's not like the problem of the criteria isn't a

1535
01:43:33,199 --> 01:43:35,279
isn't a valid thing to look at. It's just the

1536
01:43:35,600 --> 01:43:38,640
problem here is this is why everything pushes to the

1537
01:43:38,760 --> 01:43:42,560
necessary preconditions argument, that you can't escape making a tag argument,

1538
01:43:42,800 --> 01:43:46,239
even if you're not a God believer. You have to

1539
01:43:46,319 --> 01:43:50,279
make the tag for something. They do tag for initial state,

1540
01:43:52,119 --> 01:43:57,640
they do tag for you know, quantum foam, the tag

1541
01:43:57,720 --> 01:44:01,439
for quantum, you know, the transcendental argument for quantum. They

1542
01:44:01,520 --> 01:44:05,680
can't escape it. This is why you can't use autonomy,

1543
01:44:06,319 --> 01:44:10,520
autonomous reasoning, and epistemology to get you to the necessary preconditions.

1544
01:44:10,800 --> 01:44:17,159
You have to argue the necessity. You have to pose

1545
01:44:17,199 --> 01:44:19,800
it something that's ultimately circular as a starting point. You

1546
01:44:19,840 --> 01:44:24,119
can't avoid this, It's impossible. The only difference is the

1547
01:44:24,199 --> 01:44:29,319
autonomous reasoner is saying they're the necessary precondition for truth

1548
01:44:30,680 --> 01:44:34,039
because they're appealing to their own reasoning. They're not justifying

1549
01:44:34,119 --> 01:44:36,600
how it is they have reasoning. They're just granting themselves

1550
01:44:36,600 --> 01:44:40,039
reasoning the fact that we're given reasoning to come to

1551
01:44:40,279 --> 01:44:45,800
the necessary preconditions. It doesn't mean you're doing autonomous reasoning.

1552
01:44:46,640 --> 01:44:50,039
You have to account for a reasoning existing altogether, which

1553
01:44:50,119 --> 01:44:52,359
means you're already appealing outside of yourself.

1554
01:44:56,479 --> 01:44:59,520
Speaker 4: Gee, that has allowed you to know that your reasoning

1555
01:44:59,600 --> 01:45:02,760
chain from God existing to the reliability sugar pistemology looks

1556
01:45:03,399 --> 01:45:05,680
but this, and this is sometimes polsted as a problem

1557
01:45:05,720 --> 01:45:07,199
for the theists, but it's not. It's a fun basic

1558
01:45:07,239 --> 01:45:08,279
what do you think for everyone?

1559
01:45:14,279 --> 01:45:17,239
Speaker 3: We're just molecules? But also yeah, the rational but we're

1560
01:45:17,319 --> 01:45:22,159
just molecules, but there's a we we're just molecules. But

1561
01:45:22,239 --> 01:45:25,000
there's an eye? What no, what is this ie you're

1562
01:45:25,000 --> 01:45:30,760
talking about it? What a uh conglomeration of particular items

1563
01:45:30,840 --> 01:45:31,800
and patterns? Is you?

1564
01:45:32,159 --> 01:45:32,479
Speaker 5: Is the you?

1565
01:45:34,239 --> 01:45:39,159
Speaker 3: Rationality? Certain molecules are rational and propositional and others aren't.

1566
01:45:39,960 --> 01:45:42,840
So I love bringing up the waterfall. How is it

1567
01:45:42,920 --> 01:45:46,840
the case that everything is fundamentally made of atoms and

1568
01:45:47,520 --> 01:45:50,880
the mere organization, the difference in organization of those atoms

1569
01:45:50,960 --> 01:45:53,920
can render one thing completely propositional and rational and the

1570
01:45:54,000 --> 01:45:58,199
other thing not. It's insane, that's an insane fairy tale,

1571
01:45:58,560 --> 01:46:01,760
that's greazy, that's magic. By They're like, oh, the theist

1572
01:46:01,920 --> 01:46:06,239
is using magical reasoning and thinking and magic. You're you

1573
01:46:06,359 --> 01:46:10,199
have no distinction between what you call an arrangement of

1574
01:46:10,880 --> 01:46:15,760
carbon and water called a human being, and a lightning storm,

1575
01:46:17,439 --> 01:46:21,439
And yet you grant yourself one having the ability to

1576
01:46:21,520 --> 01:46:30,920
be rational in the other not. Wow, who does that?

1577
01:46:32,079 --> 01:46:38,439
Alex O'Connor looks like a actor. Charles Bronson looks like

1578
01:46:38,560 --> 01:46:39,720
a Charles Bronson.

1579
01:46:41,399 --> 01:46:43,359
Speaker 4: It's a it's a problem for everyone, right, it's because

1580
01:46:43,359 --> 01:46:46,880
it's because of this, it's because thank you for prediction

1581
01:46:47,000 --> 01:46:49,039
on what we think is and what is? What we

1582
01:46:49,159 --> 01:46:51,119
believe is the case is predication on what we think

1583
01:46:51,119 --> 01:46:52,680
we can Yeah, so so so.

1584
01:46:54,720 --> 01:46:57,079
Speaker 2: Well, we'll break this down even if you just feel

1585
01:46:57,119 --> 01:46:59,159
sach Alex, I could see looking you.

1586
01:46:59,199 --> 01:47:01,199
Speaker 3: Want to bake and I'm too little for him. Look,

1587
01:47:01,239 --> 01:47:02,720
I have seventeen thousand followers.

1588
01:47:02,760 --> 01:47:05,800
Speaker 2: Come and I think, no, don't apologize. That's what we're

1589
01:47:05,800 --> 01:47:06,000
here for.

1590
01:47:06,159 --> 01:47:11,680
Speaker 3: But they won't. They won't. If they did, that would

1591
01:47:11,680 --> 01:47:14,399
be great. It's just that they won't. I'm also too aggressive.

1592
01:47:15,600 --> 01:47:17,600
I can't sit here and try to pretend I am.

1593
01:47:17,640 --> 01:47:20,079
I'm sitting in a fucking library that smells like a pipe,

1594
01:47:20,359 --> 01:47:25,439
like a pipe. You know, I'm low class. I grew

1595
01:47:25,520 --> 01:47:30,680
up in an old farmhouse. Okay, I'm aggressive, I'm arrogant.

1596
01:47:30,920 --> 01:47:33,640
I'm gonna mock you. Okay. They don't like that. They

1597
01:47:33,680 --> 01:47:39,600
don't want that, they don't want that. I think I'm toxic. Toxic.

1598
01:47:40,439 --> 01:47:44,760
Speaker 2: There's like a circularity potentially in the Godge justification and saying, well,

1599
01:47:44,800 --> 01:47:48,000
I can trust my rationality because you have seven fifty.

1600
01:47:48,079 --> 01:47:50,640
That's what day caught does, and you have seven to fifty.

1601
01:47:50,960 --> 01:47:54,920
Speaker 3: Everybody go over and follow mister Westford. Just we've got

1602
01:47:55,039 --> 01:47:59,119
to get this guy over one thousand and Also, this

1603
01:47:59,239 --> 01:47:59,960
is a good time to hit.

1604
01:47:59,880 --> 01:48:00,520
Speaker 5: The like button.

1605
01:48:02,279 --> 01:48:03,199
Speaker 1: I thought I died.

1606
01:48:07,640 --> 01:48:10,920
Speaker 3: Right, Alex Jones, right, am I right?

1607
01:48:22,159 --> 01:48:22,439
Speaker 5: Love it.

1608
01:48:26,920 --> 01:48:30,600
Speaker 2: The famous criticisms of descartes work is known as the Cartesian.

1609
01:48:30,159 --> 01:48:33,000
Speaker 3: Yeah, he'd have for better, Yes, Andrew, Well, if you

1610
01:48:33,159 --> 01:48:36,319
need God, Andrew is in the position to debate a

1611
01:48:36,359 --> 01:48:41,960
lot of these people. Yep, and he could, he could manage.

1612
01:48:42,119 --> 01:48:48,079
He's just more he's more inclined to political debate and

1613
01:48:48,239 --> 01:48:51,640
granting all of the ship, and he's less like you know,

1614
01:48:51,720 --> 01:48:54,920
I think Jay Dyer should be debating Alex. Right, you know,

1615
01:48:56,119 --> 01:48:59,880
these two should be debating I wouldn't even say me

1616
01:49:00,439 --> 01:49:05,479
or Andrew jay Dyer should be debating Alex At the

1617
01:49:05,560 --> 01:49:12,079
paradigm level of these, these two counter views of really

1618
01:49:12,439 --> 01:49:16,880
the debate ultimately ends up being theonomous reason and autonomous

1619
01:49:16,920 --> 01:49:19,800
reason and then everything else that follows under those two

1620
01:49:19,880 --> 01:49:31,760
umbrellas physicalism versus non physicalism, maybe naturalism versus supernaturalism. Jr.

1621
01:49:31,880 --> 01:49:33,840
Is going to be on AP's channel. Who's a P

1622
01:49:36,000 --> 01:49:38,960
I don't know shorts short letters anymore? I don't know

1623
01:49:39,479 --> 01:49:42,760
who's apho? Who'd at?

1624
01:49:43,680 --> 01:49:47,800
Speaker 2: Who did it to justify your reasoning ability? How do

1625
01:49:47,880 --> 01:49:51,960
you reason that God exists in order to justify so

1626
01:49:52,039 --> 01:49:53,680
it goes around in the circle, right, and.

1627
01:49:53,840 --> 01:49:55,880
Speaker 3: So yeah, kind of what's happening now. I mean Jay

1628
01:49:55,960 --> 01:49:59,319
has done and continues to do lots of work against atheism,

1629
01:49:59,399 --> 01:50:00,920
but it's kind of a like a fun trio. My

1630
01:50:01,000 --> 01:50:02,680
buddy texted me and he was like, Oh, it's fun

1631
01:50:02,720 --> 01:50:07,279
to watch you guys, because Andrew's got the d Jens.

1632
01:50:08,079 --> 01:50:11,000
You know, he attacks the Djens, debates against the Muslims,

1633
01:50:11,039 --> 01:50:14,199
but mostly focuses on the d Gens. And Jay is

1634
01:50:15,000 --> 01:50:21,199
focused on Heresi's Islam assists and so forth, but still

1635
01:50:21,279 --> 01:50:26,399
debates atheism. But I'm like, rigidly focused on materialists and atheists.

1636
01:50:27,840 --> 01:50:33,479
You know, is he a tall mood apologist? He's a Zio?

1637
01:50:34,159 --> 01:50:38,560
Isn't he a zio? Guy Montana Moser five dollars thank you.

1638
01:50:38,880 --> 01:50:42,560
I know I'm harping on this ken Ham legit. No,

1639
01:50:42,680 --> 01:50:46,359
I don't really take ken Ham seriously. Scientific approach to

1640
01:50:46,399 --> 01:50:50,039
the faith make any sense? No, No, it doesn't. Scientific

1641
01:50:50,079 --> 01:50:52,359
approach to the faith. There's a great video on this

1642
01:50:52,600 --> 01:50:57,560
by David Patrick Harry over at Church of the Eternal Logos.

1643
01:50:58,439 --> 01:51:03,840
I forgot what it's called, but essentially goes over in

1644
01:51:03,960 --> 01:51:10,279
great detail the difference between correspondence theory and coherency classical

1645
01:51:10,399 --> 01:51:17,920
foundationalism versus the transcendental approach. And what we find is

1646
01:51:18,600 --> 01:51:21,600
that someone like ken Ham or anyone else, if they're

1647
01:51:21,800 --> 01:51:25,720
arguing from the scientific paradigm, they're really in the atheist paradigm.

1648
01:51:26,680 --> 01:51:29,039
And if you're in the atheist paradigm, how are you

1649
01:51:29,079 --> 01:51:31,800
going to try to use the atheist paradigm, which is naturalistic,

1650
01:51:32,039 --> 01:51:35,880
to jump to supernaturalism as a result from an argument,

1651
01:51:37,039 --> 01:51:41,600
rather than questioning the starting point of why you even

1652
01:51:41,720 --> 01:51:46,479
have the scientific approach to begin with. That's why it's

1653
01:51:46,560 --> 01:51:48,800
kind of frustrating because the people who argue like ken

1654
01:51:48,840 --> 01:51:50,960
Ham and the other they get more play because they're

1655
01:51:51,000 --> 01:51:55,239
inside the atheist paradigm. They get more service, lip service,

1656
01:51:55,279 --> 01:51:58,000
they get more spots on panels, they get more debates

1657
01:51:58,600 --> 01:52:02,199
because the atheists is going to mostly engage with that

1658
01:52:02,439 --> 01:52:06,039
because it's their paradigm. It makes sense that the William Lane,

1659
01:52:06,079 --> 01:52:12,720
Craigs and the ken Hams are the more popular fodder

1660
01:52:12,840 --> 01:52:15,640
or subjects for the atheist community to kind of entangle

1661
01:52:15,760 --> 01:52:20,079
entangle themselves with because they're arguing from the atheist paradigm.

1662
01:52:21,039 --> 01:52:24,760
It's ultimately a bad position. It's a bad position to take.

1663
01:52:27,159 --> 01:52:31,560
Caramazzo gifted one membership. Thank you so much, Tony another

1664
01:52:31,560 --> 01:52:33,720
four ninety nine. I appreciate that. How do you think

1665
01:52:33,840 --> 01:52:37,199
a serious conversation between Dier and William lane Craig would go.

1666
01:52:37,399 --> 01:52:41,880
I think it would go well. William lane Craig is

1667
01:52:42,359 --> 01:52:48,359
very well mannered, very well mannered. I mean it's takes

1668
01:52:48,399 --> 01:52:52,079
a long time. I think Jay would might be bored

1669
01:52:52,399 --> 01:53:07,039
in fact moral duties. If the atheists can't ground their

1670
01:53:07,239 --> 01:53:23,439
moral duties, there's ultimately a deontological necessity of God. Now,

1671
01:53:23,520 --> 01:53:27,600
I will give William Lane Craig some credit for absolutely,

1672
01:53:28,199 --> 01:53:35,800
hands down decimating Sam Harris's moral landscape. I believe I

1673
01:53:35,880 --> 01:53:44,359
have a knockdown argument. That's a good William lane Craig

1674
01:53:44,399 --> 01:53:47,039
I'd never tried before. I just heard him in my head.

1675
01:53:50,039 --> 01:53:55,600
If the highest peaks of well being can be occupied

1676
01:53:56,640 --> 01:54:02,399
by people who have done evil things. He's old now,

1677
01:54:02,479 --> 01:54:05,840
though he's old now a little quiver, Yeah, he has

1678
01:54:05,840 --> 01:54:07,000
a little quiver in his voice.

1679
01:54:12,800 --> 01:54:15,239
Speaker 2: Think about like the atheist urgeon of this or the

1680
01:54:15,279 --> 01:54:19,560
atheist problem here is really put together best I think

1681
01:54:19,600 --> 01:54:23,279
by Alvin planting it his evolutionary argument against naturalism. So

1682
01:54:23,359 --> 01:54:27,159
he specifically makes the case that if you believe in evolution.

1683
01:54:27,279 --> 01:54:29,079
I've talked about this a lot, right, If you believe

1684
01:54:29,079 --> 01:54:32,680
in evolution and your materialists assume you're a materialist, you

1685
01:54:32,720 --> 01:54:37,079
believe in evolution by natural selection. Natural selection selects for survivability.

1686
01:54:37,600 --> 01:54:40,560
It doesn't select for truth, which means that if you

1687
01:54:40,680 --> 01:54:45,000
believe in evolution, you believe that your reasoning faculty has

1688
01:54:45,119 --> 01:54:48,039
not evolved to be sensitive to truth but to survivability.

1689
01:54:48,680 --> 01:54:51,640
Why do you believe in evolution because you've reasoned your

1690
01:54:51,680 --> 01:54:54,560
way into it. But the thing you've just reasoned your

1691
01:54:54,600 --> 01:54:58,640
way into evolution has undermined your ability to trust the

1692
01:54:58,720 --> 01:54:59,680
reasoning process.

1693
01:55:00,640 --> 01:55:09,239
Speaker 3: Also, it results almost universally, results in a secular view

1694
01:55:09,680 --> 01:55:13,399
that at the point in time they've used their reasoning

1695
01:55:13,640 --> 01:55:19,359
to come to the conclusion to not reproduce. So even

1696
01:55:19,399 --> 01:55:23,800
the aspect of evolution we called fitness, if planting a

1697
01:55:24,000 --> 01:55:29,680
new the future of the secular behavior we see today,

1698
01:55:29,760 --> 01:55:33,800
which is ultimately, don't have kids, you know, pursue your

1699
01:55:33,840 --> 01:55:38,479
own wants and desires without consequence, pursue convenience above all things,

1700
01:55:38,800 --> 01:55:42,680
freedom above all things. And it resulted in what's also

1701
01:55:42,800 --> 01:55:46,159
considered an evolution. The purpose, the goal, the only goal

1702
01:55:46,199 --> 01:55:50,520
they could actually say is survivor. Survival and survival can't

1703
01:55:50,600 --> 01:55:56,000
be separated or divorced from reproduction. Survival and reproduction go

1704
01:55:56,119 --> 01:55:59,960
hand in hand in evolution. And yet now the people

1705
01:56:00,000 --> 01:56:03,680
pople who believe in evolution come to a their reasoning,

1706
01:56:03,880 --> 01:56:08,359
their apparatus, their rationality have led them to a position

1707
01:56:08,840 --> 01:56:15,920
where they're annihilating their own DNA. That's wild. That's wild

1708
01:56:17,479 --> 01:56:22,560
that the people who believe in evolution almost universally agree

1709
01:56:23,119 --> 01:56:25,920
with a set of behaviors that ultimately remove them from

1710
01:56:25,960 --> 01:56:29,920
the gene pool. That's like, if God's not a comedian

1711
01:56:35,479 --> 01:56:44,239
speaking of a terrible take on how to look at God? Boy,

1712
01:56:44,279 --> 01:56:48,319
are you gonna be Yeah, we'll do that in a second.

1713
01:56:48,399 --> 01:56:51,159
I'll do that in a second. Saw a terrible clip that.

1714
01:56:51,199 --> 01:56:53,000
Speaker 2: You've used to reason into it. So he sort of

1715
01:56:53,039 --> 01:56:56,520
points out that, like, you can't be a materialist and

1716
01:56:56,600 --> 01:57:00,880
believe in evolution, self cleaning up and cuts the reasons

1717
01:57:00,920 --> 01:57:02,039
you have for believing in evolution.

1718
01:57:02,279 --> 01:57:04,239
Speaker 3: The thing is right, Yeah, that's right.

1719
01:57:04,359 --> 01:57:07,319
Speaker 2: One of these that's right is a vicious circle, and

1720
01:57:07,359 --> 01:57:10,439
one of them is horrifyingly true. Because for the atheists,

1721
01:57:10,479 --> 01:57:13,399
you've got this horrible problem where like you've got this

1722
01:57:13,560 --> 01:57:19,560
weird circle of like like, yeah, I believe that it's

1723
01:57:19,640 --> 01:57:21,720
just atoms bumping into each other that has no connection

1724
01:57:21,800 --> 01:57:24,800
to truth, and that's produced this belief. But it's that

1725
01:57:24,920 --> 01:57:28,039
belief which is caused this this reasoning fact, and you're

1726
01:57:28,079 --> 01:57:29,039
getting all messed up.

1727
01:57:29,439 --> 01:57:29,600
Speaker 5: You know.

1728
01:57:29,680 --> 01:57:31,760
Speaker 2: The theist goes around in a circle, but they say, okay,

1729
01:57:31,840 --> 01:57:33,840
sure it's circular, but we all have to start somewhere,

1730
01:57:33,840 --> 01:57:36,479
and everyone's circular in some degree. But my circle is

1731
01:57:36,560 --> 01:57:39,720
one that says, well, God justifies reason because he's an

1732
01:57:39,840 --> 01:57:42,359
agent who is, you know, the foundation of truth and

1733
01:57:42,439 --> 01:57:43,439
gives us access to truth.

1734
01:57:43,640 --> 01:57:46,479
Speaker 3: Not just that no reason itself is a mind is

1735
01:57:46,560 --> 01:57:51,359
a mind oriented thing, reason, logic, truth, meaning these are

1736
01:57:51,399 --> 01:57:55,439
all mind oriented things. So we don't just we don't

1737
01:57:55,520 --> 01:57:58,800
just you know, out of nowhere, pose it the same

1738
01:57:58,840 --> 01:58:01,720
way someone would pose it like spaghetti monster. We don't

1739
01:58:01,800 --> 01:58:04,399
just pause it that God is the foundation of reason.

1740
01:58:05,159 --> 01:58:09,279
There there is a way to communicate that that makes sense.

1741
01:58:10,720 --> 01:58:13,760
We would say God is a foundation of truth. You know,

1742
01:58:14,560 --> 01:58:17,560
even from a an atheist view, who wouldn't put truth

1743
01:58:17,720 --> 01:58:20,920
as a being like we would even if we granted

1744
01:58:21,039 --> 01:58:24,520
that category of truth lower T truth, low T truth,

1745
01:58:24,960 --> 01:58:30,119
lower testosterone truth, we would say, okay, So if truth

1746
01:58:30,239 --> 01:58:34,479
is is mind dependent, but it's absolute, even from the

1747
01:58:34,520 --> 01:58:39,680
atheist view, to deny its absolute is a contradiction, then

1748
01:58:39,760 --> 01:58:41,840
how do you ground such a thing if it's not

1749
01:58:41,920 --> 01:58:45,039
an object in the world from an empirical standard, you can't.

1750
01:58:46,199 --> 01:58:46,880
Speaker 4: So it's not just this.

1751
01:58:47,199 --> 01:58:51,199
Speaker 3: It's not just this like lazy leap to link truth

1752
01:58:51,279 --> 01:58:54,479
to a person. It's not a lazy leap to link

1753
01:58:55,159 --> 01:58:57,640
absolute concepts to an absolute mind.

1754
01:58:58,279 --> 01:58:59,199
Speaker 5: It's truth.

1755
01:59:00,000 --> 01:59:03,800
Speaker 2: And yeah, sure to get that. But that circle is

1756
01:59:03,960 --> 01:59:06,720
like consistent and self contained and gives you it could

1757
01:59:06,720 --> 01:59:10,159
be circular, it is one that sort of gives you

1758
01:59:10,479 --> 01:59:11,199
trust and truths.

1759
01:59:11,279 --> 01:59:13,079
Speaker 3: I mean I think that, I think that the Yeah,

1760
01:59:13,119 --> 01:59:18,079
the circularity still appeal is still applies to the atheist

1761
01:59:18,279 --> 01:59:23,640
who is an empiricist, because they're ultimately saying, I I

1762
01:59:23,720 --> 01:59:27,039
trust my senses, and my senses tell me to trust

1763
01:59:27,079 --> 01:59:32,800
my senses. You don't escape circularity. All worldviews are faith based,

1764
01:59:33,039 --> 01:59:37,960
all knowledge all worldviews are theory laden. And if we're

1765
01:59:37,960 --> 01:59:41,560
on a web, you know, this is the analogy I use.

1766
01:59:42,479 --> 01:59:44,920
If there's a bunch of random people on a web

1767
01:59:45,000 --> 01:59:48,479
of knowledge. The person who wants to know the truth

1768
01:59:48,520 --> 01:59:51,479
of the matter, ultimately of the web of knowledge, They're

1769
01:59:51,520 --> 01:59:53,960
not going to go to the side strands. They're going

1770
01:59:54,000 --> 01:59:57,800
to go to the anchors. What are the anchor points

1771
01:59:57,880 --> 02:00:00,720
of the web of knowledge? That's theory laiden. What is

1772
02:00:00,800 --> 02:00:03,680
it grounded to? What is it tied to? Like, you

1773
02:00:03,720 --> 02:00:07,560
couldn't have a web without the anchors. You need the

1774
02:00:07,640 --> 02:00:16,479
anchor points to be drawn out to stable objects, stable things,

1775
02:00:16,720 --> 02:00:20,520
uninvariant things, or it collapses. So what's the invariant thing?

1776
02:00:20,600 --> 02:00:25,359
The anchors? The anchors. I hope you guys are following this.

1777
02:00:25,760 --> 02:00:29,760
The anchors in a worldview. If they are. If the

1778
02:00:30,680 --> 02:00:34,119
anchors are not identical to the longest strands of the web,

1779
02:00:34,800 --> 02:00:37,560
those are in an atheist view. The axioms, Well, I

1780
02:00:37,680 --> 02:00:41,319
use my axioms. No, you have nothing to tie your

1781
02:00:41,399 --> 02:00:48,920
axioms to. If your axioms are those long those longer,

1782
02:00:49,199 --> 02:00:52,439
thicker threads, that are stronger from the middle outward, If

1783
02:00:52,520 --> 02:00:54,239
your those are your actions. Oh, I use a lot

1784
02:00:54,279 --> 02:00:56,640
of identity, I use my reason, I use rationality, I

1785
02:00:56,720 --> 02:01:02,039
use science. Okay, what are those tied to? Brah, What

1786
02:01:02,199 --> 02:01:06,239
are they tied to Well, don't know. They're tied to themselves.

1787
02:01:07,000 --> 02:01:08,960
That's what they have to say. They're tied to themselves.

1788
02:01:11,720 --> 02:01:14,159
That doesn't make sense. They can't be tied to themselves.

1789
02:01:15,880 --> 02:01:18,800
Thank you for your Polish money. I believe appreciate that.

1790
02:01:19,079 --> 02:01:21,359
May Our Lord Jesus bless you for your hard work.

1791
02:01:21,439 --> 02:01:23,600
Mister Jim Bob just found out your channel atheism is

1792
02:01:23,640 --> 02:01:26,000
winning debates on the internet in my country. Now I

1793
02:01:26,119 --> 02:01:28,079
know more and can use your knowledge for myself. Yeah,

1794
02:01:28,079 --> 02:01:33,039
please continue the debates my axioms.

1795
02:01:34,239 --> 02:01:35,960
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think I think that is essentially the Coole

1796
02:01:35,960 --> 02:01:38,880
difference betwe the too right self undermining versus self reinforcement. Yeah,

1797
02:01:39,079 --> 02:01:41,159
that's the Yeah, I just want to point.

1798
02:01:41,000 --> 02:01:43,079
Speaker 3: Out that let's go to the laws of lot of logic,

1799
02:01:43,119 --> 02:01:44,520
where the goals of logic come from.

1800
02:01:45,600 --> 02:01:47,600
Speaker 4: Oh, yeah, I know this is a fascinating one.

1801
02:01:48,119 --> 02:01:48,840
Speaker 3: He's sorry, he's done.

1802
02:01:48,960 --> 02:01:50,720
Speaker 4: One thing is that I you know, excited when I

1803
02:01:50,800 --> 02:01:53,479
was he specialty was my mastical logic. It was like,

1804
02:01:53,640 --> 02:01:55,640
that's what's what I focused on during my like doing

1805
02:01:55,960 --> 02:01:58,720
using my master So it's it's it's it's a very

1806
02:01:58,720 --> 02:02:03,640
interesting question. There there's a lot of dispute understandable as

1807
02:02:03,720 --> 02:02:08,720
some argue that logic is a fundamentally emperi system founding.

1808
02:02:08,880 --> 02:02:10,399
So some people argue that the laws of logic are

1809
02:02:10,399 --> 02:02:12,880
abstracted from observations. We don't see contradictions.

1810
02:02:13,039 --> 02:02:17,199
Speaker 3: So nope, no, no, no, no, no, he already start.

1811
02:02:17,279 --> 02:02:20,359
I mean, come on, dude, you really think that's a

1812
02:02:20,399 --> 02:02:24,560
good take. No, you have to use and assume the

1813
02:02:24,640 --> 02:02:28,359
laws of logic before you do intake data. What are

1814
02:02:28,399 --> 02:02:32,560
you talking about. The first fundamental assumption of the laws

1815
02:02:32,560 --> 02:02:35,000
of thought is that you exist and there's an external world.

1816
02:02:37,680 --> 02:02:39,920
By the way, the moment you state that you exist

1817
02:02:39,960 --> 02:02:42,479
and there's an external world, you're now beyond assuming the

1818
02:02:42,560 --> 02:02:45,720
laws of thought. But you're now doing metaphysics something called

1819
02:02:45,720 --> 02:02:50,720
the external world. That's interesting. He's saying, Oh, well, some

1820
02:02:50,880 --> 02:02:53,279
people think. Now. Notice how he didn't say he believes that.

1821
02:02:53,399 --> 02:02:56,279
This is what the philosophers always do. They just cover

1822
02:02:56,439 --> 02:02:58,720
a broad variety of what some people can think. They

1823
02:02:58,760 --> 02:03:03,479
never answer what they think some people think. He says

1824
02:03:04,640 --> 02:03:07,840
that the laws of thodd are empirically derived. No, you

1825
02:03:08,000 --> 02:03:11,319
can't derive anything in the external world without assuming the

1826
02:03:11,399 --> 02:03:14,680
law of identity that objects aren't identical to other objects.

1827
02:03:14,880 --> 02:03:17,800
That's this sense of heat isn't the same as this

1828
02:03:17,920 --> 02:03:21,800
sense of brightness, this sense of smell is not the

1829
02:03:21,880 --> 02:03:29,920
same as this sense of pain. Why would he say

1830
02:03:30,000 --> 02:03:39,439
something so obviously dumb? Love this stream, jamab I hope

1831
02:03:39,439 --> 02:03:42,000
you'd keep it up. Thank you before you go, hits

1832
02:03:42,039 --> 02:03:47,520
a like button thought, appreciate you.

1833
02:03:48,960 --> 02:03:51,800
Speaker 4: We have the law of un contradiction, and oh we.

1834
02:03:51,840 --> 02:03:54,800
Speaker 3: Have it, Hey, guys, we have it. So because there's

1835
02:03:54,840 --> 02:03:56,439
a physical thing out there in the world, we have

1836
02:03:56,520 --> 02:03:58,800
the law of non contradiction. No, no, no, no, no

1837
02:04:00,039 --> 02:04:04,359
way to grant yourself. The first starting point of there's

1838
02:04:04,399 --> 02:04:06,920
something out there in the world is the assumption that

1839
02:04:07,039 --> 02:04:11,319
you are not identical to that thing. So he's like, oh,

1840
02:04:11,359 --> 02:04:13,079
we see this in stuff, We see this in objects

1841
02:04:13,119 --> 02:04:16,119
and stuff. No, who's this you? Who's this we? What

1842
02:04:16,159 --> 02:04:16,880
are you talking about?

1843
02:04:17,239 --> 02:04:22,159
Speaker 4: Like there was so many an attempted research program called

1844
02:04:22,199 --> 02:04:24,640
quantum logic and like the eighties by Hillary Putnam. I

1845
02:04:24,720 --> 02:04:28,720
think oh, Hilary attempted. He multified the classical Hillary in

1846
02:04:28,880 --> 02:04:31,479
line with observations from quantum theory about.

1847
02:04:31,079 --> 02:04:35,079
Speaker 3: What the thing is the same as the thing. No,

1848
02:04:35,199 --> 02:04:37,680
it's not the same as the thing. That's the point.

1849
02:04:37,800 --> 02:04:40,520
Big tech. How are you not following this at this point.

1850
02:04:46,119 --> 02:04:50,359
Your first fundamental assumption that you you presuppose logic in

1851
02:04:51,119 --> 02:04:53,119
is that you exist, that you have a mind, and

1852
02:04:53,199 --> 02:04:56,159
there's an external world and other minds that are attached

1853
02:04:56,159 --> 02:05:03,720
to other beings. That's the first assumption. Only after that

1854
02:05:04,119 --> 02:05:09,560
do you do like higher resolution uh, sense input? You don't,

1855
02:05:10,119 --> 02:05:12,439
by the way, you don't sense the laws of logic.

1856
02:05:13,640 --> 02:05:15,760
You don't sense them. There's nothing called the law of

1857
02:05:15,840 --> 02:05:20,039
identity that's a data input. There's no data law of

1858
02:05:20,079 --> 02:05:24,079
identity that you're inputting. There's nothing. That's why empiricism has failed.

1859
02:05:24,159 --> 02:05:29,359
That's why David human Is is completely consistent when he

1860
02:05:29,439 --> 02:05:37,439
points out this problem sense data. There's no law of identity.

1861
02:05:40,359 --> 02:05:43,880
There's nothing called the law of identity that you're discerning

1862
02:05:43,960 --> 02:05:48,039
with your senses. Yeah, the fact that we have it

1863
02:05:48,239 --> 02:05:48,920
principles and stuff.

1864
02:05:48,920 --> 02:05:51,159
Speaker 4: I don't understand physics in the slights I'm.

1865
02:05:51,079 --> 02:05:55,319
Speaker 3: Gonna by the way, even the law of identity, even

1866
02:05:55,359 --> 02:05:58,560
the perception. Another problem with the law of induction, right,

1867
02:05:59,039 --> 02:06:03,359
is a different problem, but related to just assuming logic itself,

1868
02:06:04,000 --> 02:06:07,000
the assumption of the regularity of nature and that logic

1869
02:06:07,319 --> 02:06:12,079
is invariant, and then the regularity maintains. Just because the

1870
02:06:12,199 --> 02:06:16,079
law of identity and the law of regularity work together,

1871
02:06:17,279 --> 02:06:20,039
or one upholds the other, or one governs the other,

1872
02:06:20,279 --> 02:06:30,600
doesn't mean they're identical. It's not the same. So the

1873
02:06:30,720 --> 02:06:33,920
regularity of nature now the problem of induction. All of

1874
02:06:34,000 --> 02:06:40,079
their reasoning is basically postdiction. And to do postdiction rationality

1875
02:06:40,119 --> 02:06:42,439
and reasoning is to assume the law of identity that

1876
02:06:42,520 --> 02:06:46,039
you think you're experiencing actually maintains, and that your recollection

1877
02:06:46,159 --> 02:06:49,680
of the past, while you're doing some evaluation, you're actually

1878
02:06:49,720 --> 02:06:53,479
evaluating properly. So there's a couple of things. There's the

1879
02:06:53,600 --> 02:06:56,640
past that you don't have access to anymore, that through

1880
02:06:56,720 --> 02:07:00,520
your sense data, the thing you're engaging with is no

1881
02:07:00,680 --> 02:07:04,520
longer itself itself in a sense right, that there's a past.

1882
02:07:04,600 --> 02:07:07,600
This is why, this is why nominalism fails, is because

1883
02:07:08,439 --> 02:07:14,239
under nominalism you reject universals have some sort of actual existence,

1884
02:07:14,680 --> 02:07:18,920
and you're only engaging with particulars. But the moment you

1885
02:07:19,640 --> 02:07:24,680
engage with particulars, the moment you're referencing those particulars, you're

1886
02:07:24,760 --> 02:07:27,840
now referencing something not identical to the particulars you're in

1887
02:07:28,079 --> 02:07:32,720
you're referencing your evaluation of the particulars. So there's no unity.

1888
02:07:33,680 --> 02:07:38,319
There's nothing that ultimately unifies the particulars called your evaluations

1889
02:07:38,399 --> 02:07:41,680
to the things you're evaluating. This is how insane you

1890
02:07:41,800 --> 02:07:45,239
have to be to be some sort of strict nominalist

1891
02:07:46,359 --> 02:07:46,800
or muzzle.

1892
02:07:49,760 --> 02:07:50,039
Speaker 5: And I.

1893
02:07:51,680 --> 02:07:54,760
Speaker 4: Imagine that the general document was right. Imagine that you

1894
02:07:54,840 --> 02:07:59,640
couldn't know position and velocity in my general life. What

1895
02:07:59,760 --> 02:08:02,159
we would modify the laws of logic to reflect that, right?

1896
02:08:02,159 --> 02:08:04,239
You wouldn't be able to you if you knew the

1897
02:08:05,279 --> 02:08:07,640
you wouldn't be able to distribute certain properties, for instance,

1898
02:08:07,720 --> 02:08:09,399
and stuff of that. So he says thing, okay, Well.

1899
02:08:09,760 --> 02:08:14,199
Speaker 3: The laws of logic are prescriptive recommendations from I don't

1900
02:08:14,239 --> 02:08:17,560
know if they're recommendations. You know why, because to make

1901
02:08:17,600 --> 02:08:25,239
a recommendation you have to already presuppose logic. So there

1902
02:08:25,279 --> 02:08:32,760
are laws of thought because you can't abandon them to think. Now,

1903
02:08:32,880 --> 02:08:35,279
whether or not we can jump to a metaethical position

1904
02:08:35,439 --> 02:08:40,399
of prescription versus description is something interesting, because why ought

1905
02:08:40,479 --> 02:08:44,760
we properly describe something? Is an ought? So if someone

1906
02:08:44,800 --> 02:08:47,680
says these things are descriptive, like the atheist says, well, no,

1907
02:08:47,760 --> 02:08:51,079
the laws of logic, Jimbob, You're you're making them seemingly

1908
02:08:51,159 --> 02:08:52,960
it seems like you're trying to give them some sort

1909
02:08:52,960 --> 02:08:55,920
of ontology that exists outside of our brain. Well, yeah,

1910
02:08:55,960 --> 02:08:58,840
I do, I do, and you do too, and they go, well, no,

1911
02:08:58,960 --> 02:09:03,920
they're just description. Well, the debate of whether they're prescriptive

1912
02:09:04,039 --> 02:09:07,800
or I think you can jump to how the laws

1913
02:09:07,840 --> 02:09:14,479
of thought leads immediately to a prescriptive position, which is

1914
02:09:14,560 --> 02:09:19,039
to say, why ought we be consistent? Why ought we

1915
02:09:19,159 --> 02:09:23,119
come to truth? But the atheist would push back on

1916
02:09:23,239 --> 02:09:29,800
that anyway. They would say, no, they're descriptive. Yeah, yeah, yeah, definitely, Jay, absolutely.

1917
02:09:30,479 --> 02:09:31,800
I don't know if you caught any of this, but

1918
02:09:32,079 --> 02:09:35,640
that would be great to jump on, dude, save me

1919
02:09:35,720 --> 02:09:43,600
from myself. So he probably won't answer where they come from.

1920
02:09:43,920 --> 02:09:45,920
He's going to try to do some sort of describe

1921
02:09:45,960 --> 02:09:50,039
them into reality, and they're necessary ways of looking at

1922
02:09:50,079 --> 02:09:53,039
things because stuff exists. Well, no, stuff existing is not

1923
02:09:53,119 --> 02:09:54,079
identical to the law.

1924
02:09:54,159 --> 02:09:56,680
Speaker 4: It follows we modify the littles of electic in accordance

1925
02:09:56,720 --> 02:09:56,880
with that.

1926
02:09:57,119 --> 02:09:59,279
Speaker 3: No, no, no, no, what did you just say? Wait,

1927
02:09:59,359 --> 02:10:03,760
hold on, a say we would modify the laws of logic.

1928
02:10:04,199 --> 02:10:06,359
I don't know where they get off saying stuff like this.

1929
02:10:07,159 --> 02:10:10,319
I don't know what it is that they're learning where

1930
02:10:10,359 --> 02:10:13,239
they're not catching themselves in this statement. Maybe it's because

1931
02:10:13,239 --> 02:10:15,640
I'm novice that I catch this stuff and they're all

1932
02:10:15,760 --> 02:10:18,319
in their you know, they are all in these like

1933
02:10:18,560 --> 02:10:20,239
well dressed stuff and they have so many books and

1934
02:10:20,279 --> 02:10:24,039
stuff to say you could modify the laws of thought.

1935
02:10:24,359 --> 02:10:27,800
Let's to take the three classical laws, law of identity,

1936
02:10:27,880 --> 02:10:31,560
non contradiction, excluded middle to say you could modify them

1937
02:10:32,520 --> 02:10:36,479
appeals to those things. The act of doing a modification

1938
02:10:38,039 --> 02:10:42,640
is the act of engaging with non contradiction or excluded middle.

1939
02:10:45,640 --> 02:10:48,600
He's like, well, if reality is a certain a way,

1940
02:10:48,640 --> 02:10:53,960
we would modify the law of identity. No, the act

1941
02:10:54,039 --> 02:10:57,560
of modifying quote this process that you have access to,

1942
02:10:58,199 --> 02:11:02,199
well just modify it. No, that's like someone saying we

1943
02:11:02,359 --> 02:11:06,399
created the laws laws of thought. You can't create without

1944
02:11:06,439 --> 02:11:11,439
appealing to those things. You can't do that. You're using

1945
02:11:11,560 --> 02:11:14,600
the thing that you're saying you could modify this is

1946
02:11:14,840 --> 02:11:18,720
I don't know. I just don't know how they got

1947
02:11:18,800 --> 02:11:20,399
to this point. Jay I put the I don't know

1948
02:11:20,399 --> 02:11:22,239
if you missed it. I put it in the general chat.

1949
02:11:22,439 --> 02:11:26,039
The link whenever you want, I want.

1950
02:11:25,920 --> 02:11:28,159
Speaker 4: To modify logic because of modifications.

1951
02:11:28,960 --> 02:11:32,199
Speaker 3: No, no, no, no. Even quantum mechanics, even if they

1952
02:11:32,359 --> 02:11:38,399
run unbridled into quantum mechanic world where one particle is

1953
02:11:38,439 --> 02:11:40,960
the same as another, but they're in two spots, even

1954
02:11:41,079 --> 02:11:44,600
that appeals to the law of identity. You couldn't even say.

1955
02:11:45,880 --> 02:11:49,359
You couldn't even say that there's a particle called itself

1956
02:11:49,479 --> 02:11:52,159
and there's another one in a different spot. Is the

1957
02:11:52,199 --> 02:11:56,439
same as that, even your mind being blown at theoretically

1958
02:11:56,520 --> 02:11:58,960
that being a thing. Even if you granted that a thing,

1959
02:12:00,159 --> 02:12:03,079
you still need to know that this particle is this particle,

1960
02:12:03,399 --> 02:12:06,000
they have an identity. All you're really saying is that

1961
02:12:06,079 --> 02:12:08,960
they exist in two spots. That's just some theoretical like

1962
02:12:09,720 --> 02:12:14,079
consequence of looking at the results of the experiment. Even

1963
02:12:14,119 --> 02:12:17,039
if you granted it, like forget the that doesn't collapse

1964
02:12:17,079 --> 02:12:20,720
the law of identity. That actually affirms the law of identity.

1965
02:12:21,640 --> 02:12:24,399
The reason is is because how could you come to

1966
02:12:24,479 --> 02:12:28,439
the conclusion that this particle is itself and this particle

1967
02:12:28,560 --> 02:12:32,159
is itself unless you knew that one of them Wasn't

1968
02:12:32,199 --> 02:12:35,640
this other particle you were confusing for this one. You're

1969
02:12:35,680 --> 02:12:39,279
actually affirming the law of identity. You're not changing you're

1970
02:12:39,319 --> 02:12:43,720
not changing the rules. You're not changing them at all,

1971
02:12:44,239 --> 02:12:46,439
Caesar are the Great four ninety nine. If the laws

1972
02:12:46,479 --> 02:12:50,319
of logic were anything other than real and objective, I

1973
02:12:50,359 --> 02:12:52,640
should be able to change them. Yeah, it's interesting you

1974
02:12:52,680 --> 02:12:57,000
said that, Caesar, because he's actually proposing you could if that.

1975
02:12:57,840 --> 02:13:03,479
If that's the case, right, If that's the case, the

1976
02:13:03,640 --> 02:13:07,800
laws of thought, according to this guy are conventional, and

1977
02:13:07,960 --> 02:13:12,960
that they're not actually laws. And if they're conventions, now

1978
02:13:13,039 --> 02:13:17,319
he needs something absolute that governs how he comes to conventions.

1979
02:13:18,640 --> 02:13:22,399
Does that make sense If he changes his conventions and

1980
02:13:22,560 --> 02:13:24,479
he says we can change the laws of logic because

1981
02:13:24,479 --> 02:13:27,119
they're just conventional to our goals and how we perceive things,

1982
02:13:27,720 --> 02:13:30,159
there now needs to be some ultimate new set of

1983
02:13:30,279 --> 02:13:35,880
laws that allow even that to be the case. It's

1984
02:13:36,039 --> 02:13:42,079
impossible to think illogically in a sense. I've actually thought

1985
02:13:42,119 --> 02:13:48,640
about this before. When we say something's illogical, it's impossible

1986
02:13:48,720 --> 02:13:52,399
to escape logic to say illogical. So when we say

1987
02:13:52,479 --> 02:13:55,960
is it impossible to think illogically? We can use that

1988
02:13:56,199 --> 02:14:00,399
phrase and say someone's not thinking consistently with law, where

1989
02:14:00,439 --> 02:14:04,279
something's wrong, and we call that illogical, but it is

1990
02:14:04,399 --> 02:14:09,720
in fact impossible to think even illogically without assuming logic,

1991
02:14:10,880 --> 02:14:13,880
like you like, like the same thing, like like. If

1992
02:14:13,960 --> 02:14:17,239
logic is the positive and illogical is the misuse of it,

1993
02:14:17,560 --> 02:14:22,680
or or a misfire or a direction away from logical consistency,

1994
02:14:24,960 --> 02:14:28,079
then that's just the thing that's missing the mark of logic.

1995
02:14:31,159 --> 02:14:33,520
So yeah, yeah, I do I do ja Yeah yeah,

1996
02:14:33,560 --> 02:14:37,960
I jump on. So this guy's saying, yeah, okay, here,

1997
02:14:38,239 --> 02:14:39,000
we're gonna change.

1998
02:14:38,920 --> 02:14:42,000
Speaker 4: Law of this thought, suggesting, well, what this does show

1999
02:14:42,560 --> 02:14:45,960
is that the laws of logic would be ulterable if

2000
02:14:46,000 --> 02:14:47,720
we encountered certain things in the world.

2001
02:14:47,840 --> 02:14:51,920
Speaker 3: Now, that's so stupid. That's so dumb. I can't even blieve.

2002
02:14:52,039 --> 02:14:56,039
I can't believe this is It gets frustrating. I'm starting

2003
02:14:56,079 --> 02:14:59,520
to do the Jay Dire sigh. All right, this is dumb.

2004
02:15:00,159 --> 02:15:09,720
Is domb next scuber dude, listener done, this is Oh,

2005
02:15:09,840 --> 02:15:12,640
if we observe something else in the world, let me

2006
02:15:12,840 --> 02:15:16,079
change the laws of thought, the laws of logic you

2007
02:15:16,359 --> 02:15:22,920
used to perceive those things needed to be true. Okay,

2008
02:15:23,039 --> 02:15:26,279
just listen, just listen to what he's saying. Listen again,

2009
02:15:27,039 --> 02:15:27,800
listen what he's saying.

2010
02:15:29,680 --> 02:15:32,039
Speaker 4: You wouldn't be able to distribute certain properties, for instance,

2011
02:15:32,119 --> 02:15:33,640
and stuff like that. So he says saying, okay, well,

2012
02:15:33,720 --> 02:15:36,000
we would modify the laws of logic in accordance with that.

2013
02:15:36,159 --> 02:15:38,399
So whether or not you know you want to modify

2014
02:15:38,840 --> 02:15:42,319
logic because of observations and quantum mechanics, he's suggesting, Well,

2015
02:15:43,039 --> 02:15:46,199
what this does show is that the laws of logic

2016
02:15:46,560 --> 02:15:49,680
would be alterable if we encountered certain things in the world.

2017
02:15:51,319 --> 02:15:55,680
Speaker 3: Encountering certain things in the world, presuppose the logic that

2018
02:15:55,800 --> 02:15:59,439
you're thinking is alterable. You notice that, So he is

2019
02:15:59,479 --> 02:16:02,479
going to pursue leave some things using the standard logic

2020
02:16:03,079 --> 02:16:06,319
that we have that he can't refute or counter, and

2021
02:16:06,439 --> 02:16:09,319
then he's going to use that logic to give himself

2022
02:16:09,359 --> 02:16:12,319
his data input. And then his assumption is that after

2023
02:16:12,479 --> 02:16:16,239
he's received the input of things in the world through

2024
02:16:16,359 --> 02:16:22,359
the classical laws, after the fact, he's going to abandon

2025
02:16:22,399 --> 02:16:26,119
the laws that he used to perceive to then rewrite

2026
02:16:26,159 --> 02:16:30,000
the laws. That makes no sense. I mean, that is

2027
02:16:30,159 --> 02:16:36,319
so idiotic. Yeah, Jay, definitely hit the link if you

2028
02:16:36,360 --> 02:16:44,440
see it. It's so idiotic. The reason, the reasoning, the

2029
02:16:45,600 --> 02:16:48,040
reasoning you would have to change the laws of thought

2030
02:16:48,079 --> 02:16:51,639
in this case would be based on the laws of

2031
02:16:51,680 --> 02:16:55,559
thought you're trying to change, being intact and reliable. This

2032
02:16:55,760 --> 02:17:00,719
is how this is how mind numbingly dense you have

2033
02:17:00,879 --> 02:17:04,879
to be at this point. It's insane to say this,

2034
02:17:05,600 --> 02:17:07,840
and they are, you know, the mustache guys. Hey, real,

2035
02:17:07,959 --> 02:17:12,559
that's interesting. Oh that's let's let's philosophize more than that.

2036
02:17:14,200 --> 02:17:18,280
This is why it's so frustrating, you know, it's so

2037
02:17:18,479 --> 02:17:21,520
frustrating because there are these these two like philosopher guys

2038
02:17:22,360 --> 02:17:24,879
that are not Wait a second, that doesn't make any sense.

2039
02:17:27,040 --> 02:17:31,799
That doesn't make any sense. How to think yourself off

2040
02:17:31,799 --> 02:17:34,520
a cliff correct? Yeah, yeah, Kelly Mitchell. Five dollars, Thank

2041
02:17:34,520 --> 02:17:37,000
you so much, Kelly. Then I'll just create a universe

2042
02:17:37,000 --> 02:17:39,520
where the laws of logic can be modified. Yeah hear,

2043
02:17:39,680 --> 02:17:44,799
he did it. You know, abandon abandon the laws that

2044
02:17:44,879 --> 02:17:48,639
you use to perceive the external world as a as

2045
02:17:48,680 --> 02:17:52,479
a reason to change the the laws that you that

2046
02:17:52,600 --> 02:17:54,840
were required for you to perceive that thing. I mean,

2047
02:17:54,920 --> 02:17:55,639
this is insane.

2048
02:17:58,440 --> 02:18:02,559
Speaker 4: There is some empirical compontis, but that's the that's the

2049
02:18:02,680 --> 02:18:05,479
epistem logical answer for Putnam. For other people, it's intuition,

2050
02:18:06,319 --> 02:18:07,399
and for others.

2051
02:18:07,239 --> 02:18:09,840
Speaker 3: But he didn't answer the question. The question is where

2052
02:18:10,000 --> 02:18:13,040
do the laws of logic come from? The question was

2053
02:18:13,120 --> 02:18:16,600
not can you hypothesize an imaginary clown world in which

2054
02:18:16,639 --> 02:18:19,280
you can conventionally change the laws of thought? That wasn't

2055
02:18:19,319 --> 02:18:21,479
the question. That was not the question.

2056
02:18:21,639 --> 02:18:23,879
Speaker 4: But there's also the metaphysical problem, which is why do

2057
02:18:23,959 --> 02:18:24,959
the laws of logic work?

2058
02:18:25,399 --> 02:18:27,559
Speaker 3: And again you no, no, no, you're just not answering

2059
02:18:27,600 --> 02:18:31,360
the question. Guys, you're just sharing your tea and crumpets, right,

2060
02:18:32,520 --> 02:18:35,760
you're shopping for these collared shirts together online in the

2061
02:18:35,799 --> 02:18:38,840
breaks you know, in the breakroom, and you're not answering

2062
02:18:38,920 --> 02:18:43,159
this question where do they come from? Where do they

2063
02:18:43,200 --> 02:18:49,079
come from? Which ends up being an ontological question. Fine,

2064
02:18:50,600 --> 02:18:52,840
he's just saying, well, the question actually brings up a

2065
02:18:52,879 --> 02:18:55,440
bigger question I can answer, which is what's the ontological

2066
02:18:55,479 --> 02:18:59,399
status of logic? Not the question where does it come from?

2067
02:18:59,680 --> 02:19:00,639
Where do they come from?

2068
02:19:01,319 --> 02:19:04,120
Speaker 4: That's the quest kind of human humans. It's really annoying

2069
02:19:04,440 --> 02:19:08,280
directions of explanation where some people say, will say, with

2070
02:19:08,280 --> 02:19:10,639
the laws of logic work because we've they are designed

2071
02:19:10,639 --> 02:19:12,440
to fit the world. We have design them to fit

2072
02:19:12,520 --> 02:19:12,799
the world.

2073
02:19:13,280 --> 02:19:15,319
Speaker 3: No, we didn't design them to fit the world. No,

2074
02:19:15,600 --> 02:19:20,600
that's just insane. Now we describe something, we describe the

2075
02:19:20,680 --> 02:19:24,840
laws of thought, and the fact that the laws of

2076
02:19:24,920 --> 02:19:28,280
thought are consistent with the world doesn't mean the laws

2077
02:19:28,319 --> 02:19:34,440
of thought are identical to the objects. We didn't describe

2078
02:19:34,559 --> 02:19:40,799
them because they work, because to describe something already appeals

2079
02:19:40,879 --> 02:19:45,440
to the thing is already in existence. They're just like,

2080
02:19:45,600 --> 02:19:49,040
you know, I don't know if Peterson would consider this postmodernism.

2081
02:19:49,680 --> 02:19:55,000
Speaker 8: Postmodernism. He's taking a fundamental approach that if you describe something,

2082
02:19:55,040 --> 02:19:57,840
then it's real so long as you accurately describe it

2083
02:19:57,920 --> 02:19:59,879
and it's consistent with reality.

2084
02:20:05,079 --> 02:20:08,840
Speaker 3: There's a real shit take, real garbage take.

2085
02:20:09,600 --> 02:20:11,600
Speaker 4: And then for a lot of people that's deeply unsatisfactory

2086
02:20:11,600 --> 02:20:13,639
because they say, well, you know what, why does the

2087
02:20:13,680 --> 02:20:15,440
world correspond with the laws of logic? How have we

2088
02:20:15,479 --> 02:20:16,879
been able to do that? Why is the world not

2089
02:20:17,319 --> 02:20:17,879
not chaos?

2090
02:20:18,079 --> 02:20:20,000
Speaker 5: And and uh and and.

2091
02:20:20,360 --> 02:20:23,399
Speaker 4: Darkness and and lots of other nasty, unpredictable things that

2092
02:20:23,479 --> 02:20:28,000
make logicians nervous and and yeah, and that's a broadly.

2093
02:20:28,319 --> 02:20:32,719
Speaker 3: Those are two different questions. The law of identity, the

2094
02:20:32,799 --> 02:20:36,399
law of identity non contradict contradiction excluded, middle could very

2095
02:20:36,479 --> 02:20:41,840
well have its own invariant status, and there could, from

2096
02:20:41,840 --> 02:20:45,399
an atheist view, be a world where it's indiscernible the

2097
02:20:45,760 --> 02:20:48,000
regularity of objects that they pop in and out of

2098
02:20:48,079 --> 02:20:51,959
the existence, like let's like take chair, like anything natural

2099
02:20:52,120 --> 02:20:56,280
like a tree or something else. If suddenly trees shared

2100
02:20:56,319 --> 02:20:59,840
the status of the double slid experiment with as particles.

2101
02:21:00,239 --> 02:21:05,840
From their view, it wouldn't if objects popped into existence

2102
02:21:06,000 --> 02:21:09,680
constantly and never kept their form such that we could

2103
02:21:09,719 --> 02:21:13,040
never categorize them as universals like a tree or an apple,

2104
02:21:13,120 --> 02:21:17,520
or any a circle or whatever. It's not inconsistent from

2105
02:21:17,559 --> 02:21:20,879
an atheist view that the the laws of thought could

2106
02:21:21,239 --> 02:21:27,040
exist and reality hard reality could be completely undiscernible and unintelligible.

2107
02:21:27,719 --> 02:21:32,920
They just think the laws of thought are justified just

2108
02:21:33,040 --> 02:21:37,200
because the reality we have is the reality we have.

2109
02:21:37,360 --> 02:21:40,520
I mean, this is just ad hoc, and I can

2110
02:21:40,559 --> 02:21:45,120
get any one of them to admit when they're pressed

2111
02:21:45,200 --> 02:21:48,920
that the law of identity is not identical to the object.

2112
02:21:49,200 --> 02:21:55,239
You're referring to the law itself that's abiding by itself.

2113
02:21:55,319 --> 02:21:58,760
A is a is not identical to the tree existing.

2114
02:22:01,520 --> 02:22:07,879
Dean lemb gifted one membership appreciate that what will atheism

2115
02:22:07,959 --> 02:22:11,079
sound like when they're forced into absolute corner obtuseness. While

2116
02:22:11,200 --> 02:22:13,479
we hear it most of the time, the problem is Ian.

2117
02:22:16,600 --> 02:22:20,399
The problem is they need the right people to force

2118
02:22:20,479 --> 02:22:24,120
them into those things. And speaking of the right person

2119
02:22:24,159 --> 02:22:27,280
who forces people into those corners, jade ey or what's

2120
02:22:27,280 --> 02:22:27,520
going on?

2121
02:22:27,680 --> 02:22:30,120
Speaker 5: Dude? Hey man, what's up? How are you?

2122
02:22:30,719 --> 02:22:33,479
Speaker 3: I'm doing good, you know, I'm just getting naturally frustrated

2123
02:22:33,520 --> 02:22:36,159
when you when I do these streams and I start

2124
02:22:36,239 --> 02:22:41,159
to hit my point of sighing and gasping. I don't

2125
02:22:41,159 --> 02:22:44,079
know if he saw this. This is fairly new Alex O'Connor,

2126
02:22:44,360 --> 02:22:46,920
which eventually you'll be able to debate this guy it'll

2127
02:22:46,959 --> 02:22:49,959
be beautiful or this other guy too. I mean, he's

2128
02:22:49,959 --> 02:22:53,479
got a decent channel unsolicited advice. His channel is they're

2129
02:22:53,479 --> 02:22:57,159
talking about answers atheists can't answer. If you missed it,

2130
02:22:57,520 --> 02:23:00,840
why is there something rather than nothing? We covered why

2131
02:23:01,000 --> 02:23:04,440
any why question? In general? Aught is? We covered the

2132
02:23:04,520 --> 02:23:05,239
aught is gap?

2133
02:23:05,799 --> 02:23:05,920
Speaker 1: Uh?

2134
02:23:09,079 --> 02:23:12,399
Speaker 3: I covered there this video. I'm going through their chapters

2135
02:23:12,479 --> 02:23:16,479
of what they list as the argument the questions the atheists.

2136
02:23:16,000 --> 02:23:18,760
Speaker 5: Can't answer, right, But did they cover is art?

2137
02:23:19,559 --> 02:23:19,959
Speaker 3: They did?

2138
02:23:20,200 --> 02:23:20,399
Speaker 5: Yeah?

2139
02:23:21,200 --> 02:23:25,239
Speaker 3: They essentially said, well, the Christian can't uh can't answer

2140
02:23:25,280 --> 02:23:29,280
the art problem either, and and so you're in the

2141
02:23:29,319 --> 02:23:33,000
same problem. And I brought up, well, there's a different question.

2142
02:23:33,319 --> 02:23:37,200
Why ought we be consistent with let's say, is art

2143
02:23:37,520 --> 02:23:42,920
fallacies or following fallacies? Why why aught we pursue true

2144
02:23:43,000 --> 02:23:46,360
things or consistent beliefs at all? Is a bigger question

2145
02:23:46,719 --> 02:23:50,239
that's not listed in this video. And that's a question

2146
02:23:50,360 --> 02:23:52,920
that if they can't answer that, the rest of the

2147
02:23:53,040 --> 02:23:55,239
things that they list are kind of useless anyway, Right,

2148
02:23:55,840 --> 02:23:59,200
So you know, I just wish I wrote the questions

2149
02:23:59,239 --> 02:24:01,719
for their video. What would you write as a question?

2150
02:24:01,879 --> 02:24:03,920
What's something you would ask an atheist you don't think

2151
02:24:03,959 --> 02:24:05,719
they can answer if it's not listed here.

2152
02:24:08,920 --> 02:24:10,479
Speaker 5: Well, I haven't seen the list, but I would just

2153
02:24:10,520 --> 02:24:19,799
say stuff like, how are their laws when a law

2154
02:24:19,959 --> 02:24:26,079
cannot be identified with any set of atoms? And if

2155
02:24:26,120 --> 02:24:31,360
they say something like or molecules, well it's a recognition

2156
02:24:31,479 --> 02:24:36,079
of a pattern. To call something a pattern assumes what

2157
02:24:36,319 --> 02:24:39,559
is in question, which is what's the unifying thing between

2158
02:24:39,639 --> 02:24:43,840
these particular instances, And they can never get anything more

2159
02:24:43,879 --> 02:24:46,559
if it's all just molecules. Well, there's not actually any

2160
02:24:47,159 --> 02:24:49,639
similarity between these things unless you want to say, because

2161
02:24:49,680 --> 02:24:53,000
they're all molecules, which doesn't actually tell us any pattern

2162
02:24:53,079 --> 02:24:55,879
because everything's molecules, so really there would be no pattern.

2163
02:24:56,479 --> 02:24:58,879
And this I think derives from the fact, as you're

2164
02:24:58,879 --> 02:25:01,319
probably figuring out as you go through this video, which

2165
02:25:01,360 --> 02:25:03,879
I haven't seen, but I'm assuming because all atheists do

2166
02:25:04,000 --> 02:25:09,360
this just simply that. Look, atheism has to essentially reject

2167
02:25:09,399 --> 02:25:12,879
metaphysics for the most part. Yeah, and then the same

2168
02:25:13,000 --> 02:25:18,920
time pretend that they have some kind of common sense,

2169
02:25:19,760 --> 02:25:23,920
simple way to account for the metaphysics and the principles

2170
02:25:23,959 --> 02:25:27,239
that they're denying. That's always what happens, right.

2171
02:25:27,200 --> 02:25:31,079
Speaker 3: Yeah, So an atheist view, which ultimately almost every time

2172
02:25:31,159 --> 02:25:36,000
reduces to physicalism or naturalism. They're engaging with a bunch

2173
02:25:36,079 --> 02:25:41,760
of in their worldview, particulars that don't have a unifying

2174
02:25:41,920 --> 02:25:45,360
principle or law to them. They're all just particulars, and

2175
02:25:45,479 --> 02:25:50,040
that because they occur as they work together, that's enough

2176
02:25:50,120 --> 02:25:52,760
for them to just grant themselves some sort of uniformity.

2177
02:25:53,159 --> 02:25:56,920
But the particulars themselves don't give them the uniformity.

2178
02:25:57,280 --> 02:26:01,000
Speaker 5: And what is the law exactly if and usually when

2179
02:26:01,000 --> 02:26:03,680
you drill into it, they just end up being it

2180
02:26:03,799 --> 02:26:05,959
just ends up being a circle. They just restate that

2181
02:26:06,079 --> 02:26:08,479
it's the things that are similar, what are the things

2182
02:26:08,520 --> 02:26:10,719
that are similar, the patterns that are like It's just

2183
02:26:10,840 --> 02:26:13,559
like they can never really give you anything substantial because

2184
02:26:13,559 --> 02:26:17,719
once they admit metaphysical principles, they're in an even deeper

2185
02:26:18,200 --> 02:26:21,000
dilemma because they have to then try to give an

2186
02:26:21,000 --> 02:26:23,799
account for something that most of the time they're positioned

2187
02:26:23,799 --> 02:26:24,680
out of hand. Rejects.

2188
02:26:25,520 --> 02:26:27,600
Speaker 3: Dude, every time its just to me, it always goes

2189
02:26:27,639 --> 02:26:30,040
to all his foot. It's it's every single time where

2190
02:26:30,079 --> 02:26:32,719
you're like, well, what's what are you referring to that's

2191
02:26:32,719 --> 02:26:36,079
similar to this other thing he's trying right now, this

2192
02:26:36,200 --> 02:26:38,479
guy by the way, Jay, he's saying that, well, the

2193
02:26:38,639 --> 02:26:42,440
law of the laws of thought are just consistent descriptions

2194
02:26:42,520 --> 02:26:45,680
with how we see the physical world, which obviously is

2195
02:26:45,760 --> 02:26:48,360
appealing to the thing in question because in order to

2196
02:26:48,440 --> 02:26:49,040
engage with it.

2197
02:26:50,440 --> 02:26:54,840
Speaker 5: So they're descriptions of the actual physical world or the

2198
02:26:54,920 --> 02:26:57,040
way we see the physical world, because those are two

2199
02:26:57,040 --> 02:26:58,879
different things in the history of empiricism.

2200
02:26:59,639 --> 02:27:02,559
Speaker 3: Yeah, so there's the things in the world, and then

2201
02:27:02,760 --> 02:27:05,440
they just grant themselves, well, their interpretation of the things

2202
02:27:05,479 --> 02:27:07,280
in the world are self evident, but that's not true,

2203
02:27:07,360 --> 02:27:11,639
is it? Like so so also, the uniformity of how

2204
02:27:11,799 --> 02:27:16,239
people interpret things in the world has this so coherency.

2205
02:27:16,319 --> 02:27:19,680
It's not identical. We misfire, we get something's wrong, but

2206
02:27:20,000 --> 02:27:24,239
there's a general unity between mind concepts in the material world.

2207
02:27:24,760 --> 02:27:28,200
And those are particular things under the atheists that they

2208
02:27:28,239 --> 02:27:31,639
can't even justify, but let alone that they work together.

2209
02:27:32,000 --> 02:27:33,639
That's two different things correct.

2210
02:27:33,680 --> 02:27:36,040
Speaker 5: And then there's another layer two, which has often missed

2211
02:27:36,159 --> 02:27:39,680
because a lot of people don't do anything with linguistic philosophy.

2212
02:27:40,200 --> 02:27:42,760
And I'm not a linguistic philosophy expert, but I had

2213
02:27:42,879 --> 02:27:46,360
enough of it to notice some of the big flaws

2214
02:27:46,479 --> 02:27:48,799
or the big holes in the atheist position, which is

2215
02:27:48,879 --> 02:27:51,799
that if you get into the nitty gritty of linguistic philosophy,

2216
02:27:51,840 --> 02:27:55,239
you start to realize there's a difference between a proposition,

2217
02:27:55,440 --> 02:27:58,920
like the truth value of the proposition and what it's

2218
02:27:58,959 --> 02:28:02,959
referring to. So to say that nature operates in a

2219
02:28:03,120 --> 02:28:06,799
lawlike fashion, there's a truth value there that's assumed that's

2220
02:28:06,840 --> 02:28:10,559
not reducible to identical to the symbols on the page

2221
02:28:10,639 --> 02:28:12,360
or the words coming out of your mouth, or the

2222
02:28:12,479 --> 02:28:18,360
breath coming out of your mouth, or the things themselves.

2223
02:28:18,799 --> 02:28:21,760
So you see that there's different layers going on, and

2224
02:28:21,840 --> 02:28:27,680
almost always, because of their stupidity, their reductionism, their lack

2225
02:28:27,719 --> 02:28:31,600
of knowledge of philosophy, they always collapse everything. So if

2226
02:28:31,639 --> 02:28:34,719
you were to actually start to distinguish these things, they

2227
02:28:34,840 --> 02:28:37,120
really would kind of, you know, they become deer in

2228
02:28:37,159 --> 02:28:40,319
the headlights because they've never thought about distinguishing those things,

2229
02:28:40,639 --> 02:28:44,879
the proposition itself, the truth value of the proposition, which

2230
02:28:44,959 --> 02:28:49,159
is in some way universal, and the things themselves the reference.

2231
02:28:50,559 --> 02:28:55,159
Speaker 3: Yeah. And by the way, I've argued that when I

2232
02:28:55,280 --> 02:29:01,239
argued that from the physicalist atheist view that laws, evaluations,

2233
02:29:01,280 --> 02:29:04,000
and propositions, if they're reduced to material end up just

2234
02:29:04,040 --> 02:29:08,159
being effects of previous mechanical physics. But I granted them

2235
02:29:08,200 --> 02:29:10,600
too much in that video because I use laws of

2236
02:29:10,600 --> 02:29:13,639
physics that's already a whole category that's in question that

2237
02:29:13,680 --> 02:29:15,959
I shouldn't grant them, so instead I got it reduced

2238
02:29:16,000 --> 02:29:19,360
to well, for the knowledge to be possible under the

2239
02:29:19,399 --> 02:29:22,719
atheist physicalist view is that you have to have a

2240
02:29:22,840 --> 02:29:26,639
meaningful distinction between a reference and a reference. And what's

2241
02:29:26,680 --> 02:29:29,719
fascinating about their view is that every new reference that

2242
02:29:29,799 --> 02:29:31,840
they grant themselves under their own view, is just a

2243
02:29:31,920 --> 02:29:34,399
new event in time, which means it's a reference. Now,

2244
02:29:34,559 --> 02:29:37,639
so it's like a percolation from the brain, some weird

2245
02:29:37,680 --> 02:29:41,200
epiphenomenal thing happens, a brain fart, and they call that

2246
02:29:41,319 --> 02:29:44,879
the evaluation or the proposition about the other thing that's physical, right, Oh,

2247
02:29:45,000 --> 02:29:47,719
this other thing called a tree or my thoughts. Well, no,

2248
02:29:48,239 --> 02:29:50,639
now you're stuck with a thing called a reference, which

2249
02:29:50,719 --> 02:29:53,360
is another event that you need an evaluator for.

2250
02:29:55,760 --> 02:30:00,200
Speaker 5: And hears over in the mind over time, right, not

2251
02:30:00,360 --> 02:30:02,120
just identity over time in terms of the objects, but

2252
02:30:02,159 --> 02:30:06,440
if they predicate meaning of some object or some subject

2253
02:30:06,559 --> 02:30:09,680
or whatever, the idea is that there's the same meaning

2254
02:30:09,719 --> 02:30:11,600
that's going on in my head is actually matching up

2255
02:30:11,680 --> 02:30:13,479
over time to the objects in the world which have

2256
02:30:13,600 --> 02:30:16,760
identity over time. So the more you dissect this, the

2257
02:30:16,879 --> 02:30:20,399
more it really is resting on all kinds of things

2258
02:30:20,479 --> 02:30:23,079
that they just never even thought of. And most of

2259
02:30:23,079 --> 02:30:24,840
the time they don't know what you're asking. When you're

2260
02:30:24,840 --> 02:30:25,959
asking these questions.

2261
02:30:26,079 --> 02:30:29,120
Speaker 3: I'm trying to find ways to draw this in like,

2262
02:30:29,559 --> 02:30:32,239
you know, not a huge insult, but it's just kind

2263
02:30:32,239 --> 02:30:36,639
of funny. Like in basically whiteboard crayon stuff to show

2264
02:30:36,879 --> 02:30:39,440
physically what I mean, because you know why, because if

2265
02:30:39,520 --> 02:30:43,239
you defend physicalism, you really do have to Yeah, whiteboard,

2266
02:30:43,479 --> 02:30:46,559
you really have to tell me the difference between a

2267
02:30:46,639 --> 02:30:49,680
bunch of molecules you call a water for fall or bubbling,

2268
02:30:49,840 --> 02:30:52,799
or a tree, and the molecules you call in the

2269
02:30:52,879 --> 02:30:56,639
brain called thinking and evaluating, and the difference between those.

2270
02:30:56,840 --> 02:30:59,520
You're gonna have to tell me physically, the difference between

2271
02:30:59,559 --> 02:31:02,319
the two such that one has the capacity to be

2272
02:31:02,440 --> 02:31:04,719
true fapped and the other is just an object in space.

2273
02:31:04,920 --> 02:31:07,760
They never quite understand what I'm asking, So I'm trying

2274
02:31:07,840 --> 02:31:10,639
to get better at just doodling and maybe put it

2275
02:31:10,760 --> 02:31:13,959
up on a board. You know, the whiteboard wins every time,

2276
02:31:14,040 --> 02:31:14,399
doesn't it.

2277
02:31:14,879 --> 02:31:17,000
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, if I write this out this proposition

2278
02:31:17,200 --> 02:31:23,159
nature is Lawlike I mean, this is a series of

2279
02:31:23,200 --> 02:31:27,879
symbols on a board that refers to what thing I mean.

2280
02:31:27,959 --> 02:31:32,680
It's not obviously referring to any specific particulars in nature.

2281
02:31:33,399 --> 02:31:37,680
It's referring to this supposedly universal pattern. And to make

2282
02:31:37,719 --> 02:31:40,680
it universal will add all nature because they typically do

2283
02:31:40,840 --> 02:31:47,159
make universal quantifier claims all nature is Lawlike, Okay, what

2284
02:31:48,600 --> 02:31:51,280
what's the truth? They are assuming that this is a

2285
02:31:51,360 --> 02:31:55,719
true proposition, not a false proposition. So the truth value

2286
02:31:55,840 --> 02:31:59,840
is not identical to the symbols themselves, right, And the

2287
02:32:00,079 --> 02:32:03,879
phrase is referring to something other than either just the

2288
02:32:04,000 --> 02:32:08,959
truth value or the particular instances. So in other words,

2289
02:32:09,040 --> 02:32:12,360
we've got all of these layers of stuff with absolutely

2290
02:32:12,440 --> 02:32:16,719
no explanation. And that's just the sentence itself. What about

2291
02:32:16,879 --> 02:32:19,040
the things going on in my head, which I'm assuming

2292
02:32:19,760 --> 02:32:23,120
are conveying meaning about the external world over time? That

2293
02:32:23,600 --> 02:32:26,719
meaning stays the same in terms of the identity of

2294
02:32:26,760 --> 02:32:28,520
objects out there over time and the meaning in my

2295
02:32:28,559 --> 02:32:31,799
head over time, because remember, I'm just chemical reactions firing.

2296
02:32:32,159 --> 02:32:35,040
What if the meaning that I thought yesterday for all

2297
02:32:35,159 --> 02:32:39,719
Nature's lawlike has completely fired to be the opposite meaning today, right,

2298
02:32:40,319 --> 02:32:42,280
I mean it's just and not just the meaning of

2299
02:32:42,360 --> 02:32:44,920
the phrase. What about these individual words themselves? So you

2300
02:32:44,959 --> 02:32:48,639
can break you down into individuals, right? Right? What is

2301
02:32:48,760 --> 02:32:49,399
all nature?

2302
02:32:49,440 --> 02:32:49,559
Speaker 2: You know?

2303
02:32:50,079 --> 02:32:53,000
Speaker 5: Just at any point if you think about it linguistically.

2304
02:32:53,399 --> 02:32:55,200
And I'm not telling you what they were saying in

2305
02:32:55,200 --> 02:32:58,200
the sure you saying like, nobody really goes after the

2306
02:32:58,239 --> 02:33:00,719
atheists on this, not because of any being stupid and

2307
02:33:00,840 --> 02:33:03,360
on our side. But just people just don't even realize

2308
02:33:03,440 --> 02:33:06,719
how much goes into Like to be able to make

2309
02:33:06,760 --> 02:33:09,479
a sentence meaningful requires a certain kind of world.

2310
02:33:10,040 --> 02:33:12,639
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it's a crazy world. If you're going to

2311
02:33:12,680 --> 02:33:15,159
try to explain it in just particulars that are unrelated,

2312
02:33:15,319 --> 02:33:16,680
it can't. Well just you can't.

2313
02:33:17,079 --> 02:33:21,040
Speaker 5: Chaotic molecules firing of unrelated particulars. Yeah.

2314
02:33:21,200 --> 02:33:24,040
Speaker 3: Also that brings up the law thing in general, even

2315
02:33:24,040 --> 02:33:27,120
if you said granted them the statement nature's law, like

2316
02:33:28,040 --> 02:33:32,520
I always like to put it, like, Okay, objects exist, right,

2317
02:33:32,600 --> 02:33:35,760
forget about how you're going to justify how objects exist

2318
02:33:35,879 --> 02:33:38,280
and what their beginnings are. You know, stuff comes from stuff.

2319
02:33:38,319 --> 02:33:41,440
As an argument I've been debunking the last couple of months.

2320
02:33:42,959 --> 02:33:46,239
The stuff, even the collection of the stuff, let alone

2321
02:33:46,280 --> 02:33:49,639
the particular stuffs that you're listening. They don't give you

2322
02:33:50,360 --> 02:33:53,360
the justification for how they behave with each other. Those

2323
02:33:53,399 --> 02:33:56,159
are two different things, but they grant them. They're they're

2324
02:33:56,239 --> 02:33:58,799
the same. Well, no, we have a tree, and because

2325
02:33:58,840 --> 02:34:01,399
we have a tree, we're just throw into the basket.

2326
02:34:01,719 --> 02:34:04,360
It operates a certain way right by nature of it

2327
02:34:04,559 --> 02:34:07,440
just being a tree. But you're like, well, no, these

2328
02:34:07,479 --> 02:34:10,840
things are all working together. It's not like the object

2329
02:34:10,959 --> 02:34:16,760
existing gives you how the relationships physically, causal relationships and

2330
02:34:16,840 --> 02:34:20,479
behaviors that that you that you observe. That's not the

2331
02:34:20,520 --> 02:34:23,200
same thing. But they're like, no, no, it is the

2332
02:34:23,239 --> 02:34:25,799
same thing because we you know, that's how we observe it. Well, no,

2333
02:34:26,040 --> 02:34:28,920
that's not you know, you're you're just granting yourself a bunch.

2334
02:34:28,959 --> 02:34:30,360
But let me let me move on. You tell me

2335
02:34:30,559 --> 02:34:32,280
Jay when to stop. We're gonna listen to this guy.

2336
02:34:32,399 --> 02:34:35,840
He's in the he's currently trying to argue if, uh,

2337
02:34:36,200 --> 02:34:38,600
you know, if we observe the law the world a

2338
02:34:38,680 --> 02:34:41,200
different way, we can just change the laws of logic

2339
02:34:41,280 --> 02:34:43,159
to suit that world. I don't know if you heard

2340
02:34:43,280 --> 02:34:46,680
my refutation of this that if you said I observe

2341
02:34:46,760 --> 02:34:50,079
the world a certain way, and if I observed it

2342
02:34:50,120 --> 02:34:52,520
a certain way such that I can conventionally change the

2343
02:34:52,639 --> 02:34:55,559
laws of thought, you're actually using one standard of the

2344
02:34:55,680 --> 02:34:57,760
laws of thought to perceive the world a certain way

2345
02:34:58,079 --> 02:35:00,520
and trusting that is true in order to come to

2346
02:35:00,680 --> 02:35:06,159
some conventional alteration to what you perceived right to fit it. Well,

2347
02:35:06,559 --> 02:35:09,879
this conventional view of changing the law of identity, so

2348
02:35:10,000 --> 02:35:12,520
long as it fits. Whatever you're observing assumes the law

2349
02:35:12,520 --> 02:35:15,840
of identity, doesn't it Like, you can't change the thing

2350
02:35:16,200 --> 02:35:20,239
you're ultimately using to discern what's going on. It makes

2351
02:35:20,280 --> 02:35:21,360
no sense to go backward.

2352
02:35:21,479 --> 02:35:25,479
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean if then they're no longer laws different,

2353
02:35:25,600 --> 02:35:28,280
I mean, if they could be otherwise they're not.

2354
02:35:28,719 --> 02:35:32,959
Speaker 3: They're not laws right right, And you're and you're appealing

2355
02:35:33,040 --> 02:35:36,799
to something you're calling law like uh, to observe it

2356
02:35:36,959 --> 02:35:38,840
and then going well I'm gonna change it. Well, no,

2357
02:35:38,959 --> 02:35:41,799
you're you're trusting the thing you observe to begin with.

2358
02:35:41,920 --> 02:35:45,079
That doesn't doesn't make sense anyway. Let them ramble on that.

2359
02:35:45,239 --> 02:35:47,360
Speaker 4: That strikes me as a sensible question, right, and and

2360
02:35:47,479 --> 02:35:50,360
and and often you know, and the kind of the

2361
02:35:50,440 --> 02:35:53,760
only answer that that somebody who suggests that who's doing

2362
02:35:53,840 --> 02:35:57,399
the human direction the metaphysical human direction explanation, that is

2363
02:35:57,479 --> 02:35:59,319
to say something like, well, if the world have been

2364
02:35:59,360 --> 02:36:01,200
different than the laws of logic would have been different,

2365
02:36:01,440 --> 02:36:04,879
and we would have made different laws of logic, and like, well,

2366
02:36:04,959 --> 02:36:07,159
let me see if he pushes back on that, I

2367
02:36:07,239 --> 02:36:10,399
can kind of get I sort of some again. I

2368
02:36:10,479 --> 02:36:12,399
go back and forth mis intuitively, where sometimes I find

2369
02:36:12,440 --> 02:36:14,840
this like incredibly unsatisfying, and sometimes I'm like, okay that

2370
02:36:14,920 --> 02:36:17,920
maybe there's something in this because we do do things

2371
02:36:18,000 --> 02:36:20,559
like reason with uncertainty, because we have probability for reasoning

2372
02:36:20,600 --> 02:36:24,239
with uncertainty. We if if the world, if we were

2373
02:36:24,280 --> 02:36:26,639
never uncertain about anything, we wouldn't have had probability, there

2374
02:36:26,680 --> 02:36:30,120
would be no need for it. Likewise, if there if

2375
02:36:30,239 --> 02:36:33,239
deduction was always uncertain for whatever reason, like that was

2376
02:36:33,280 --> 02:36:34,959
just empirically true in the world, as weird as that

2377
02:36:35,040 --> 02:36:40,159
is to say, then our deductions would have uncertainty attached

2378
02:36:40,159 --> 02:36:41,920
to them and stuff like that. So there's there's an

2379
02:36:42,000 --> 02:36:43,840
argument that you can you can you can say there,

2380
02:36:44,000 --> 02:36:46,120
but then we're also at this point.

2381
02:36:46,079 --> 02:36:49,799
Speaker 3: He's also conflating right now, the methods we use to

2382
02:36:49,879 --> 02:36:54,639
do induction or deduction, deduction being certain, induction being probabilistic,

2383
02:36:55,879 --> 02:36:58,159
are identical to the laws that we use to do

2384
02:36:58,319 --> 02:37:01,399
those things. The question is in the methods you use,

2385
02:37:01,559 --> 02:37:04,639
but rather the laws that govern the methods of reasoning.

2386
02:37:05,120 --> 02:37:07,159
And I don't know why they always collapse these two.

2387
02:37:07,159 --> 02:37:10,440
It's like the laws of thought are not identical to

2388
02:37:10,559 --> 02:37:13,000
the descriptions of them, Like there's a law of identity

2389
02:37:13,239 --> 02:37:16,840
that exists in some weird some way. Right, that's not

2390
02:37:16,959 --> 02:37:20,319
identical to our ability to describe that in a three

2391
02:37:20,479 --> 02:37:22,680
statement bullet point.

2392
02:37:22,799 --> 02:37:28,520
Speaker 5: Right. Yeah, I mean the first phrase that I'm still

2393
02:37:28,559 --> 02:37:30,360
trying to think through that he said that I think

2394
02:37:30,520 --> 02:37:36,000
was wrong is that we would make we made these

2395
02:37:36,120 --> 02:37:41,639
laws right. In fact, they're discoveries, they're not creations. So

2396
02:37:42,639 --> 02:37:46,479
because atheists don't believe in you know, divine truth or

2397
02:37:46,680 --> 02:37:50,440
the divine mind, they assume that all this stuff has

2398
02:37:50,559 --> 02:37:53,280
to be some sort of human social construct or some

2399
02:37:53,399 --> 02:37:56,959
individual that made them or created them. So even though

2400
02:37:57,000 --> 02:38:00,520
aerosol might be the source of the you know, classical

2401
02:38:00,600 --> 02:38:04,479
laws or whatever, we would say he's discovering something. And

2402
02:38:04,600 --> 02:38:07,799
even mathematicians nowadays will say that a lot of the

2403
02:38:07,879 --> 02:38:11,479
things that they that they've discovered, like Mandelbrot sets, it's

2404
02:38:11,479 --> 02:38:14,239
impossible for those to be made up by the human mind.

2405
02:38:15,040 --> 02:38:19,719
Speaker 3: Yeah. Also, something really obvious here is that to say

2406
02:38:19,840 --> 02:38:24,600
someone created something is to assume the law of identity

2407
02:38:24,959 --> 02:38:28,200
before you're creating the law of identity. Like, this is

2408
02:38:28,280 --> 02:38:30,520
why it's fun when I talk to these people when

2409
02:38:30,559 --> 02:38:33,600
they assume axioms. They're like, they're like, I just you know,

2410
02:38:33,760 --> 02:38:38,120
we developed the laws of thought, the three classical laws

2411
02:38:38,120 --> 02:38:40,479
as axioms, and I say, how do you develop something

2412
02:38:40,639 --> 02:38:43,200
without using the thing that you're saying you're developing?

2413
02:38:43,280 --> 02:38:46,520
Speaker 5: It's impossible, right, So it's like, yeah, it's just stupid,

2414
02:38:46,600 --> 02:38:49,799
like if they actually think that it didn't exist before that.

2415
02:38:50,040 --> 02:38:52,120
So in other words, two rocks and two rocks wasn't

2416
02:38:52,159 --> 02:38:55,040
four rocks until somebody decided.

2417
02:38:54,559 --> 02:38:57,200
Speaker 3: That it was for all right, right yeah, as opposed

2418
02:38:57,239 --> 02:38:59,959
to if you discover the law the laws of thought,

2419
02:39:00,600 --> 02:39:03,280
the math of two plus two is derivative of the

2420
02:39:03,399 --> 02:39:08,360
laws of logic, and that that too, right, you know,

2421
02:39:08,520 --> 02:39:11,239
is under some sort of discovery and not from a creation.

2422
02:39:11,399 --> 02:39:13,760
It's no, you don't create, it's not creative.

2423
02:39:15,319 --> 02:39:19,079
Speaker 5: There's an eternal truth that humans have the ability to discover.

2424
02:39:19,639 --> 02:39:22,680
Speaker 3: Mm hmm, as opposed to invent, and if it's invented,

2425
02:39:22,879 --> 02:39:25,879
create no discovery. Yeah yeah, if you're creating the truth,

2426
02:39:26,239 --> 02:39:28,680
you could just create a not a truth tomorrow and

2427
02:39:28,959 --> 02:39:31,600
wouldn't have any problems. So, you know, the pursuit of truth.

2428
02:39:31,680 --> 02:39:33,840
Speaker 5: In other words, you can just make it absurd and

2429
02:39:33,959 --> 02:39:39,280
say so. Until Aristotle listed the law of identity, nothing

2430
02:39:39,360 --> 02:39:39,959
had identity.

2431
02:39:40,120 --> 02:39:43,520
Speaker 3: Nothing identity Yeah, yeah, even him, even Aristotle. You know

2432
02:39:43,879 --> 02:39:45,479
there was no there was no hymn.

2433
02:39:45,559 --> 02:39:45,760
Speaker 5: Yeah.

2434
02:39:47,079 --> 02:39:48,959
Speaker 4: Something we talked about the beginning of the episode, which

2435
02:39:49,000 --> 02:39:50,440
is what is the limits of possibility?

2436
02:39:51,079 --> 02:39:51,200
Speaker 5: Uh?

2437
02:39:51,600 --> 02:39:51,920
Speaker 2: Is it is?

2438
02:39:52,000 --> 02:39:52,040
Speaker 1: It?

2439
02:39:52,239 --> 02:39:53,959
Speaker 4: Is it in some sense impossible for the loss of

2440
02:39:54,040 --> 02:39:56,000
logic to have been different because like the lads of logic,

2441
02:39:57,440 --> 02:39:59,360
that's a component as well, because the laws of logic

2442
02:39:59,440 --> 02:40:03,200
all themselves kind of controversial. So you know things like that,

2443
02:40:03,520 --> 02:40:06,440
you know, a few a few uncontroversial as well as

2444
02:40:06,520 --> 02:40:07,440
uncontroversial as anything.

2445
02:40:07,600 --> 02:40:09,440
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, by the way, the fact that something

2446
02:40:09,520 --> 02:40:13,360
is controversial or I mean that I'm guessing they're going

2447
02:40:13,440 --> 02:40:14,079
to probably get.

2448
02:40:14,000 --> 02:40:15,920
Speaker 3: Into fuzzy logic or something.

2449
02:40:16,040 --> 02:40:18,159
Speaker 5: Well, the foulas give incredulity. Like when you were talking

2450
02:40:18,159 --> 02:40:24,239
about his account of saying that Christians they don't have

2451
02:40:24,280 --> 02:40:27,200
an answer is ought and I'm thinking, I didn't hear

2452
02:40:27,239 --> 02:40:30,239
what they said, but I'm guessing it was probably that

2453
02:40:30,360 --> 02:40:33,440
they have a they don't understand or consider it to

2454
02:40:33,520 --> 02:40:36,040
be a sufficient answer. Right when when a Christian says

2455
02:40:36,079 --> 02:40:38,760
that God is the reasoning for and they would probably

2456
02:40:38,799 --> 02:40:41,239
say something like, well, I find that hard to believe.

2457
02:40:41,280 --> 02:40:43,840
I don't see how that's a good answer. And so well,

2458
02:40:43,879 --> 02:40:46,920
the fact that even the laws of logic are controversial.

2459
02:40:47,200 --> 02:40:51,559
That has nothing to do with whether they're necessary for predication, right.

2460
02:40:51,479 --> 02:40:57,000
Speaker 3: Yeah, whether they're not con controversial or controversial is irrelevant to.

2461
02:40:57,559 --> 02:41:01,840
Speaker 5: It's like what people say, Well, Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox

2462
02:41:02,360 --> 02:41:04,600
disagree over the Church of the first thousand years, so

2463
02:41:04,879 --> 02:41:07,520
we can't know. Well, the fact people disagree is irrelevant

2464
02:41:07,559 --> 02:41:08,840
to whether it's for false.

2465
02:41:08,879 --> 02:41:10,559
Speaker 3: Yeah, I got you. Yeah, that seems to be a

2466
02:41:10,639 --> 02:41:14,079
good safeguard from coming to any certain conclusion about it,

2467
02:41:14,120 --> 02:41:16,840
which is all they've done so far. They haven't really

2468
02:41:17,719 --> 02:41:19,920
said no, we can answer that question. They're kind of

2469
02:41:20,000 --> 02:41:25,600
being I would even say humble in their responses so far.

2470
02:41:25,479 --> 02:41:29,520
Speaker 4: A implied to be then dumb from humble b stuff

2471
02:41:29,600 --> 02:41:32,920
like that. One of the one of the less controversial

2472
02:41:32,959 --> 02:41:35,440
ones is the law of non contradictions. So you not

2473
02:41:35,959 --> 02:41:39,120
a and not a, So if you have a, you

2474
02:41:39,200 --> 02:41:39,959
can infer.

2475
02:41:39,879 --> 02:41:41,680
Speaker 2: Not, So something can't be true and false at the

2476
02:41:41,680 --> 02:41:42,000
same time.

2477
02:41:42,079 --> 02:41:44,239
Speaker 4: Yeah, basically, I mean it's it's very intuitive, right, but

2478
02:41:44,319 --> 02:41:46,040
but but but there are people that you say not

2479
02:41:46,159 --> 02:41:50,000
as in it's true that not brackets.

2480
02:41:50,159 --> 02:41:51,559
Speaker 5: A and not a.

2481
02:41:52,079 --> 02:41:52,840
Speaker 4: So I mean I don't know.

2482
02:41:52,920 --> 02:41:55,079
Speaker 3: Now, another thing, Jay, I know you covered this. But

2483
02:41:55,360 --> 02:41:59,159
if you're just purely relying on science and induction and

2484
02:41:59,239 --> 02:42:02,879
you believe that everything's in flux, then there is no

2485
02:42:03,360 --> 02:42:07,120
maintained identity of a at the molecular or the larger

2486
02:42:07,319 --> 02:42:08,920
scale of the thing you're referring to.

2487
02:42:09,280 --> 02:42:13,760
Speaker 5: So now that they believe in flying spaghetti monsters called

2488
02:42:13,959 --> 02:42:15,440
laws of love, right.

2489
02:42:15,440 --> 02:42:17,719
Speaker 3: Right, totally, and it's always changed if it's in flux,

2490
02:42:17,920 --> 02:42:20,559
then the thing you're constantly referring to to make statements

2491
02:42:21,040 --> 02:42:23,959
when they say, well, a can't be not a and

2492
02:42:24,040 --> 02:42:26,200
this is a law, well, well, if the thing you're

2493
02:42:26,239 --> 02:42:28,799
referring to out in the world is always changing, you

2494
02:42:28,920 --> 02:42:33,120
could actually say that there is only one instance that's

2495
02:42:33,280 --> 02:42:36,479
that's tiny in the fraction of time where something existed

2496
02:42:36,559 --> 02:42:40,760
as purely itself and everything else is some weird changed

2497
02:42:40,920 --> 02:42:44,479
version of that even at the molecular level. They would

2498
02:42:44,520 --> 02:42:50,120
have to argue that even them granting themselves induction to

2499
02:42:50,280 --> 02:42:54,639
do inductive reasoning is the assumption that that that's not

2500
02:42:54,760 --> 02:42:58,239
the case, that things are always in flux at every level.

2501
02:42:58,639 --> 02:43:02,000
But yet they some of them argue that that's what

2502
02:43:02,120 --> 02:43:06,319
they've come to a conclusion. As a conclusion doing their

2503
02:43:06,360 --> 02:43:09,120
reasoning is that everything's in flux, and you're like, including

2504
02:43:09,159 --> 02:43:11,319
your reasoning is an old one that even Bonds and

2505
02:43:11,360 --> 02:43:13,920
I guess would would have popularized maybe before that is

2506
02:43:13,959 --> 02:43:16,840
that he's just saying, well, no, the flux position of

2507
02:43:16,959 --> 02:43:20,680
rationality and molecules in motion, you're referring to something that

2508
02:43:20,840 --> 02:43:24,079
no longer existed as itself called the molecules in a

2509
02:43:24,159 --> 02:43:27,920
particular pattern. So what the hell is it you're trusting

2510
02:43:28,200 --> 02:43:29,120
right now and you.

2511
02:43:29,120 --> 02:43:31,479
Speaker 5: Couldn't even identify molecules without right.

2512
02:43:33,559 --> 02:43:35,520
Speaker 4: And make like a little little icon pop up.

2513
02:43:36,520 --> 02:43:39,799
Speaker 2: We're getting getting a hard no from our video not

2514
02:43:40,600 --> 02:43:44,440
a and not a and close bracket and there's but

2515
02:43:44,520 --> 02:43:46,680
there's there're also more controversial logical laws, like the law

2516
02:43:46,719 --> 02:43:49,440
of the excluded middle, which is, oh, I always get this.

2517
02:43:49,479 --> 02:43:51,239
Speaker 4: Actually that's let's just say.

2518
02:43:51,719 --> 02:43:53,959
Speaker 2: Something can only be tru or false, be true false.

2519
02:43:54,040 --> 02:43:55,440
There are two really similar laws here.

2520
02:43:55,520 --> 02:43:56,879
Speaker 4: So one is the law of the excuded middle, and

2521
02:43:56,920 --> 02:43:58,680
one is by valence and some reason, I always get

2522
02:43:58,680 --> 02:44:02,120
them the wrong around, like completely roasted by supervisors.

2523
02:44:02,239 --> 02:44:03,360
Speaker 2: But what's the what's the difference?

2524
02:44:03,479 --> 02:44:05,479
Speaker 4: Well, so loa of the law of excar middle is

2525
02:44:05,520 --> 02:44:07,799
something is either a or not a. The law of vivalences.

2526
02:44:07,840 --> 02:44:11,159
Any statement is either true or false, and they're clearly connected.

2527
02:44:11,239 --> 02:44:14,000
But they are different in the way. Well they're distinct

2528
02:44:14,120 --> 02:44:14,600
in the way that.

2529
02:44:16,120 --> 02:44:17,360
Speaker 2: They have been misusing that too.

2530
02:44:18,239 --> 02:44:20,639
Speaker 4: But I mean I misuse it all the time, and

2531
02:44:20,680 --> 02:44:21,520
I meant to know about this.

2532
02:44:21,840 --> 02:44:25,120
Speaker 2: It's like I always say whatever, man, Yeah, exactly.

2533
02:44:26,760 --> 02:44:29,600
Speaker 3: So, Jay, would you say the three classical laws are

2534
02:44:29,760 --> 02:44:35,200
distinct from each other on their own or are they

2535
02:44:35,440 --> 02:44:37,440
entailments of each other? And you don't know where the

2536
02:44:37,479 --> 02:44:39,399
starting point is necessarily.

2537
02:44:40,040 --> 02:44:43,479
Speaker 5: Like it like it's they assitate each other. There's not

2538
02:44:43,600 --> 02:44:45,520
really a starting point, gotcha.

2539
02:44:46,040 --> 02:44:48,680
Speaker 2: So here are some examples of the kinds of laws

2540
02:44:48,680 --> 02:44:52,680
that we're talking about, These kinds of like fundamental, seemingly

2541
02:44:52,799 --> 02:44:59,639
self justifying, self intuitive, like like bases You don't it?

2542
02:44:59,719 --> 02:45:03,040
I mean like if A implies B. That is, like

2543
02:45:03,159 --> 02:45:08,040
if A then B A, therefore B. Well, how do

2544
02:45:08,079 --> 02:45:09,680
you how do you how do you know that? It

2545
02:45:10,120 --> 02:45:12,680
just seems like you're kind of saying the same thing twice.

2546
02:45:12,760 --> 02:45:15,120
Speaker 4: Yeah, it just has to be true. Yes, what if

2547
02:45:15,159 --> 02:45:17,799
you don't have this, what do you have? So the

2548
02:45:18,280 --> 02:45:19,799
one of the one of the quotes of classical logic

2549
02:45:19,879 --> 02:45:22,639
is that you can and a contradiction implies anything, and.

2550
02:45:23,760 --> 02:45:26,360
Speaker 3: So if jay, so if the atheist says, well we

2551
02:45:26,440 --> 02:45:29,600
accept logic, whether we call it axiomatic or not, we

2552
02:45:29,760 --> 02:45:32,479
can't not accept it because it's it's a contradiction to

2553
02:45:32,600 --> 02:45:36,399
attempt to reject it. Now, is that sufficient in just

2554
02:45:36,520 --> 02:45:37,799
one level of argumentation?

2555
02:45:37,959 --> 02:45:38,000
Speaker 2: No?

2556
02:45:38,719 --> 02:45:40,360
Speaker 3: Can you talk on that quickly?

2557
02:45:40,399 --> 02:45:43,440
Speaker 5: Yeah, there's a great section on this in the Russ

2558
02:45:43,520 --> 02:45:46,600
Manion paper where he covers this. Because you might think

2559
02:45:46,680 --> 02:45:50,239
that just pointing out that we absolutely have to have

2560
02:45:50,440 --> 02:45:55,360
logic might make it a justification, but as Manion points

2561
02:45:55,399 --> 02:45:59,399
out in the paper, just saying that it appears to

2562
02:45:59,520 --> 02:46:04,120
be NICs necessary for predication doesn't mean that it's the case.

2563
02:46:04,399 --> 02:46:07,440
It also doesn't tell me that my mental schema of

2564
02:46:07,520 --> 02:46:10,639
what's necessary for me to have predication necessarily applies to

2565
02:46:10,680 --> 02:46:13,959
anything in the world. So that's why you need more

2566
02:46:14,159 --> 02:46:18,760
for the justification of these things than just the idea that, well,

2567
02:46:18,840 --> 02:46:22,360
it appears to be irrational to deny it them, because

2568
02:46:22,360 --> 02:46:24,520
a lot of times if you for example, the first

2569
02:46:24,680 --> 02:46:27,000
argument I have with Tim Gordon and DMS four years

2570
02:46:27,000 --> 02:46:31,079
ago was I mentioned this point and he said, well,

2571
02:46:31,120 --> 02:46:35,840
you're just talking about retortion, which is Aristotle's reductio Aerosotl says,

2572
02:46:35,840 --> 02:46:39,079
I if you disagree with the classical laws of logic

2573
02:46:39,200 --> 02:46:41,959
or the three you know law of identity, you are

2574
02:46:43,399 --> 02:46:47,399
not just assuming it to use it. But there's a

2575
02:46:47,479 --> 02:46:52,120
reductio here that without it, logic would be impossible. So

2576
02:46:52,440 --> 02:46:55,920
that's true, and it's correct to say that. But as

2577
02:46:56,000 --> 02:46:59,639
the manupaper shows post cont remember people at aerosols on

2578
02:46:59,639 --> 02:47:02,399
they didn't think the way count and human did. After

2579
02:47:02,559 --> 02:47:06,079
kunt other questions get raised. The show that you need

2580
02:47:06,200 --> 02:47:10,319
more for epistemic justification than just saying that it appears

2581
02:47:10,399 --> 02:47:14,399
to be crazy. Otherwise, you need a stronger case, which

2582
02:47:14,479 --> 02:47:18,680
is why you have to also argue that there are

2583
02:47:18,760 --> 02:47:21,440
all these other sort of transcenital category. In other words,

2584
02:47:21,440 --> 02:47:24,840
you need a worldview that goes along with these things.

2585
02:47:25,000 --> 02:47:28,440
You can't just have these as self evidence starting principles,

2586
02:47:28,479 --> 02:47:31,680
because again that might be a little am I getting there?

2587
02:47:31,920 --> 02:47:34,239
Speaker 3: I understand it. It sounds like just to translate here

2588
02:47:34,479 --> 02:47:39,680
is that pointing to the necessary the necessary existence of

2589
02:47:39,760 --> 02:47:44,559
one thing isn't sufficient because there's a whole slew of

2590
02:47:44,639 --> 02:47:47,239
other things that need to be the case alltogether. Is

2591
02:47:47,319 --> 02:47:50,120
one thing that for that to operate. So, for instance,

2592
02:47:50,200 --> 02:47:52,440
if I come to the conclusion of rejecting the law

2593
02:47:52,440 --> 02:47:55,079
of identities absurd, therefore I shouldn't do it. Or like

2594
02:47:55,440 --> 02:47:58,799
Christopher Hitchins was like, well, people ask me if I

2595
02:47:58,879 --> 02:48:02,200
have free will and I the choice otherwise, right, Yeah,

2596
02:48:02,360 --> 02:48:02,920
this kind of thing.

2597
02:48:02,920 --> 02:48:06,440
Speaker 5: That will give you the justification for the principle itself.

2598
02:48:06,520 --> 02:48:09,319
Speaker 3: Gotcha? Yeah, because there's just one isolated instance that you're

2599
02:48:09,360 --> 02:48:12,680
referring to. Even if you granted, okay, fine, it's absurd

2600
02:48:12,760 --> 02:48:17,520
to reject it. To reject something assumes the mind. Now

2601
02:48:17,559 --> 02:48:20,319
you have another thing that is absurd to reject. And

2602
02:48:20,440 --> 02:48:22,680
now how many things can you put in the basket

2603
02:48:22,799 --> 02:48:25,520
that are observed to reject? Well, we would call would

2604
02:48:25,719 --> 02:48:28,319
correct me if I'm wrong, the things that are absurd

2605
02:48:28,399 --> 02:48:32,399
to reject for anyone to reject as a folder of

2606
02:48:32,559 --> 02:48:36,760
a giant folder called the transcendental category itself, the whole

2607
02:48:36,840 --> 02:48:40,879
list of things we can point to. The only meaningful

2608
02:48:41,040 --> 02:48:44,559
question would be whose worldview accounts for that those things

2609
02:48:44,680 --> 02:48:48,799
all together holistically correct? Yeah, and all of it together.

2610
02:48:49,040 --> 02:48:50,920
Speaker 5: I think that's true. But if I remember in the

2611
02:48:51,360 --> 02:48:53,840
in the manupaper, he just makes it even more simpler.

2612
02:48:54,040 --> 02:48:58,680
Basic reply, which is like he uses the kantient argument

2613
02:48:58,760 --> 02:49:01,079
that Okay, so let's say for the sake of argument

2614
02:49:01,120 --> 02:49:05,719
that it does it. It is seemingly absurd to deny

2615
02:49:05,840 --> 02:49:08,879
the law of identity, and so therefore I need the

2616
02:49:08,959 --> 02:49:12,239
law of identity, and so let's grant that. But that

2617
02:49:12,360 --> 02:49:14,479
doesn't tell me that the law of identity, which I

2618
02:49:14,520 --> 02:49:17,360
think is going on in my mental schema, actually applies

2619
02:49:17,399 --> 02:49:20,520
to anything in the world. So in other words, what

2620
02:49:20,559 --> 02:49:22,600
about the external world and all that. You haven't solved

2621
02:49:22,639 --> 02:49:26,399
that stuff yet. And so just on that basis alone,

2622
02:49:26,479 --> 02:49:29,719
it shows that it can't be self evident, and uh,

2623
02:49:30,159 --> 02:49:32,440
retortion is not enough for justification because then he goes

2624
02:49:32,479 --> 02:49:37,760
on to say, well, maybe maybe the laws of logic

2625
02:49:38,000 --> 02:49:44,079
are conceptual schemes that we all think work and we

2626
02:49:44,319 --> 02:49:46,360
think they apply to the world, but they don't in fact.

2627
02:49:46,879 --> 02:49:50,319
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, you're just thinking the is pragmatic enough that

2628
02:49:50,440 --> 02:49:52,959
we just do Yeah, then it's then it's pragmatism. It's like, oh,

2629
02:49:53,079 --> 02:49:57,120
we do exactly, because yeah, so we can do stuff

2630
02:49:57,200 --> 02:49:59,040
right Like that's no, it's like, yeah.

2631
02:49:58,879 --> 02:50:01,879
Speaker 5: It's a pragmatic and that's not a number destigation and

2632
02:50:02,200 --> 02:50:05,959
by that, by that logic, anything that seems to work,

2633
02:50:06,040 --> 02:50:08,000
would therefore be justified right now?

2634
02:50:08,000 --> 02:50:10,319
Speaker 3: Okay, so let me ask, and again you don't need

2635
02:50:10,399 --> 02:50:12,680
to go into super detail, but maybe if there was

2636
02:50:12,719 --> 02:50:15,399
a key distinction here, what if an atheist said, oh, actually,

2637
02:50:15,440 --> 02:50:17,520
what Jay, just he made a lot of sense right

2638
02:50:17,520 --> 02:50:20,399
there with these individual things that you can argue the

2639
02:50:21,479 --> 02:50:25,799
absurdity of the conclusion. You know, what was it called? Sorry,

2640
02:50:25,840 --> 02:50:29,399
the absurdity of the contrary, like to deny these things?

2641
02:50:30,000 --> 02:50:32,559
If you said, if they agreed with you and said, okay,

2642
02:50:32,879 --> 02:50:38,200
so if arguing something by necessity doesn't really fully justify it,

2643
02:50:38,360 --> 02:50:41,760
but you can accept the argument that to reject something

2644
02:50:41,959 --> 02:50:44,559
and use it is silly, so you shouldn't do that.

2645
02:50:45,399 --> 02:50:47,559
What if they put that to you and they say, well, Jay,

2646
02:50:48,040 --> 02:50:51,399
you know, if the argument for God from the transcendental

2647
02:50:51,520 --> 02:50:56,799
argument is of necessity, what's the classification difference between this

2648
02:50:57,479 --> 02:51:01,639
unique item called using logic and rejecting logic uses logic?

2649
02:51:02,079 --> 02:51:05,479
What's the difference? Now if they're going to say, well, shit, dude,

2650
02:51:05,520 --> 02:51:08,600
you're saying argument for necessity right now that you just said,

2651
02:51:08,639 --> 02:51:10,879
that's not true just because it's necessitated.

2652
02:51:11,239 --> 02:51:13,120
Speaker 5: Yeah, That's why I always argue that you can't just

2653
02:51:13,239 --> 02:51:15,959
do the negative critique. When you do tag, you also

2654
02:51:16,000 --> 02:51:19,040
have to present the positive case of a Christian worldview.

2655
02:51:19,600 --> 02:51:23,799
So the first critique is kantient, and if we were kantients,

2656
02:51:23,920 --> 02:51:26,239
we would have to admit, like the Barry Stroud paper

2657
02:51:26,319 --> 02:51:29,680
says that there's a problem in CONT's arguments that don't

2658
02:51:29,920 --> 02:51:33,079
necessarily prove what he wants to argue for. So remember

2659
02:51:33,120 --> 02:51:36,600
in the first case of why say the law of identity?

2660
02:51:36,799 --> 02:51:40,159
The reason that doesn't get you to justification is because

2661
02:51:40,360 --> 02:51:43,639
I can just simply counter with cont critique and say, well,

2662
02:51:43,760 --> 02:51:47,440
just because it seems to me that it's necessary mentally

2663
02:51:47,559 --> 02:51:50,719
and psychologically to understand the world, does not tell me

2664
02:51:50,799 --> 02:51:52,680
that that's a real metaphysical principle in the world.

2665
02:51:52,959 --> 02:51:53,399
Speaker 3: I got you.

2666
02:51:53,600 --> 02:51:56,799
Speaker 5: Maybe it is, but how does just it seeming and

2667
02:51:56,959 --> 02:52:01,719
my coherence in my mind necessarily that the whole world

2668
02:52:01,879 --> 02:52:05,040
externally to me is operating that way. Uh, that's just

2669
02:52:05,319 --> 02:52:07,239
that's a sufficient enough objection to show that you need

2670
02:52:07,280 --> 02:52:11,239
more for justification. So that's different than than arguing that

2671
02:52:11,639 --> 02:52:14,799
the Christian worldview as a whole, which includes all of

2672
02:52:14,879 --> 02:52:17,280
these things, is the solution to.

2673
02:52:17,399 --> 02:52:20,440
Speaker 3: The that makes sense that Yeah, analogy would be I

2674
02:52:20,559 --> 02:52:25,639
have a Swiss army knife of epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, morality

2675
02:52:25,719 --> 02:52:29,520
or whatever, and I have it because it's useful. Right,

2676
02:52:29,799 --> 02:52:32,159
that's a normal approach, you just ad hoc take it.

2677
02:52:32,399 --> 02:52:35,159
But a Christian worldview is saying, not only is another

2678
02:52:35,520 --> 02:52:37,799
any other of youew can't tell it, can't justify the

2679
02:52:37,840 --> 02:52:40,319
Swiss army knife. We're gonna tell you how it is.

2680
02:52:40,399 --> 02:52:43,239
You have the Swiss army knife altogether that you're using,

2681
02:52:43,799 --> 02:52:46,520
not an argument that you you have it because you're

2682
02:52:46,600 --> 02:52:49,159
using it. That's not a real position, right. That's like

2683
02:52:49,479 --> 02:52:51,440
like like Matt del Hundy, will we use logic because

2684
02:52:51,479 --> 02:52:54,120
we have it? It's like, well, no, that's you're just

2685
02:52:54,239 --> 02:52:56,879
taking the tool that you have. We're asking for. And

2686
02:52:56,959 --> 02:52:59,639
this is the thing you always sigh about, which is

2687
02:52:59,680 --> 02:53:06,159
people will constantly conflate an assertion with a justification. That

2688
02:53:06,719 --> 02:53:09,440
asserting something that sounds right, you might even agree with

2689
02:53:09,520 --> 02:53:12,639
the assertion, it's not the same as a justification, right.

2690
02:53:12,840 --> 02:53:15,399
Speaker 5: And this is even stronger a level beyond that, because

2691
02:53:15,440 --> 02:53:18,040
this is actually saying not so much against the atheists,

2692
02:53:18,159 --> 02:53:21,760
but against a foundationalist who would say, like Tim Gordon

2693
02:53:21,799 --> 02:53:25,159
would say, well, look, law of identity equals a I

2694
02:53:25,239 --> 02:53:29,319
mean through retortion or through a reductio. If you deny it,

2695
02:53:30,000 --> 02:53:32,959
you can't have knowledge at all. That's true, But that

2696
02:53:33,159 --> 02:53:36,600
doesn't tell me that the principle itself is true. Because

2697
02:53:37,399 --> 02:53:40,000
Father Deacon has a paper where he argues along these lines,

2698
02:53:40,040 --> 02:53:42,879
and he says, well, take the case of a schizophrenic.

2699
02:53:43,559 --> 02:53:45,840
In the case of a schizophrenic's mind, it might be

2700
02:53:47,120 --> 02:53:51,399
to him it might seem like all this craziness makes sense, right,

2701
02:53:51,600 --> 02:53:53,079
like all the voices in his head and all the

2702
02:53:53,239 --> 02:53:56,200
weird stuff. For him, it's this coherent worldview that the

2703
02:53:56,319 --> 02:54:00,239
government is persecuting him, right, and so everything makes sense right,

2704
02:54:00,600 --> 02:54:04,239
But it's not true in the external world. So the

2705
02:54:04,280 --> 02:54:07,719
schizophrenic is an example of why the and we're not

2706
02:54:07,799 --> 02:54:10,479
saying schizophrenic is true. It's just a counter example that

2707
02:54:10,600 --> 02:54:15,200
shows that seeming coherence in a mental schema is not enough.

2708
02:54:15,440 --> 02:54:16,600
You need the entire world.

2709
02:54:17,559 --> 02:54:19,399
Speaker 3: What do you say to this one? So ironic because

2710
02:54:19,399 --> 02:54:21,200
the first Christians would have drug you both into the

2711
02:54:21,239 --> 02:54:23,760
streets for being philosophers. Well, they didn't deny philosophy. They

2712
02:54:23,840 --> 02:54:26,719
denied vain philosophy and not all philosophy. I mean, you

2713
02:54:26,719 --> 02:54:29,000
couldn't actually I mean it's just a silly position.

2714
02:54:29,799 --> 02:54:32,120
Speaker 5: Saint Justin Martyr is called Justin the philosopher.

2715
02:54:32,600 --> 02:54:35,719
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean philosophy. You can't really engage with any

2716
02:54:35,760 --> 02:54:39,000
of the truth of the matter. You just think philosophy

2717
02:54:39,079 --> 02:54:40,079
is a gross word.

2718
02:54:40,360 --> 02:54:40,479
Speaker 5: Right.

2719
02:54:40,600 --> 02:54:43,239
Speaker 3: This is a view that probably a Protestant, probably someone

2720
02:54:43,280 --> 02:54:45,959
who's saying, oh, I read philosophy in the Bible and

2721
02:54:46,000 --> 02:54:48,879
it says warning against it. Therefore, all philosophy.

2722
02:54:48,399 --> 02:54:51,239
Speaker 5: And the most Ecclesiastes is a book of philosophy. Yeah.

2723
02:54:51,520 --> 02:54:55,239
Speaker 3: Yeah, by the way, that did during the all of

2724
02:54:55,399 --> 02:54:59,680
the Seven Councils and before did they was philosophy not

2725
02:55:00,000 --> 02:55:03,760
necessary to debate and fight off heresies using consistency and

2726
02:55:03,879 --> 02:55:07,479
logic and why things need to be accounted for using

2727
02:55:07,879 --> 02:55:12,760
our God given faculties called the logic, heart, news, mind, rationality.

2728
02:55:12,799 --> 02:55:14,920
Of course, I mean this is this is silly.

2729
02:55:15,879 --> 02:55:18,680
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's vain philosophy, that'sful.

2730
02:55:18,520 --> 02:55:20,280
Speaker 3: Yeah, vein, Yeah, vain philosophy.

2731
02:55:20,879 --> 02:55:22,920
Speaker 4: My logic tutor in first year used to say that

2732
02:55:23,840 --> 02:55:25,559
a good way to get your head around this intuitively

2733
02:55:25,680 --> 02:55:27,760
is well, if this is true, then anything can be true.

2734
02:55:27,879 --> 02:55:30,360
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, that's a great way of putting it. I'm

2735
02:55:30,360 --> 02:55:32,440
go've been planning on doing a video about about this

2736
02:55:32,559 --> 02:55:37,520
concept you know from X Also yes, yeah, yeah, I'm.

2737
02:55:37,360 --> 02:55:40,559
Speaker 3: Gonna actually skipto consciousness here not being a materialist.

2738
02:55:40,799 --> 02:55:42,399
Speaker 4: Yes, I mean this is this is almost like that.

2739
02:55:42,520 --> 02:55:44,079
We've the kind of runs like that would apply to

2740
02:55:44,159 --> 02:55:45,639
the logic one, indeed loads of ones.

2741
02:55:46,040 --> 02:55:49,879
Speaker 2: You can believe that consciousness is this strange immaterial you

2742
02:55:49,920 --> 02:55:50,399
could believe in.

2743
02:55:50,360 --> 02:55:51,280
Speaker 5: The of the soul.

2744
02:55:51,399 --> 02:55:53,559
Speaker 3: Okay, I wanted to you weren't here for this. Jay

2745
02:55:53,799 --> 02:55:56,159
he was in the early part of this video. He

2746
02:55:56,280 --> 02:55:59,200
was saying that, you know, there are atheists who are

2747
02:55:59,319 --> 02:56:05,120
materialists or a materialists who are atheists, but there are

2748
02:56:05,200 --> 02:56:08,799
people who are atheists who reject materialism. I'm saying, Okay, fine,

2749
02:56:09,159 --> 02:56:12,559
people can try to hold the view I've come to

2750
02:56:12,600 --> 02:56:15,239
the conclusion that I'm not. They can claim that, but

2751
02:56:15,360 --> 02:56:19,000
I'm not certain how an atheist is not going to

2752
02:56:19,079 --> 02:56:22,079
be whittled down into some sort of materialism or physicalism.

2753
02:56:22,239 --> 02:56:25,200
Just like New Agers, right, they we grant that they

2754
02:56:25,319 --> 02:56:27,719
use all of these metaphysical terms like spirit in mind

2755
02:56:27,799 --> 02:56:29,639
and all these things, but when you press them on them,

2756
02:56:30,319 --> 02:56:32,799
a New Age or a spiritual not religious person, they

2757
02:56:33,319 --> 02:56:36,159
you push them and they end up folding down into

2758
02:56:36,200 --> 02:56:39,520
like energy and frequencies and all of these things. Now,

2759
02:56:39,799 --> 02:56:43,479
is it possible because Alex has taken the position, well,

2760
02:56:43,920 --> 02:56:48,159
all materialists are atheists, but not all atheists are materialists?

2761
02:56:48,600 --> 02:56:51,200
Now is that? Is that just kind of like you go, okay, yeah,

2762
02:56:51,399 --> 02:56:51,799
they can.

2763
02:56:51,719 --> 02:56:55,360
Speaker 5: Hold There are in the minority, you know, atheists, philosophers

2764
02:56:55,360 --> 02:56:57,920
and academics who are not strict materialists.

2765
02:56:57,959 --> 02:57:00,680
Speaker 3: There are some, But are they consistent as opposed to

2766
02:57:00,760 --> 02:57:03,520
the position? Okay, That's what I'm saying, is like if

2767
02:57:03,559 --> 02:57:06,719
I yeah, that's that's a question, is like are they

2768
02:57:06,920 --> 02:57:09,719
really when pressed? I think the answers no, do they

2769
02:57:09,799 --> 02:57:10,399
hold the position?

2770
02:57:10,559 --> 02:57:14,159
Speaker 5: Fine? Like you could be you could be a you

2771
02:57:14,239 --> 02:57:17,440
could be a platonist atheist, and you could be a

2772
02:57:17,680 --> 02:57:23,280
transcendental idealist atheist, and like you could you could conceivably,

2773
02:57:23,319 --> 02:57:26,079
for example, think that all of reality is pure idea

2774
02:57:26,280 --> 02:57:29,159
like Barkley did, and just not believe in a deity.

2775
02:57:29,559 --> 02:57:34,200
I suppose, But I mean that's like very rare positions,

2776
02:57:34,280 --> 02:57:37,959
like maybe one in a thousand professors as that position.

2777
02:57:38,799 --> 02:57:41,760
Speaker 3: Yeah, That's why I ask, like, well, someone could post

2778
02:57:41,840 --> 02:57:44,079
the position up and if we start kicking at it,

2779
02:57:44,680 --> 02:57:46,479
it seems like they would have no place to go

2780
02:57:46,680 --> 02:57:51,120
then to reduce things to empirical things and matter and physicalism.

2781
02:57:51,520 --> 02:57:54,479
If they're questioned, unless you they just go listen. I

2782
02:57:54,680 --> 02:57:58,479
just take this weird, unjustified platonic view that there's things

2783
02:57:58,520 --> 02:58:01,040
out there that aren't identical to matter and somehow we

2784
02:58:01,079 --> 02:58:01,600
have access.

2785
02:58:01,799 --> 02:58:05,639
Speaker 5: They could actually they could just be barkley An idealists

2786
02:58:06,280 --> 02:58:08,799
or Platonist idealists, and they could just simply deny matter.

2787
02:58:09,079 --> 02:58:11,680
They could just say what you think is matter is

2788
02:58:11,840 --> 02:58:16,200
just ideas and there is no God, there's just ideas.

2789
02:58:16,799 --> 02:58:21,440
So what exactly ideas are would just be, you know,

2790
02:58:21,840 --> 02:58:28,159
something immaterial invariants or something like that. But again that's

2791
02:58:28,200 --> 02:58:31,319
a very few people. I mean, there are philosophers who.

2792
02:58:30,920 --> 02:58:33,840
Speaker 3: Would think yeah, but then they have a they're bracypically,

2793
02:58:33,959 --> 02:58:37,360
they're basically halfway into solipsism. And at that point because

2794
02:58:37,399 --> 02:58:40,280
then you just ask, well, whose ideas? Whose ideas are

2795
02:58:40,280 --> 02:58:43,639
the proper assessment of the external world, And then like

2796
02:58:44,079 --> 02:58:46,520
you know, it's this battle of like one person set

2797
02:58:46,559 --> 02:58:50,280
of ideas versus another person. But then that person has

2798
02:58:50,319 --> 02:58:52,680
to be beyond an idea, Like if the objects in

2799
02:58:52,719 --> 02:58:54,639
the world there are just ideas, then the people in

2800
02:58:54,680 --> 02:58:57,120
the world are just ideas. So then you know, I

2801
02:58:57,159 --> 02:58:59,559
don't see how they can escape a solipsistic view.

2802
02:59:00,120 --> 02:59:02,600
Speaker 5: But well, I mean they might think that there's many,

2803
02:59:04,479 --> 02:59:08,159
many ideas in many minds, so all that exists is mind.

2804
02:59:08,959 --> 02:59:13,319
Matter is illusory. There's many minds and many ideas, and

2805
02:59:13,399 --> 02:59:18,079
then what we call matter is just the what we

2806
02:59:18,280 --> 02:59:22,959
think is going on with molecules, when really it's all

2807
02:59:23,239 --> 02:59:26,920
just ideas as they're presented to us. Yeah, so there's

2808
02:59:26,920 --> 02:59:28,840
the reason, the reason why. There's actually a reason why

2809
02:59:28,879 --> 02:59:30,399
they might think this though, and this has to do

2810
02:59:30,520 --> 02:59:33,360
with the there's an Enlightenment dispute. I don't want to

2811
02:59:33,360 --> 02:59:34,680
get too far a field, you probably don't want to

2812
02:59:34,680 --> 02:59:36,840
talk about it, but it has to do with what's

2813
02:59:36,840 --> 02:59:39,559
called direct and indirect realism. And so like John Locke

2814
02:59:39,559 --> 02:59:41,120
and people like that, at the time of the Enlightenment,

2815
02:59:41,600 --> 02:59:47,680
they were debating whether or not I'm actually sensing solidity

2816
02:59:48,440 --> 02:59:51,520
when I touch a thing, or whether solidity is something

2817
02:59:51,559 --> 02:59:54,840
that's presented in my mind. And they had a really

2818
02:59:54,879 --> 02:59:58,000
hard time if you're if you're an empiricist, they had

2819
02:59:58,040 --> 03:00:01,040
a hard time with this because people like David Hume, well,

2820
03:00:01,479 --> 03:00:05,319
obviously there's an external world and these are just sensations

2821
03:00:05,319 --> 03:00:10,040
imprinted upon my camcorder mind. But other enlightenment flusters said, well,

2822
03:00:10,120 --> 03:00:13,920
now wait a minute, that's an unjustified assumption. Maybe the

2823
03:00:14,079 --> 03:00:18,280
sensations are in the mind and everything that's happening is

2824
03:00:18,399 --> 03:00:20,879
in the mind. And in other words, they can just

2825
03:00:21,000 --> 03:00:23,840
deny the external world assumption and say that there is

2826
03:00:23,879 --> 03:00:26,680
no external world. There's just a commonly experienced mind world.

2827
03:00:27,120 --> 03:00:30,079
Speaker 3: Right right right, And that leads to would you say

2828
03:00:30,120 --> 03:00:31,040
that leads I think.

2829
03:00:31,319 --> 03:00:35,000
Speaker 5: If I mean, I think you could go towards syllipsism, yeah.

2830
03:00:36,319 --> 03:00:38,719
Speaker 3: Or pant psychic. I don't understand how you could be

2831
03:00:38,719 --> 03:00:42,399
a pan psychic. And then also it makes some sort

2832
03:00:42,399 --> 03:00:43,639
of distinctions between I.

2833
03:00:43,639 --> 03:00:45,799
Speaker 5: Think the problem that position is that they have to

2834
03:00:46,000 --> 03:00:48,959
end up like having a bunch of metaphysical assumptions that

2835
03:00:49,040 --> 03:00:53,120
are very contrary to kind of common sense reality. So

2836
03:00:53,479 --> 03:00:55,879
it's sort of like everything that you think is going

2837
03:00:55,959 --> 03:00:58,399
on isn't going on. And then it's like, okay, well,

2838
03:00:58,399 --> 03:01:01,440
if that's the case, then why should I assume this

2839
03:01:01,760 --> 03:01:04,760
metaphysical assumption of there being mini minds and there's like

2840
03:01:04,799 --> 03:01:06,600
a giant mind. And it's just sort of a lot

2841
03:01:06,639 --> 03:01:07,040
of leaps.

2842
03:01:07,639 --> 03:01:09,840
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, also that what you said before, if there

2843
03:01:09,879 --> 03:01:12,680
are these people that you said during that phase of

2844
03:01:12,719 --> 03:01:16,079
philosophy were who are saying, well, there's just ideas out there,

2845
03:01:16,559 --> 03:01:20,920
and then the sense input. If the sense input had

2846
03:01:21,000 --> 03:01:24,520
nothing to do with being dependent on an actual object,

2847
03:01:24,559 --> 03:01:27,559
then you wouldn't need the external world to perceive what

2848
03:01:27,680 --> 03:01:29,440
we call the external world. There would just be like

2849
03:01:29,520 --> 03:01:33,040
this sense input coming from wherever. It didn't need to

2850
03:01:33,079 --> 03:01:35,799
be an object, so that what is sense input? What

2851
03:01:35,959 --> 03:01:38,479
is input if it's not separate from the thing that's

2852
03:01:38,520 --> 03:01:39,959
doing the interpretation.

2853
03:01:39,559 --> 03:01:42,680
Speaker 5: Well would just say, for example, that what you're sensing

2854
03:01:42,799 --> 03:01:45,440
is just another idea. So he's not saying it's all.

2855
03:01:46,239 --> 03:01:48,920
He's saying that there are sensory inputs, but the sensory

2856
03:01:48,959 --> 03:01:51,360
inputs are ideas from other ideas.

2857
03:01:52,319 --> 03:01:54,680
Speaker 3: So this is the basis you know for Is this

2858
03:01:54,799 --> 03:01:58,000
the basis for the similarcrum like which became the famous

2859
03:01:58,040 --> 03:02:02,319
movie Do you think this view or is it before that?

2860
03:02:03,639 --> 03:02:06,959
Like it seems like if that's that's that was the

2861
03:02:07,079 --> 03:02:12,399
first like basement people being like bro like like what

2862
03:02:12,559 --> 03:02:13,639
if we're just.

2863
03:02:14,799 --> 03:02:19,079
Speaker 5: That's probably more so like from Plato, And the difference

2864
03:02:19,159 --> 03:02:24,399
is that Barkley is an empiricist, and so Plato's Plato's

2865
03:02:24,440 --> 03:02:26,280
not a big I mean, Plato believes that knowledge comes

2866
03:02:26,319 --> 03:02:28,319
from since theive, but it's like the lowest level of knowledge.

2867
03:02:28,959 --> 03:02:32,239
So they have a huge difference on where we get knowledge.

2868
03:02:33,120 --> 03:02:35,719
But Barkley is a I mean, he's just as much

2869
03:02:35,760 --> 03:02:39,360
an empiricist as well as Locke or David Hume. The

2870
03:02:39,440 --> 03:02:42,120
only difference is that he's saying, David him, you're inconsistent

2871
03:02:42,280 --> 03:02:45,520
by assuming an external world. You have no justification for that.

2872
03:02:46,280 --> 03:02:48,600
I'm going to be the most consistent empiricist and say

2873
03:02:48,680 --> 03:02:51,440
that all reality is ideas because didn't we just see

2874
03:02:51,479 --> 03:02:54,799
in these Enlightenment disputes that you can't really justify the

2875
03:02:55,120 --> 03:02:57,200
difference between the sensation and the object.

2876
03:02:58,040 --> 03:03:01,280
Speaker 3: Wait, so you're saying, even no, famously human is the

2877
03:03:01,360 --> 03:03:04,680
most consistent. There was another guy who was even more consistent.

2878
03:03:04,920 --> 03:03:07,840
Speaker 5: Well, just on that one point of world. So he's

2879
03:03:07,879 --> 03:03:10,719
basically saying and by the way, Barkley, because he was

2880
03:03:10,719 --> 03:03:14,120
an Anglican clergyman or Irish Anglican clergyman, he wanted to

2881
03:03:14,239 --> 03:03:20,120
defend theism against Hume and the skepticism, and he thought

2882
03:03:20,200 --> 03:03:22,559
a way to do this would be to say well,

2883
03:03:22,600 --> 03:03:25,799
maybe all knowledge does come from sense data, but the

2884
03:03:25,920 --> 03:03:30,399
mistake is to think that it's corpuscles or corpuscularianism. From

2885
03:03:30,520 --> 03:03:33,040
what they cart talked about, that everything is just little

2886
03:03:33,120 --> 03:03:36,719
atoms bouncing around, right, he says, rather than thinking of

2887
03:03:36,799 --> 03:03:39,680
it as a bunch of material atoms, all your ever

2888
03:03:40,399 --> 03:03:44,520
sensing is literally ideas, because all that exists as ideas.

2889
03:03:46,520 --> 03:03:51,399
Speaker 3: Interesting. But then again, that would mean that to do induction,

2890
03:03:52,079 --> 03:03:55,280
you're actually interacting with a set of particular ideas that

2891
03:03:55,360 --> 03:03:58,319
aren't identical to the previous ones in every moment, right,

2892
03:03:58,360 --> 03:03:58,920
but every.

2893
03:03:58,799 --> 03:04:01,959
Speaker 5: Moment would mark as theists would say. Yeah, but in

2894
03:04:02,079 --> 03:04:04,120
my case, I don't have a problem with there being

2895
03:04:04,200 --> 03:04:09,120
universals and particulars. There's one ultimate idea, Who's God? That's

2896
03:04:09,159 --> 03:04:09,840
the big idea?

2897
03:04:11,040 --> 03:04:13,840
Speaker 3: Yeah, I gotcha. Do you ever get something as silly

2898
03:04:13,879 --> 03:04:16,559
as this in your chat? The transcendental argument for evolution,

2899
03:04:16,920 --> 03:04:19,360
that's funny is how you can have be a non

2900
03:04:19,440 --> 03:04:23,760
materialist atheist. I'm sorry, but evolution is a materialist paradigm, right,

2901
03:04:23,879 --> 03:04:27,120
So what is this non materialism you get from evolution?

2902
03:04:27,239 --> 03:04:30,159
By the way, evolution even can't even tell you how

2903
03:04:30,280 --> 03:04:33,719
information being immaterial and not identical to matter exists, and

2904
03:04:33,799 --> 03:04:42,879
yet evolution requires the transfer of evolution. Becky, thank you, Becky.

2905
03:04:43,959 --> 03:04:45,680
H do you want to respond to that goofiness?

2906
03:04:45,840 --> 03:04:49,680
Speaker 5: Well again, like, it's really misunderstanding the function of the

2907
03:04:49,719 --> 03:04:52,879
transcendental argument. It's not an argument to give you an

2908
03:04:52,920 --> 03:04:57,479
indirect basis for anything. It's in our case, it's an

2909
03:04:57,840 --> 03:05:00,159
it's an indirect argument to give you a base for

2910
03:05:00,200 --> 03:05:03,079
the entire Christian worldview. So it wouldn't make sense to

2911
03:05:03,159 --> 03:05:08,319
say that it proves an immaterial process that somehow gives

2912
03:05:08,440 --> 03:05:11,879
rise to a material process, as gives rise to masteriality.

2913
03:05:12,280 --> 03:05:15,559
There's no way that an abstract transnial argument could actually

2914
03:05:15,799 --> 03:05:19,520
justify that. It would just be assuming what's supposed to

2915
03:05:19,559 --> 03:05:22,440
be proven by that. That's why it's a comparison of worldviews.

2916
03:05:22,479 --> 03:05:28,760
It's not like this transcendental category proves that matter gives

2917
03:05:28,879 --> 03:05:31,239
rise to immateriality. Yeah.

2918
03:05:31,799 --> 03:05:35,319
Speaker 3: By the way, these transitental things would be mind dependent

2919
03:05:35,760 --> 03:05:40,200
and can't be identical to a physical process called evolution anyway. Right,

2920
03:05:40,239 --> 03:05:45,239
So it's like to even post diction, uh summarize evolution,

2921
03:05:45,520 --> 03:05:47,399
you're appealing to things that are not found in the

2922
03:05:47,479 --> 03:05:48,360
process of evolution.

2923
03:05:48,680 --> 03:05:52,319
Speaker 5: So I mean and Also that sounds like emergentism, which

2924
03:05:53,200 --> 03:05:57,600
it's an argument against materialism. So right, matter gives rise

2925
03:05:57,719 --> 03:06:02,920
to consciousness and immortation immateriality, that would be a refutation

2926
03:06:03,040 --> 03:06:06,920
of materialism, and that would mean that evolution ultimately isn't true. Right.

2927
03:06:07,000 --> 03:06:09,639
Speaker 3: Most people don't realize that. I talk to Father Deacon

2928
03:06:09,680 --> 03:06:12,680
Anonius about that. How most people don't when they say

2929
03:06:12,719 --> 03:06:15,719
emergent property, oh, the mind's emerging, they really think that

2930
03:06:15,840 --> 03:06:19,079
the material reality can produce and percolate something that's not

2931
03:06:19,159 --> 03:06:22,079
identical to the machine that's doing it, you know, like

2932
03:06:22,639 --> 03:06:25,360
you know, steam over the pot of water or something.

2933
03:06:25,399 --> 03:06:28,920
And and like you just said, it's most people don't

2934
03:06:29,319 --> 03:06:32,719
who use emergent property as a term. They don't realize

2935
03:06:32,760 --> 03:06:37,719
that emergentism the school of thinking, refutes the thing they're

2936
03:06:37,719 --> 03:06:39,760
trying to argue using emergent properties.

2937
03:06:40,319 --> 03:06:41,959
Speaker 5: And by the way, if they're allowed to make that

2938
03:06:42,120 --> 03:06:45,079
leap as a Dila hunty person is misusing that argument,

2939
03:06:45,559 --> 03:06:48,239
then why then what's what's wrong with me saying? Okay,

2940
03:06:48,280 --> 03:06:50,600
then there's immaterial things like angel souls and god.

2941
03:06:50,799 --> 03:06:53,879
Speaker 3: Sure, sure, yeah, that's what That's one of my favorite

2942
03:06:54,280 --> 03:06:57,520
angles is that I'll just take an ordinary atheist who

2943
03:06:57,559 --> 03:07:00,280
says God doesn't exist, I have no reason to believing

2944
03:07:00,319 --> 03:07:04,040
God because X Y Z empiricism evidential ism missing. And

2945
03:07:04,120 --> 03:07:06,520
I go, oh, that's interesting. I'll just list the categories

2946
03:07:06,559 --> 03:07:09,559
of things that they assume without evidence. This doesn't prove

2947
03:07:09,639 --> 03:07:12,120
that all claims of things that are immaterial exists. It

2948
03:07:12,239 --> 03:07:16,399
just shows that their standard they use to negate God's

2949
03:07:16,479 --> 03:07:20,840
existence are a bunch of things. The very standard they're

2950
03:07:20,920 --> 03:07:25,200
using is an immaterial standard that's not verified through empirical data.

2951
03:07:25,280 --> 03:07:28,840
Speaker 5: It's like exactly, well, back to the great paper the

2952
03:07:29,120 --> 03:07:31,639
Two Dogmas of Empiricism by Kwying. He ends the paper

2953
03:07:31,680 --> 03:07:38,000
by saying that anytime somebody in the empiricist atheist tradition

2954
03:07:38,360 --> 03:07:42,719
tries to predicate, predication itself is the equivalent of the

2955
03:07:42,719 --> 03:07:45,600
ancient Greek god's meaning is the equivalent of the ancient

2956
03:07:45,600 --> 03:07:47,159
Greek gods and the vice spaghetti monster.

2957
03:07:48,000 --> 03:07:53,440
Speaker 3: Wow, so this stuff, you would you say, the criticisms

2958
03:07:53,479 --> 03:07:55,799
of all this stuff, and the fact that this stuff

2959
03:07:55,799 --> 03:08:01,040
percolates back up into culture is the result of the

2960
03:08:01,239 --> 03:08:05,000
Enlightenment itself, because they just got lacks on their rigor.

2961
03:08:05,200 --> 03:08:07,239
They just granted a bunch of things and people ran

2962
03:08:07,520 --> 03:08:09,719
rampant because didn't the Enlightenment correct me if I'm wrong,

2963
03:08:09,840 --> 03:08:12,879
just say, well, let's take a self evident axiomatic approach

2964
03:08:12,920 --> 03:08:16,399
to all these fundamental things, and we don't have to

2965
03:08:16,600 --> 03:08:19,040
justify the fundamental things. We just kind of accept them.

2966
03:08:19,120 --> 03:08:21,799
And now if you just accept those things, why would

2967
03:08:21,840 --> 03:08:24,639
we be surprised at a resurgence of all this insane

2968
03:08:24,719 --> 03:08:27,079
stuff you and I critique and laugh at on you know,

2969
03:08:27,200 --> 03:08:29,600
popping out of TikTok and all these Well.

2970
03:08:29,520 --> 03:08:34,000
Speaker 5: Yeah, exactly, you're right. Enlightenment is critique, right. It's basically saying,

2971
03:08:34,120 --> 03:08:36,639
let's take the laws of logic, the self evident actions

2972
03:08:36,639 --> 03:08:39,639
and principles, and let's critique the metaphysics of Christianity, the

2973
03:08:39,639 --> 03:08:42,079
ancient world in the Middle Ages. And what we see

2974
03:08:42,120 --> 03:08:44,920
when we do that is we basically hack off everything metaphysical.

2975
03:08:45,639 --> 03:08:48,559
But then the next generation says, wait a minute, if

2976
03:08:48,559 --> 03:08:50,719
we're going to be consistent and we're going to hack

2977
03:08:50,799 --> 03:08:53,159
off the metaphysics and the things that we can't justify,

2978
03:08:53,479 --> 03:08:55,959
we're gonna start hacking off and getting rid of the

2979
03:08:56,040 --> 03:08:59,200
things that the enlightens our mind, our mind, any everything

2980
03:08:59,360 --> 03:09:02,799
Enlightenment is going to get hacked away too. Laws of logic,

2981
03:09:02,920 --> 03:09:08,280
external world identity, over time to self the mind, meaning yeah,

2982
03:09:09,040 --> 03:09:11,520
so as they hack away, you get the end result

2983
03:09:11,639 --> 03:09:17,079
of basically Kwine saying, nobody in the empiricist, materialist atheist

2984
03:09:17,120 --> 03:09:19,639
tradition in five hundred years has given a sufficient answer

2985
03:09:19,680 --> 03:09:22,719
to David Hume. And basically all that's happened is that

2986
03:09:22,760 --> 03:09:27,000
everything has become psychology, So epistemology becomes psychologized that sense,

2987
03:09:27,040 --> 03:09:30,360
we're still we're still there, he says, We're never gonna

2988
03:09:30,360 --> 03:09:31,040
get out of this box.

2989
03:09:31,760 --> 03:09:35,280
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, And they're and they're taking their approach altogether

2990
03:09:35,440 --> 03:09:40,000
is backwards, like using instead of asking what's the ultimate

2991
03:09:40,120 --> 03:09:43,079
start point for all of this being possible? They go, well,

2992
03:09:43,120 --> 03:09:45,959
what what endpoint can we get to using our faculties?

2993
03:09:46,040 --> 03:09:48,479
And it's like, well, no, the question is how did

2994
03:09:48,520 --> 03:09:50,559
you get your faculties to begin with? How is it

2995
03:09:50,680 --> 03:09:52,920
the case that you can even reason to a conclusion?

2996
03:09:53,319 --> 03:09:56,719
Not you know, the other way around. And hence I

2997
03:09:56,879 --> 03:10:00,840
believe that would be the basis for pursuing the tag

2998
03:10:00,959 --> 03:10:03,680
argument in general. Because you're asked, you're not granting them

2999
03:10:03,719 --> 03:10:05,440
all of the things that are required for them to

3000
03:10:06,120 --> 03:10:09,159
come to conclusions. You're asking a bigger question. I guess

3001
03:10:09,200 --> 03:10:12,040
you would call that a metallogical question, is well, no,

3002
03:10:12,200 --> 03:10:14,879
let's ask a bigger question that the Enlightenment people just

3003
03:10:15,079 --> 03:10:17,399
didn't want to deal with Or was it that they

3004
03:10:17,440 --> 03:10:19,959
didn't want to deal with it in your estimation, or

3005
03:10:21,719 --> 03:10:23,760
it's just just kind of culture. It just kind of

3006
03:10:23,840 --> 03:10:25,440
happened that way, Like, yeah.

3007
03:10:25,239 --> 03:10:28,079
Speaker 5: I think men are limited by their times and we

3008
03:10:28,159 --> 03:10:30,680
can't expect, you know, people in the Middle Ages, we

3009
03:10:30,760 --> 03:10:34,200
can't expect them to necessarily ask the questions of the

3010
03:10:34,280 --> 03:10:37,079
eighteen hundreds because a lot of things have to happen,

3011
03:10:37,159 --> 03:10:40,799
a lot of questions of people kind of creatively saying, hey,

3012
03:10:40,840 --> 03:10:43,399
wait a minute, what about this, Like we've assumed this,

3013
03:10:43,639 --> 03:10:46,360
we haven't asked this because remember, I mean, there's those

3014
03:10:46,399 --> 03:10:51,719
type linguistic philosophy. For example, there's some linguistic philosophy in

3015
03:10:51,760 --> 03:10:54,840
the ancient world, people asking questions about signs and symbols.

3016
03:10:55,120 --> 03:10:56,639
There's a little bit in the Middle Ages, maybe a

3017
03:10:56,680 --> 03:11:02,040
little more, and it doesn't really get questioned until the

3018
03:11:02,159 --> 03:11:07,079
seventeen hundreds. So it's the first modern linguistic philosopher is

3019
03:11:07,399 --> 03:11:10,920
Jean Bautista Vico, and he's pretty late, like early seventeen hundreds,

3020
03:11:11,559 --> 03:11:16,079
so people hadn't even thought to question the propositions at length.

3021
03:11:16,280 --> 03:11:18,280
I mean again, some people had questioned these things, and

3022
03:11:18,360 --> 03:11:21,280
they raised issues in the Middle Ages, but to really

3023
03:11:21,399 --> 03:11:25,079
drill into even linguistic philosophy, it's pretty late. So we

3024
03:11:25,200 --> 03:11:29,920
can't assume that, you know, you know, we might think, well,

3025
03:11:29,920 --> 03:11:32,719
why didn't they just ask the questions we're asking. Well,

3026
03:11:33,639 --> 03:11:38,799
there's people. Humans operate a lot of times with assumptions,

3027
03:11:39,159 --> 03:11:41,680
and they don't oftentimes question their something.

3028
03:11:42,040 --> 03:11:44,479
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, someone recently asked me, hey, Jim Bob, you're

3029
03:11:44,479 --> 03:11:46,760
doing a lot of talk about evolution. You know, why

3030
03:11:46,879 --> 03:11:49,440
is it the case that people in this field haven't

3031
03:11:49,559 --> 03:11:52,360
brought up your contentions and the contentions of your your

3032
03:11:52,600 --> 03:11:54,920
you know, your associates and peers. And I'm like, well,

3033
03:11:55,479 --> 03:12:00,840
this assumption that if something's false, the presentation of how

3034
03:12:00,879 --> 03:12:03,280
it's false is going to be adequately accepted in the

3035
03:12:03,360 --> 03:12:06,719
time frame that the paradigms delivered, we're still very new,

3036
03:12:06,879 --> 03:12:09,079
by the way, in the infancy, right.

3037
03:12:09,319 --> 03:12:12,000
Speaker 5: This is the point of Thomas Kuhne's Structures a Scientific

3038
03:12:12,040 --> 03:12:15,239
Revolution that that famous book one an a word, because

3039
03:12:15,280 --> 03:12:19,239
the whole thesis of the book is that new paradigms

3040
03:12:19,399 --> 03:12:22,200
are not accepted immediately at that time on the basis

3041
03:12:22,239 --> 03:12:26,559
of pure reasoning and demonstration and proof. In fact, when

3042
03:12:26,840 --> 03:12:30,159
challenges to paradigms are put forward, the tendency for human

3043
03:12:30,239 --> 03:12:33,639
nature is to cling even more intensely to the existing

3044
03:12:33,719 --> 03:12:35,719
paradigm before they concede to the new paradigm.

3045
03:12:36,280 --> 03:12:38,799
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, it's interesting. And by the way, if we

3046
03:12:38,879 --> 03:12:41,159
get to a point where, you know, natural selection and

3047
03:12:41,239 --> 03:12:44,879
all the all the rest is adequately offset by something new,

3048
03:12:45,399 --> 03:12:48,000
the people who believed in all that dogmatically are just

3049
03:12:48,079 --> 03:12:50,600
going to move over to their their authority anyway and say, well,

3050
03:12:50,639 --> 03:12:52,920
it was our authority who debunked.

3051
03:12:52,520 --> 03:12:56,479
Speaker 5: In exactly what. There's a pattern there between. I mean,

3052
03:12:56,479 --> 03:12:59,959
they're talking about two different topics, but Kwind's two dogmas

3053
03:13:00,120 --> 03:13:05,159
of empiricism, right, He's pointing out that empiricism was intended

3054
03:13:05,200 --> 03:13:09,440
to get rid of dogmas of metaphysics. And yet empiricists

3055
03:13:09,760 --> 03:13:12,680
in their extreme reach, like people like what does he say,

3056
03:13:12,760 --> 03:13:18,280
Popper Carnapp and others like, they've gotten to this point. Carnapp.

3057
03:13:18,319 --> 03:13:21,239
I think they in the strict positivists have gotten to

3058
03:13:21,280 --> 03:13:23,399
this point where they think that they don't have any dogmas,

3059
03:13:23,440 --> 03:13:25,840
but they still got two dogmas and then and then

3060
03:13:25,879 --> 03:13:29,600
it's the same point with Kun's book. People think that

3061
03:13:29,719 --> 03:13:32,280
in the realm of science they operate on pure facts

3062
03:13:32,360 --> 03:13:36,520
and art and logic and objectivity, but rather the opposite

3063
03:13:36,639 --> 03:13:38,399
is true, and they treat it like a religion.

3064
03:13:38,760 --> 03:13:41,680
Speaker 3: Which is why, you know, even in my own chat,

3065
03:13:42,280 --> 03:13:45,719
the impulse is to have this negative aversion, you know,

3066
03:13:45,799 --> 03:13:49,319
to dogma, and we go, no, no, you can't escape dogma.

3067
03:13:49,399 --> 03:13:52,399
In general, the term it's just that you gotta you

3068
03:13:52,520 --> 03:13:57,479
gotta isolate, you know, when it's incoherent or limited or

3069
03:13:57,520 --> 03:14:00,760
something like. Because we wouldn't just say dogma icky. People

3070
03:14:00,840 --> 03:14:03,079
think that that's just what you should do. You just

3071
03:14:03,159 --> 03:14:07,440
go dogma, ikey yucky. Well, obviously in Christianity we don't

3072
03:14:07,520 --> 03:14:11,840
say dogma ikey yucky. But in their tradition and in

3073
03:14:11,959 --> 03:14:15,200
that world, they think they're purely skeptical. They really think

3074
03:14:15,280 --> 03:14:18,360
there's a purity to skepticism. But that is a dogma

3075
03:14:18,399 --> 03:14:19,959
in itself that has its own dogma.

3076
03:14:20,159 --> 03:14:22,280
Speaker 5: So it's a total worldview. In fact, I mean the

3077
03:14:22,360 --> 03:14:28,399
famous skeptics and Skeptic magazine like Michael Schermer and those

3078
03:14:28,479 --> 03:14:34,159
characters like they notoriously never deviate from the establishment teaching

3079
03:14:34,440 --> 03:14:37,280
dogmas and positions on everything. So whether it's the Big

3080
03:14:37,360 --> 03:14:41,520
nine event or whether it's GMOs stabbis like they literally

3081
03:14:41,559 --> 03:14:43,879
go across the line for the Stadt, which is not

3082
03:14:44,040 --> 03:14:46,680
very skeptical to me if you're basically in line with

3083
03:14:46,760 --> 03:14:49,520
whatever the basically the State Department and the establishment says,

3084
03:14:49,719 --> 03:14:50,840
how is that establishism?

3085
03:14:51,000 --> 03:14:53,159
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's not skeptical at all. But you know they

3086
03:14:53,200 --> 03:14:56,959
get their their touring badges. Yes, from that anyway, So

3087
03:14:57,879 --> 03:14:59,799
let's move along with this and see where if they

3088
03:14:59,840 --> 03:15:01,079
take make us anywhere.

3089
03:15:00,959 --> 03:15:03,079
Speaker 2: All you can believe in all that kind of stuff

3090
03:15:03,079 --> 03:15:06,239
and just not believe in like an agential god overseeing

3091
03:15:06,239 --> 03:15:07,479
it all, it would be quite weird.

3092
03:15:07,719 --> 03:15:08,040
Speaker 5: Agent.

3093
03:15:08,200 --> 03:15:10,639
Speaker 2: It will still be like weirder that there wasn't some creative.

3094
03:15:11,920 --> 03:15:13,239
Speaker 5: Wrong?

3095
03:15:13,639 --> 03:15:17,360
Speaker 3: Is that something not tangential like an agent?

3096
03:15:17,719 --> 03:15:24,719
Speaker 5: Like, but he said agent, make it, I'll make it populous.

3097
03:15:24,799 --> 03:15:28,399
Speaker 2: I've persuasion. It's worth noting that. But I think really

3098
03:15:28,479 --> 03:15:31,440
the question here, put in the context of atheists not

3099
03:15:31,440 --> 03:15:35,600
being able to answer it is like conscious a strange

3100
03:15:35,639 --> 03:15:39,360
thing to expect, reputed.

3101
03:15:39,040 --> 03:15:44,520
Speaker 3: Me, refer referring to having agency thinking mind.

3102
03:15:44,840 --> 03:15:46,200
Speaker 5: I got to retire, he reputed me.

3103
03:15:46,600 --> 03:15:47,159
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's over.

3104
03:15:47,399 --> 03:15:49,959
Speaker 2: If there is no they're going to bring verse and

3105
03:15:50,040 --> 03:15:53,559
if there is no immaterial element to the universe, because

3106
03:15:53,559 --> 03:15:56,840
consciousness seems like it's immaterial. It seems I mean, we

3107
03:15:56,879 --> 03:15:58,760
can answer this as if we were looking for questions

3108
03:15:58,799 --> 03:15:59,760
that materialists can't.

3109
03:15:59,840 --> 03:16:00,000
Speaker 5: Yeah.

3110
03:16:00,159 --> 03:16:02,840
Speaker 2: Yeah, Like consciousness is very strange. I've talked about a

3111
03:16:02,879 --> 03:16:04,600
lot recently. The people Who've been listening to my recent

3112
03:16:04,680 --> 03:16:07,879
material will know that I'm just amused by consciousness.

3113
03:16:10,040 --> 03:16:11,840
Speaker 4: As it's it's well, it's actually it's it's a bit

3114
03:16:11,920 --> 03:16:13,399
like the laws of logic in the sense, and it's

3115
03:16:13,399 --> 03:16:14,680
one of the weirdest things. I'm one of the most

3116
03:16:14,719 --> 03:16:16,600
obvious things. What are you going to do to Like?

3117
03:16:17,280 --> 03:16:20,159
It's like I think it's Paul Churchman is a limited materialist,

3118
03:16:20,239 --> 03:16:22,879
so he thinks that the consciousness doesn't exist and he

3119
03:16:22,959 --> 03:16:25,799
thinks about it. He's funny because, like I remember reading

3120
03:16:25,799 --> 03:16:27,399
one of his papers and be like, what do you

3121
03:16:27,440 --> 03:16:31,079
mean how do I even go about disbelieving in consciousness? Yeah,

3122
03:16:31,120 --> 03:16:33,200
it's like how how how do you expect this?

3123
03:16:33,360 --> 03:16:36,040
Speaker 3: Is another thing? Uh, there are two separate questions, Jay,

3124
03:16:36,200 --> 03:16:39,319
is what is consciousness? And are you able to coherently

3125
03:16:39,440 --> 03:16:42,280
reject consciousness? As the way you know it to be. Like,

3126
03:16:42,399 --> 03:16:46,079
even if you positive a non exhaustive definition of consciousness,

3127
03:16:46,399 --> 03:16:49,879
the act of denying it would be utilizing the thing

3128
03:16:49,959 --> 03:16:52,360
that you're denying, so it'd be absurd. But this isn't

3129
03:16:52,399 --> 03:16:56,719
a justification for consciousness or what it is. This is

3130
03:16:56,879 --> 03:17:01,239
just assuming well, whatever it is that describe, you know,

3131
03:17:03,239 --> 03:17:06,280
by just simply being able to observe and evaluate things

3132
03:17:06,399 --> 03:17:08,559
or have some sort of like interaction with the external

3133
03:17:08,600 --> 03:17:12,159
world or whatever. That doesn't tell me how it how

3134
03:17:12,200 --> 03:17:16,639
it came to be what it is specifically. So they're

3135
03:17:16,719 --> 03:17:19,520
close to I think he's close to saying, well, denying it,

3136
03:17:19,600 --> 03:17:22,840
it's gonna you know, again, we went over this, the

3137
03:17:22,920 --> 03:17:25,879
fact that you can't deny something exists would be different

3138
03:17:25,959 --> 03:17:30,040
than giving a justific justification for how and why it exists.

3139
03:17:30,120 --> 03:17:35,719
Right in this case, yeah, well we have it.

3140
03:17:36,159 --> 03:17:38,799
Speaker 5: Yeah. I think typically atheists make that mistake. They're gonna

3141
03:17:39,559 --> 03:17:42,319
start trying to talk about where they think it came from,

3142
03:17:42,440 --> 03:17:44,680
as if that justifies it or if that gives an

3143
03:17:44,719 --> 03:17:47,680
account for it, which it doesn't. It's just telling a story.

3144
03:17:49,920 --> 03:17:52,360
But what is it? I mean, in the Orthodox view,

3145
03:17:52,440 --> 03:17:56,319
it's I guess the the energy of the of the

3146
03:17:56,719 --> 03:18:01,840
soul's awareness of what's going on in the world and

3147
03:18:02,120 --> 03:18:05,760
in terms of the beings of the world. So I

3148
03:18:05,840 --> 03:18:08,040
think we would have an energetic description of it.

3149
03:18:09,440 --> 03:18:13,840
Speaker 3: Would that be distinct j from the news, the sort

3150
03:18:13,879 --> 03:18:17,399
of conjunction of the mind heart interaction with the metaphysical.

3151
03:18:18,159 --> 03:18:22,360
Would consciousness be something not identical to the apparatus that

3152
03:18:22,520 --> 03:18:23,920
engages with consciousness?

3153
03:18:23,920 --> 03:18:27,319
Speaker 5: Okay, Yeah, the news is the heart. So basically, you know,

3154
03:18:27,360 --> 03:18:30,479
the mind's up here, hearts over here. So fathers always

3155
03:18:30,479 --> 03:18:33,200
say that the the mind. There's nothing wrong with the

3156
03:18:33,239 --> 03:18:36,000
intellect the mind, but it's a limited thing. It has

3157
03:18:36,079 --> 03:18:39,200
to be put into or or moved into the heart,

3158
03:18:39,280 --> 03:18:42,639
meaning that has to work in union with the heart faculty.

3159
03:18:43,280 --> 03:18:46,280
And until we are repentant and in relationship with God,

3160
03:18:46,879 --> 03:18:49,840
our heart faculty is out of whack. And so we're

3161
03:18:49,879 --> 03:18:53,079
going to think that, like all the atheists do, that

3162
03:18:53,719 --> 03:18:56,879
pure mind can explain the world. The irony, of course,

3163
03:18:57,000 --> 03:19:00,760
being that in their denial of God, they are also

3164
03:19:00,879 --> 03:19:03,920
denying the existence of immatial things like mind, so they

3165
03:19:03,959 --> 03:19:05,120
end up denying themselves.

3166
03:19:05,760 --> 03:19:08,399
Speaker 3: Yeah, that they exist. You know, I don't exist. That's

3167
03:19:08,440 --> 03:19:11,239
interesting because I thought about this, how we from a

3168
03:19:11,399 --> 03:19:13,799
Christian view, we say something like morality is written in

3169
03:19:13,879 --> 03:19:16,319
our heart. That would be pointing to the news that

3170
03:19:16,479 --> 03:19:21,280
something is not reduced to intellect but uses intellect, wouldn't

3171
03:19:21,319 --> 03:19:24,079
deny the intellect. But then I thought, well, is there

3172
03:19:24,120 --> 03:19:28,600
a similar statement, and you tell me from a Christian

3173
03:19:28,680 --> 03:19:33,280
view orthodox specifically, is that the way in which morality

3174
03:19:33,360 --> 03:19:35,360
is written on our heart? Do we have it written

3175
03:19:35,440 --> 03:19:38,120
on our heart to want to know the truth or

3176
03:19:38,280 --> 03:19:40,520
is that a brain? Would that be reduced to like

3177
03:19:40,600 --> 03:19:42,280
the intellect wanting to know the truth?

3178
03:19:43,760 --> 03:19:46,239
Speaker 5: I think the way that fathers describe it is that,

3179
03:19:46,920 --> 03:19:49,840
and they're not coming from a philosophy view on this,

3180
03:19:50,040 --> 03:19:53,639
they actually is actually rooted in the Hebrew prophets, because

3181
03:19:53,680 --> 03:19:56,719
you'll read like David talks about his heart. You know,

3182
03:19:56,840 --> 03:19:59,000
Paul says the Word is near you, even in your heart,

3183
03:20:00,040 --> 03:20:02,239
which is not to say that God is not connected

3184
03:20:02,280 --> 03:20:04,959
to the mind, but that fallen man has the tendency

3185
03:20:05,159 --> 03:20:08,520
to worship and only go with his intelluctenced mind, which

3186
03:20:08,600 --> 03:20:11,319
is a limited faculty. It's good, it has a lot

3187
03:20:11,360 --> 03:20:13,600
of uses, but it can't become a god. And for

3188
03:20:13,639 --> 03:20:16,760
all the atheists it's their God. And then again, ironically

3189
03:20:17,000 --> 03:20:19,440
they turn around and deny their God. But the best

3190
03:20:20,000 --> 03:20:23,040
essay on this is Saint Justin Papovich's essay on the

3191
03:20:23,920 --> 03:20:26,280
Doctrine of Knowledge of Saint Isaac the Syrian. It's in

3192
03:20:26,360 --> 03:20:30,000
his book Life in Christ by Justin Popovitch, and he

3193
03:20:30,079 --> 03:20:33,559
explains in there that I think ideally what is supposed

3194
03:20:33,559 --> 03:20:38,040
to happen is that man's mind is basically in his heart,

3195
03:20:38,200 --> 03:20:42,639
and so that means that through repentance and through relationship

3196
03:20:42,680 --> 03:20:47,000
with God, I can then correctly interpret the world through

3197
03:20:47,120 --> 03:20:49,520
my heart, which is seeing it through the eyes of

3198
03:20:49,559 --> 03:20:52,760
God right and seeing that I can see the world correctly.

3199
03:20:52,959 --> 03:20:56,680
Whereas when the heart and the mind are divided, I

3200
03:20:56,840 --> 03:21:01,120
see the world in this bare cold intellectual way, which

3201
03:21:01,159 --> 03:21:02,680
actually ends up destroying.

3202
03:21:02,319 --> 03:21:05,000
Speaker 3: The intellect got you and then not and holding that

3203
03:21:05,200 --> 03:21:08,600
view doesn't clear the windshield, so to speak. That from

3204
03:21:08,639 --> 03:21:14,159
our view, the practice the going to divine liturgy, the

3205
03:21:14,280 --> 03:21:16,680
practice of clearing the hard, clearing the soul like a

3206
03:21:17,920 --> 03:21:19,879
it's not like it's not like you just yeah, it's

3207
03:21:19,920 --> 03:21:21,760
not like you just go, well, I hold this view.

3208
03:21:21,799 --> 03:21:25,159
Therefore it's like I'm not exactly it's.

3209
03:21:25,000 --> 03:21:27,719
Speaker 5: An acquiring of the virtues. In other words, this is

3210
03:21:27,760 --> 03:21:29,799
that point we have to always have to come back to, like,

3211
03:21:30,280 --> 03:21:35,319
you can't divorce a pistemology from ethics because, as Wood

3212
03:21:35,399 --> 03:21:37,319
points out W. J. Wood in that book, he points

3213
03:21:37,360 --> 03:21:41,639
out that like wouldn't we think that the realm of

3214
03:21:41,760 --> 03:21:45,440
intellect and reasoning, Like wouldn't we want people to be

3215
03:21:45,600 --> 03:21:50,079
intellectually honest? Like So in other words, obviously you can't

3216
03:21:50,120 --> 03:21:52,879
divorce the pistemology from virtues. So in the same way,

3217
03:21:53,079 --> 03:21:55,319
like if I'm going to interpret the world correctly, am

3218
03:21:55,360 --> 03:21:58,079
I going to be able to interpret it correctly? If

3219
03:21:58,120 --> 03:22:00,799
I am im mentioning all the and I don't care

3220
03:22:00,799 --> 03:22:03,360
about fxture, Yeah, I'm gonna lie about the world. I'm

3221
03:22:03,360 --> 03:22:04,719
gonna lie about what I think. Yeah.

3222
03:22:05,120 --> 03:22:08,559
Speaker 3: Yeah, That's what fascinates me about that the Scripture, the

3223
03:22:08,639 --> 03:22:11,680
fool in his heart, you know, rejects God essentially because

3224
03:22:13,200 --> 03:22:16,239
it's not that they're using just their intellect in their

3225
03:22:16,559 --> 03:22:20,959
sort of in their rebellion of God, you know, because

3226
03:22:21,040 --> 03:22:23,479
coming to the conclusion like, oh, God doesn't exist if

3227
03:22:23,520 --> 03:22:26,760
it was just purely intellect, it's not like the emotional

3228
03:22:26,840 --> 03:22:30,360
aspect of rebellion of that or or let's say counter

3229
03:22:30,479 --> 03:22:33,360
apologetics is based in just the mind, I find I

3230
03:22:33,479 --> 03:22:36,680
find not that, not that I'm trying to fully interpret

3231
03:22:36,760 --> 03:22:38,799
that myself, you know, here is just that I just

3232
03:22:38,840 --> 03:22:42,600
find it interesting that the select word used is the

3233
03:22:42,719 --> 03:22:45,559
fool in his heart, not in his mind and his intellect.

3234
03:22:45,600 --> 03:22:49,000
The fool in his heart has this engagement with rebellion,

3235
03:22:49,760 --> 03:22:53,600
which means he's actually engaging in something that his intellect

3236
03:22:53,680 --> 03:22:57,840
can't justify, which is this like urge to deny or

3237
03:22:58,239 --> 03:23:01,479
or fight. That's not an intellectual process necessary.

3238
03:23:01,120 --> 03:23:04,719
Speaker 5: Exactly the difference between East and West. I mean, the

3239
03:23:04,879 --> 03:23:09,520
entire Roman Catholic tradition after Augustine equates the soul with

3240
03:23:09,719 --> 03:23:12,840
the mind or the intellect. And so that's why it's

3241
03:23:12,840 --> 03:23:15,280
another reason why they think natural theology is true. It's

3242
03:23:15,280 --> 03:23:17,360
another reason reason why they think that, well, if I

3243
03:23:17,440 --> 03:23:20,719
just present the evidences, you'll believe right, they're missing the

3244
03:23:20,760 --> 03:23:23,799
whole point that, like, you can't interpret even the natural

3245
03:23:23,840 --> 03:23:25,840
world correctly without repentance.

3246
03:23:26,159 --> 03:23:28,440
Speaker 3: Right, because the intellect would be some sort of added

3247
03:23:28,520 --> 03:23:32,559
tool we're given to point to God or to find

3248
03:23:32,799 --> 03:23:35,360
in a sense, but it doesn't fully get us there.

3249
03:23:35,879 --> 03:23:41,239
But the intellect doesn't give you the heart that to

3250
03:23:41,360 --> 03:23:43,840
give you the sense of why it is to even

3251
03:23:43,920 --> 03:23:45,840
use the intellect like the intellect does and give you

3252
03:23:45,879 --> 03:23:46,200
the reason.

3253
03:23:46,680 --> 03:23:50,000
Speaker 5: It's like the difference. It's like the difference between me

3254
03:23:50,280 --> 03:23:56,879
listing all the facts about my wife versus the actual relationship.

3255
03:23:56,399 --> 03:23:57,600
Speaker 3: We have, right, right.

3256
03:23:58,239 --> 03:24:01,639
Speaker 5: The facts aren't wrong, they're not bad. Yeah, but it's

3257
03:24:01,760 --> 03:24:03,760
not the relationship, right.

3258
03:24:03,959 --> 03:24:06,239
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's interesting. It's not like that. You know, our

3259
03:24:06,360 --> 03:24:09,319
loved ones are like magic to gather or baseball cards

3260
03:24:09,360 --> 03:24:11,799
would be more appropriate, and they have a list of attributes.

3261
03:24:12,040 --> 03:24:13,280
And then you're like, I want to be with my

3262
03:24:13,319 --> 03:24:15,760
wife and you're just looking like at a baseball part

3263
03:24:15,799 --> 03:24:18,159
of your wife. It's like, no, that's not the participation

3264
03:24:18,360 --> 03:24:20,360
that my wife is a fog and I throw down.

3265
03:24:21,399 --> 03:24:21,559
Speaker 5: Yeah.

3266
03:24:21,719 --> 03:24:26,639
Speaker 3: Total, you're like down, like you're downloading info and facts

3267
03:24:26,799 --> 03:24:28,799
and just read them over and over. My wife is beautiful,

3268
03:24:28,840 --> 03:24:29,680
My wife is beautiful.

3269
03:24:30,559 --> 03:24:34,520
Speaker 5: That's funny analogy that FDA had between like imagine thinking

3270
03:24:34,680 --> 03:24:37,639
that this is all like a rational contract or like

3271
03:24:37,719 --> 03:24:41,239
a letter, right, rather than like the relationship you have

3272
03:24:41,479 --> 03:24:44,920
with your wife. Right. So if somebody read a letter

3273
03:24:45,079 --> 03:24:48,959
about me, would they know me in a limited sense? Yeah?

3274
03:24:49,000 --> 03:24:51,479
I know about Jay. I read that letter that described

3275
03:24:51,479 --> 03:24:53,360
what he's like that doesn't mean.

3276
03:24:53,280 --> 03:24:56,959
Speaker 3: They know me, right, right? Yeah. That that's also gets

3277
03:24:57,000 --> 03:25:01,399
into the our energies is our nature and our or

3278
03:25:01,479 --> 03:25:03,879
our essence, is that when we engage with each other,

3279
03:25:04,200 --> 03:25:07,760
we're engaging with energies and they're not reducible to a

3280
03:25:07,879 --> 03:25:11,680
list in an essay, right, Like, so there are these

3281
03:25:11,760 --> 03:25:15,520
things and you know again, even energies might even be

3282
03:25:15,760 --> 03:25:19,520
like limited analogy, right because you know, because we have

3283
03:25:19,600 --> 03:25:21,920
the words that we have, right, someone might press me like, well,

3284
03:25:22,079 --> 03:25:24,959
energy refers to like a for like a force, something

3285
03:25:25,040 --> 03:25:29,040
you can like physically manipulate. Well, I guess it's I mean,

3286
03:25:29,360 --> 03:25:29,879
what are we saying.

3287
03:25:29,920 --> 03:25:33,559
Speaker 5: No, it's not just physical. That's why. Uh, like we

3288
03:25:33,559 --> 03:25:37,840
were talking about with Maximus and other Orthodox saints and theologians,

3289
03:25:37,959 --> 03:25:41,879
like the energy of the mind. So when you talk

3290
03:25:42,000 --> 03:25:45,559
to me, there's there's an energy, a mental energy that's

3291
03:25:45,600 --> 03:25:49,239
happening here that's not equated to It has a relationship

3292
03:25:49,280 --> 03:25:51,239
to the neurons firing. But it can't be reduced and

3293
03:25:51,360 --> 03:25:55,479
equated to uh, physical energy, like you're saying.

3294
03:25:55,319 --> 03:25:59,239
Speaker 3: Right, right, because intent an active activity like you could

3295
03:25:59,239 --> 03:26:02,719
say activity. Someone might take a mechanical approach, but intent,

3296
03:26:02,879 --> 03:26:05,079
you can't isolate the intent right.

3297
03:26:05,399 --> 03:26:07,399
Speaker 5: Got a great point, you know, I think, yeah, that

3298
03:26:07,479 --> 03:26:11,639
intent would come from your innermost being, your your innermost desires,

3299
03:26:11,680 --> 03:26:14,719
which is not is not reducible to your mind. Like

3300
03:26:14,840 --> 03:26:18,799
your mind is not identical to your intentionality or or

3301
03:26:19,000 --> 03:26:22,000
or your love right love. Uh, you know, your love

3302
03:26:22,120 --> 03:26:25,719
for your wife relates to your mind, and it manifests

3303
03:26:25,719 --> 03:26:27,920
in thoughts about it, but it's not reducible to or

3304
03:26:27,959 --> 03:26:31,639
identical to your thoughts about your right thoughts about love.

3305
03:26:31,719 --> 03:26:33,680
It comes from your from your innermost being.

3306
03:26:34,200 --> 03:26:36,600
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's actually a good point. People were bringing up

3307
03:26:37,120 --> 03:26:39,520
the relational argument for like say that trinity. We don't.

3308
03:26:39,559 --> 03:26:41,520
We don't have to get into depth. But it is

3309
03:26:41,639 --> 03:26:44,799
interesting how once you point these things out, how even

3310
03:26:44,840 --> 03:26:47,680
our engagement with let's say love, the act of loving

3311
03:26:47,879 --> 03:26:52,920
is this participation between persons. There's an activity. And if

3312
03:26:52,959 --> 03:26:56,040
it wasn't that you would just be able to participate

3313
03:26:56,120 --> 03:26:58,239
in your own head and say your loved your wife.

3314
03:26:58,440 --> 03:27:01,600
You just be If Islam was true, for instance, or

3315
03:27:01,719 --> 03:27:04,840
Unitarian Christianity quote Christianity would be true, you could just

3316
03:27:05,079 --> 03:27:08,360
love just in your brain and you'd be doing the

3317
03:27:08,479 --> 03:27:10,680
virtue of what You'd be just doing the practice of love.

3318
03:27:10,760 --> 03:27:14,399
It would just be an internal exercise with engaging with

3319
03:27:14,559 --> 03:27:17,639
the self projection of the thing you say love is

3320
03:27:18,120 --> 03:27:21,239
or the sorry the subject of who you're loving. And

3321
03:27:21,319 --> 03:27:24,680
if you did it internally, it would be sufficient because well, I.

3322
03:27:24,680 --> 03:27:27,280
Speaker 5: Mean, this is what we say about all Western deviations,

3323
03:27:27,319 --> 03:27:30,040
and even you could include Islam and Protestanism as well,

3324
03:27:30,200 --> 03:27:34,959
because we would typically say they're worshiping their idea. Yeah,

3325
03:27:35,319 --> 03:27:36,079
the idea of God.

3326
03:27:36,600 --> 03:27:39,120
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, that's a good point. I'm actually going to

3327
03:27:39,239 --> 03:27:41,280
not listen to the rest of these guys, Jay, is

3328
03:27:41,319 --> 03:27:43,680
there anything coming up exciting for you, whether it's in

3329
03:27:43,760 --> 03:27:47,000
the physical or non physical Online.

3330
03:27:47,440 --> 03:27:50,040
Speaker 5: My mind will be engaging in a zone theory energy

3331
03:27:50,120 --> 03:27:54,399
consciousness transference to the fifth dimension next week. It's called

3332
03:27:54,440 --> 03:28:00,360
a sension Millennium. Corey Feldon will be playing Lives going on.

3333
03:28:01,200 --> 03:28:04,000
I thought about kind of opening up to debate. I

3334
03:28:04,040 --> 03:28:05,399
don't know if I'll have time to do that today.

3335
03:28:05,520 --> 03:28:08,000
We just did a long interview this morning. Tomorrow I'll

3336
03:28:08,000 --> 03:28:10,920
be doing a live stream on Islam with a pasta

3337
03:28:11,040 --> 03:28:15,520
profit over on his channel Jamie, and that will be

3338
03:28:15,879 --> 03:28:20,239
covering the vm as I think tomorrow night as well. So, yeah,

3339
03:28:20,280 --> 03:28:21,000
that's what's coming up.

3340
03:28:21,639 --> 03:28:24,040
Speaker 3: Nice. That should be fun vm as from a sort

3341
03:28:24,040 --> 03:28:28,360
of Hollywood uncoded occultism view.

3342
03:28:29,840 --> 03:28:32,280
Speaker 5: Yeah, I have no idea what's happened. I haven't watched

3343
03:28:32,280 --> 03:28:34,000
any of those kinds of shows since, Like, I think

3344
03:28:34,040 --> 03:28:37,760
the last one of that I've ever watched was like

3345
03:28:37,840 --> 03:28:41,360
the whole thing was the super Bowl back when it

3346
03:28:41,520 --> 03:28:46,040
was like Beyonce Black Lives Matter, and then then Coldplay

3347
03:28:46,120 --> 03:28:50,079
came out with like giant golden rainbow patch or giant

3348
03:28:50,200 --> 03:28:53,959
rainbow patches about world government and that was the last

3349
03:28:54,200 --> 03:28:54,719
super Bowl.

3350
03:28:55,600 --> 03:28:57,959
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was wondering, like how you're still engage with

3351
03:28:58,040 --> 03:29:00,600
that stuff, because once you isolate what they're kind of doing,

3352
03:29:01,440 --> 03:29:05,079
like it almost becomes almost like a gimmick where you

3353
03:29:05,120 --> 03:29:07,920
almost don't even take it. I think it's serious. I

3354
03:29:07,959 --> 03:29:11,159
think it's serious as far as like demonic stuff. But

3355
03:29:11,239 --> 03:29:14,799
I always I'm always wondering this, like how much I

3356
03:29:15,159 --> 03:29:18,879
put into their really serious people about this versus it's

3357
03:29:18,959 --> 03:29:22,920
like this cultural thing that has like demonic undertones to it,

3358
03:29:23,399 --> 03:29:25,680
but they're all not fully aware of what they're doing.

3359
03:29:26,120 --> 03:29:28,959
Speaker 5: Well, that's I think that happens at times for sure.

3360
03:29:29,079 --> 03:29:32,159
I mean I think like Coldplayer, just like you know,

3361
03:29:33,520 --> 03:29:35,879
you buy them off and they play and they do.

3362
03:29:36,000 --> 03:29:39,440
They promote rainbows and the New World Order for money.

3363
03:29:39,520 --> 03:29:41,799
But I mean, if I forgot about the Olympics, I

3364
03:29:41,840 --> 03:29:46,280
mean that that was very anti Christian occult Jacob, and

3365
03:29:46,440 --> 03:29:49,239
so the Olympics stuff was pretty crazy.

3366
03:29:49,799 --> 03:29:51,719
Speaker 3: Yeah, that was a I always thought of that. People

3367
03:29:51,799 --> 03:29:54,799
asked me, and like some of their defenders were like, well, no,

3368
03:29:55,360 --> 03:29:59,399
you know, Christianity has these visuals that are downstream from

3369
03:29:59,479 --> 03:30:02,840
previous visuals and they're just promoting the previous visuals. Well, no,

3370
03:30:03,000 --> 03:30:05,719
you can't really separate these two as far as how

3371
03:30:05,760 --> 03:30:09,200
people perceive them in public now. But then I was thinking,

3372
03:30:10,079 --> 03:30:12,399
you know, how much of this stuff do you think

3373
03:30:12,520 --> 03:30:17,280
is a troll versus there's an actual concerted sort of

3374
03:30:17,360 --> 03:30:20,280
demonic warfare or they just know they're going to upset

3375
03:30:20,399 --> 03:30:23,079
people and then upset is going to bring eyes to

3376
03:30:23,200 --> 03:30:23,600
more of it.

3377
03:30:23,760 --> 03:30:27,360
Speaker 5: Like I always, I think some people are committed to

3378
03:30:28,520 --> 03:30:32,479
being a ritual action against the good. The good. Yeah,

3379
03:30:33,159 --> 03:30:34,600
and I think there's a lot of low level dumb

3380
03:30:34,680 --> 03:30:39,079
dumbs that eat it up and think that it dude.

3381
03:30:39,399 --> 03:30:43,079
Speaker 3: Just art, bro. Yeah, yeah, it's pretty gross. Well, I

3382
03:30:43,239 --> 03:30:45,920
really appreciate you jumping on if you're if you're doing

3383
03:30:46,280 --> 03:30:49,479
a space later. I'm sure many of us will show up.

3384
03:30:49,520 --> 03:30:51,600
The spaces are pretty fun. They have a different sort

3385
03:30:51,639 --> 03:30:53,280
of nature to them.

3386
03:30:53,319 --> 03:30:55,159
Speaker 5: I can't get. Yeah, you know it's weird. Yeah. Like

3387
03:30:55,319 --> 03:30:58,520
so if you're on Twitter, it's like it's its own vibe.

3388
03:30:58,600 --> 03:31:00,920
If you do a live stream debating with videos on TikTok,

3389
03:31:01,040 --> 03:31:04,440
it's a whole nother lower IQ level of vibe. Yeah

3390
03:31:04,719 --> 03:31:07,120
yeah said whereferent audience.

3391
03:31:07,639 --> 03:31:09,280
Speaker 3: Yeah yeah, so I'm going to do more of those

3392
03:31:09,319 --> 03:31:09,639
as well.

3393
03:31:09,719 --> 03:31:13,000
Speaker 5: But experience, I know you're trying to go, but no, no, no,

3394
03:31:13,200 --> 03:31:17,840
it is like me, it seems like they're crazy.

3395
03:31:18,200 --> 03:31:21,680
Speaker 3: It hurts my spirit. It's like I resent it and

3396
03:31:21,840 --> 03:31:24,479
also go well, like you saw. The only way for

3397
03:31:24,600 --> 03:31:27,680
me to really deal with that in long term doing

3398
03:31:27,719 --> 03:31:30,920
it is becoming like crystological and going as a character.

3399
03:31:31,360 --> 03:31:33,760
It's the only way I can do it. You know,

3400
03:31:33,799 --> 03:31:36,120
I've seen Andrew do it. He can do that and

3401
03:31:36,319 --> 03:31:39,159
just deal with that. I literally have a limit where

3402
03:31:39,200 --> 03:31:41,879
I just lose. I lose it, like I can't. I

3403
03:31:42,000 --> 03:31:44,280
can't do it, So I have to either do a character.

3404
03:31:44,559 --> 03:31:49,239
But on on Twitter, it's definitely attracts higher level exchanges,

3405
03:31:49,440 --> 03:31:49,600
you know.

3406
03:31:50,319 --> 03:31:52,479
Speaker 5: But now that where are you getting your pool of

3407
03:31:52,559 --> 03:31:54,959
atheists from. Is it from YouTube crowds?

3408
03:31:55,239 --> 03:31:58,719
Speaker 3: I have no Actually I'm still just starting, so my goal.

3409
03:31:58,680 --> 03:32:00,639
Speaker 5: Only get breakfast tacos. Did he come from?

3410
03:32:00,680 --> 03:32:03,600
Speaker 3: Oh oh yeah, yeah, Well I think breakfast tacos is

3411
03:32:04,760 --> 03:32:08,559
basically from when I did arguments against atheism one, two,

3412
03:32:08,600 --> 03:32:14,000
and three pretty much was tossed around as a hot

3413
03:32:14,040 --> 03:32:17,440
potato in the atheist communities like oh, look at this dork. Oh,

3414
03:32:17,520 --> 03:32:20,399
I can't wait to debunk this, so they eventually got

3415
03:32:20,440 --> 03:32:22,479
their eyes on me, which is very effective. Like if

3416
03:32:22,520 --> 03:32:25,799
you do Jay, you've done a bunch of anti atheist arguments,

3417
03:32:26,559 --> 03:32:29,319
if you like, just tag all of them, like not

3418
03:32:29,479 --> 03:32:31,799
that you want that attention because it really it really

3419
03:32:31,879 --> 03:32:34,719
brings in low tier stuff, which I always say, well,

3420
03:32:35,159 --> 03:32:38,280
Jay's currently above this right now, but I can do this.

3421
03:32:39,200 --> 03:32:41,399
I can deal because you're just gonna be like, yeah, dude,

3422
03:32:41,440 --> 03:32:43,879
you'r goober, move on, and and you're gonna try to

3423
03:32:43,920 --> 03:32:47,799
get into higher level stuff. I'm still you know, you know,

3424
03:32:49,360 --> 03:32:53,200
quote Baptism through fire dealing with these people. But it's

3425
03:32:53,239 --> 03:32:56,360
certainly fun because breakfast tacos, it's hilarious to go in

3426
03:32:56,520 --> 03:32:59,120
and just annihilate to the level I can do it.

3427
03:32:59,799 --> 03:33:01,840
Speaker 5: So of these perish I listened to about half of

3428
03:33:01,879 --> 03:33:04,399
that of you and him, and then I got to

3429
03:33:04,399 --> 03:33:05,639
the point where I was like, I can't listen to

3430
03:33:05,680 --> 03:33:06,239
this guy anymore.

3431
03:33:06,440 --> 03:33:08,399
Speaker 3: He can't well, he's just yelling and screaming. I'm just

3432
03:33:08,479 --> 03:33:10,680
not answering very basic questions. By the way, did you

3433
03:33:10,719 --> 03:33:13,840
want to talk about that really quick? Because I know

3434
03:33:13,920 --> 03:33:16,280
I sent you his silly stuff and it's like, I

3435
03:33:16,319 --> 03:33:18,319
don't even expect you to give it a wink.

3436
03:33:18,440 --> 03:33:18,799
Speaker 8: But uh.

3437
03:33:19,280 --> 03:33:23,319
Speaker 3: The argument is this, Jay, premise one, everything that we

3438
03:33:23,440 --> 03:33:29,600
observe to exist comes from previous stuff arises, sorryrises, right, Okay,

3439
03:33:29,840 --> 03:33:34,239
premise to the universe exists. Conclusion the universe comes from

3440
03:33:34,280 --> 03:33:38,159
previous rises from previous stuff. Now I went three different

3441
03:33:38,200 --> 03:33:40,600
angles to completely destroy this. What is the main one?

3442
03:33:40,639 --> 03:33:43,600
You would would have gone right away from this or

3443
03:33:43,799 --> 03:33:44,079
from this?

3444
03:33:45,239 --> 03:33:48,000
Speaker 5: Well right away. It reminds me of what we were

3445
03:33:48,040 --> 03:33:49,879
talking about when I first came in today with you,

3446
03:33:50,120 --> 03:33:53,239
which was, well, this seems to be making kind of

3447
03:33:53,319 --> 03:33:57,200
an almost universal claim about states of affairs. I don't

3448
03:33:57,200 --> 03:34:01,120
know how you have any access to our knowledge of that. Yeah,

3449
03:34:01,959 --> 03:34:03,479
so this sounds like a universal law, Like.

3450
03:34:03,600 --> 03:34:06,760
Speaker 3: He says inductive, he says induction. He said, Jay, I'm

3451
03:34:06,920 --> 03:34:09,799
using an adoctive argument, right, that's what he says.

3452
03:34:09,639 --> 03:34:13,399
Speaker 5: I'm using, right, But induction can never get you to

3453
03:34:13,840 --> 03:34:17,799
your universal state of affairs, right, And he said it's

3454
03:34:17,840 --> 03:34:18,440
not lawlike.

3455
03:34:19,079 --> 03:34:21,280
Speaker 3: No, he would say, he's not making an argument of

3456
03:34:21,360 --> 03:34:25,040
certainty or universal claims about states of affairs. But you

3457
03:34:25,200 --> 03:34:28,760
have to because to say there's a past, you can't

3458
03:34:29,159 --> 03:34:32,360
you're not using induction to us to come to the

3459
03:34:32,440 --> 03:34:35,239
conclusion of the regularity of the past, you have to

3460
03:34:35,280 --> 03:34:36,639
assume that, right, that there's things.

3461
03:34:36,920 --> 03:34:40,200
Speaker 5: In other words, he's basically saying to reduce this to absurdity,

3462
03:34:40,239 --> 03:34:44,319
he's just saying that the stuff that I've ever observed

3463
03:34:44,760 --> 03:34:47,040
comes from other thoughts, which is basically to say, not

3464
03:34:47,159 --> 03:34:47,600
much question.

3465
03:34:48,159 --> 03:34:50,719
Speaker 3: It doesn't. Actually I did a swap out of his argument.

3466
03:34:50,840 --> 03:34:54,959
If his argument is everything we see today quote stuff, right,

3467
03:34:55,000 --> 03:34:58,079
because that would be stuff arises from stuff. Okay, stuff

3468
03:34:58,120 --> 03:35:01,719
arises from stuff. Premise one universe exists, Well, what's the universe?

3469
03:35:01,959 --> 03:35:06,799
Stuff stuff exists. That's that's pretty much the translation. The

3470
03:35:06,920 --> 03:35:10,399
conclusion is stuff arises from stelf So you know, he's

3471
03:35:10,520 --> 03:35:13,280
positing something as an inductive argument when really it's just

3472
03:35:13,360 --> 03:35:15,000
a circular argument that starts.

3473
03:35:14,760 --> 03:35:17,479
Speaker 5: With the You could also critique it as really a

3474
03:35:17,719 --> 03:35:18,559
meaningless statement.

3475
03:35:19,040 --> 03:35:20,159
Speaker 3: It is, it's just gibberish.

3476
03:35:20,479 --> 03:35:24,680
Speaker 5: Yeah, so everything, it's like saying everything comes from something

3477
03:35:25,639 --> 03:35:29,239
and then that produces more things stuff. Yeah, and what

3478
03:35:29,399 --> 03:35:30,879
is that tall us about the world. Nothing.

3479
03:35:31,440 --> 03:35:33,879
Speaker 3: It tells us nothing, which is why it's like a parody.

3480
03:35:34,399 --> 03:35:35,399
Speaker 5: P A. R. I. T.

3481
03:35:35,760 --> 03:35:38,440
Speaker 3: Y of I think the colomb this is where he's

3482
03:35:38,559 --> 03:35:41,920
run off with this. Uh, these sort of components that

3483
03:35:42,040 --> 03:35:45,000
go back in time and have this initial cause or whatever.

3484
03:35:45,399 --> 03:35:48,319
Stuff comes from stuff. But again, my another critique I

3485
03:35:48,399 --> 03:35:50,760
had jay is stuff arising from.

3486
03:35:50,680 --> 03:35:53,319
Speaker 5: Stuff arising as a process.

3487
03:35:53,760 --> 03:35:55,079
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, problem.

3488
03:35:57,600 --> 03:35:58,399
Speaker 5: You could also.

3489
03:35:59,719 --> 03:36:00,280
Speaker 1: Are there.

3490
03:36:03,799 --> 03:36:09,120
Speaker 5: You froze? There? Are you there?

3491
03:36:11,079 --> 03:36:12,280
Speaker 3: Yep? Keep freezing?

3492
03:36:12,719 --> 03:36:16,399
Speaker 5: That's okay. Also, basically you could just run through everything

3493
03:36:16,479 --> 03:36:19,079
that Hume raises as a major issue at critique any

3494
03:36:19,120 --> 03:36:22,200
position like that, Like, Okay, how do you know that

3495
03:36:22,639 --> 03:36:25,520
the stuff that you're using as a mental conceptual thing

3496
03:36:26,440 --> 03:36:29,319
and then you're saying there's a causal relationship of it

3497
03:36:29,479 --> 03:36:32,840
producing or causing more stuff? How do you know that

3498
03:36:32,959 --> 03:36:35,319
there's this stuff in the external world? And how do

3499
03:36:35,360 --> 03:36:37,239
you know that there's actually causation in the external world

3500
03:36:37,280 --> 03:36:38,200
because you haven't observed that.

3501
03:36:39,040 --> 03:36:42,040
Speaker 3: So he says circular arguments and tautologies are only allowed. No,

3502
03:36:42,159 --> 03:36:45,840
we accept tautologies of language. We'd accept using logic, but

3503
03:36:46,040 --> 03:36:50,040
the justification is what we're really asking for. So, like,

3504
03:36:50,120 --> 03:36:54,799
even if we granted you some sort of like linguistic circularity,

3505
03:36:55,000 --> 03:36:56,600
like you know, a tree is a tree, we know

3506
03:36:56,680 --> 03:37:00,239
what we're referring to, will allow it or whatever? I

3507
03:37:00,319 --> 03:37:04,399
would disagree with this that when a Christian's a Christian

3508
03:37:04,440 --> 03:37:08,159
does a circular argument, right, well, we would say and

3509
03:37:08,239 --> 03:37:10,719
correct me if I'm wrong. Jay, Here is that if

3510
03:37:10,760 --> 03:37:15,399
you posit God, if you posit any ultimate necessary grounding

3511
03:37:15,479 --> 03:37:18,360
for all things, I don't think you can get away

3512
03:37:18,440 --> 03:37:22,840
with what you're calling circular or ultimacy, like some ultimacy

3513
03:37:23,159 --> 03:37:26,440
that you have to appeal to eventually. So you're just

3514
03:37:26,479 --> 03:37:31,159
saying circularity wrong. But why you know why is why

3515
03:37:31,239 --> 03:37:32,600
circularity right? Do you want to respond to.

3516
03:37:32,600 --> 03:37:36,200
Speaker 5: Me's seeing the point that, like as FDA was saying

3517
03:37:36,200 --> 03:37:38,120
the other day, I mean, if you're talking about in

3518
03:37:38,680 --> 03:37:41,440
normal day to day conversations about this or that thing

3519
03:37:41,559 --> 03:37:44,959
tru or false, you can't commit a circular argument. But

3520
03:37:45,040 --> 03:37:48,040
when you're talking about the final court of appeal for

3521
03:37:48,079 --> 03:37:51,840
anybody's worldview or their starting point. Everybody will have a

3522
03:37:52,040 --> 03:37:57,399
self referencing, self authenticating, recursive starting point. And we're saying

3523
03:37:57,399 --> 03:37:59,760
that that's true for everybody, right, And the only other

3524
03:38:00,000 --> 03:38:02,239
option if you don't believe that is to pause to

3525
03:38:02,360 --> 03:38:04,879
some kind of self evidence, which is very easy to

3526
03:38:05,040 --> 03:38:07,120
refute to show that no, actually you are believing in

3527
03:38:07,239 --> 03:38:11,879
some kind of self referencing, recursive thing. And that's the

3528
03:38:11,920 --> 03:38:15,239
whole point. When we talk about Girdell in completeness, theorems

3529
03:38:15,360 --> 03:38:19,000
or the limitations of any system, they ultimately they become

3530
03:38:19,079 --> 03:38:23,200
self referencing. So we're saying that's true for everybody. Atheists, materialists,

3531
03:38:24,440 --> 03:38:27,799
christian they're all self referencing world views because it's inescapable.

3532
03:38:28,079 --> 03:38:30,280
So we're not saying that we are allowed to have

3533
03:38:31,040 --> 03:38:32,799
fallacies and atheists aren't.

3534
03:38:33,159 --> 03:38:37,000
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, because fallacy is actually referencing a particular kind

3535
03:38:37,040 --> 03:38:40,639
of system of logic. Where you reject fallacy a circularity

3536
03:38:40,959 --> 03:38:43,719
like well Emmanuel says, not all circularity ends up being

3537
03:38:43,920 --> 03:38:47,120
viciously quote viciously or whatever, But that gets into a

3538
03:38:47,200 --> 03:38:47,920
newer debli.

3539
03:38:47,879 --> 03:38:50,680
Speaker 5: Yeah, fallacies are not allowed at the normal level of

3540
03:38:50,760 --> 03:38:54,479
logic and argumentation. But when you ask metalogical questions about

3541
03:38:54,680 --> 03:38:58,000
how does logic itself work? What's the logic of logic,

3542
03:38:58,799 --> 03:39:01,840
then everyone will be forced into some sort of self

3543
03:39:01,879 --> 03:39:03,600
reference saying recursive position.

3544
03:39:03,840 --> 03:39:05,239
Speaker 3: That's the point, gotcha?

3545
03:39:05,360 --> 03:39:05,520
Speaker 2: Yeah?

3546
03:39:05,559 --> 03:39:07,040
Speaker 3: Well, by the way, the guy who just said that,

3547
03:39:07,239 --> 03:39:09,879
I had a little exchange with him on the UH

3548
03:39:10,399 --> 03:39:12,559
on this channel and on the X base, and he

3549
03:39:12,639 --> 03:39:15,399
said he was he couldn't be sure he's not an apple.

3550
03:39:15,559 --> 03:39:19,399
So I mean, you know, I usually I usually UH

3551
03:39:19,920 --> 03:39:22,639
start with are you you know, to what extent you're

3552
03:39:22,639 --> 03:39:24,319
certain you're not an apple? And then we can get

3553
03:39:24,360 --> 03:39:28,959
into the circularity of Christianity. Cool, Well, everybody who's listening,

3554
03:39:29,040 --> 03:39:31,079
go follow J Dyer or J Dyer or is it

3555
03:39:31,200 --> 03:39:35,200
Jay's analysis? What's the title of your And then yeah.

3556
03:39:35,079 --> 03:39:36,879
Speaker 5: I think I think I'm pretty much in a mood

3557
03:39:36,920 --> 03:39:38,520
to debate, so we're going to open it up here.

3558
03:39:38,559 --> 03:39:40,399
Speaker 3: All right, we got Jay in the mood for a debate,

3559
03:39:40,520 --> 03:39:42,479
So go over there, Big Tech if you want to

3560
03:39:42,520 --> 03:39:44,280
debate Jay. I know he was on and you click

3561
03:39:44,360 --> 03:39:46,200
the link. I wanted to go through this with Jay

3562
03:39:46,280 --> 03:39:48,879
without any interruptions or cross talk. If you want to

3563
03:39:49,159 --> 03:39:52,479
debate him big tech, go for it. Go over to

3564
03:39:52,559 --> 03:39:54,920
Jay and and do that is as.

3565
03:39:54,879 --> 03:39:56,639
Speaker 5: Well as everyone. I'll have it up in the next

3566
03:39:56,680 --> 03:39:57,680
thirty forty five minutes.

3567
03:39:57,879 --> 03:40:00,639
Speaker 3: Okay, man, all right, thanks a lot. I'll see Oh yeah,

3568
03:40:00,680 --> 03:40:05,319
no problem, okay, cool, Thank you Jay, and I'll just

3569
03:40:05,520 --> 03:40:09,040
check these chats before I head off. I got a

3570
03:40:09,120 --> 03:40:12,600
fifteen dollars bob chat from Glenn Hall fifteen little Krabby's

3571
03:40:12,680 --> 03:40:14,920
for a master. Thank you, Thank you for the native krabbies,

3572
03:40:15,239 --> 03:40:19,639
Native Krabbys. We'll just creat universe. Okay, I've searched that.

3573
03:40:19,799 --> 03:40:22,680
I got that. Let me just check one more thing

3574
03:40:22,799 --> 03:40:26,440
over here and uh, and then I'll leave you guys

3575
03:40:26,479 --> 03:40:30,440
to do it. Okay, make sure uh. If you want

3576
03:40:30,479 --> 03:40:33,840
to support the stream, become a member super chat or

3577
03:40:33,840 --> 03:40:36,239
if you're hearing this after the fact and got a

3578
03:40:36,319 --> 03:40:38,760
lot of good stuff from this. If you want to

3579
03:40:38,760 --> 03:40:42,559
support the channel, go to bob chats dot com. Uh,

3580
03:40:42,799 --> 03:40:45,440
and I will be I will see your donation there

3581
03:40:45,479 --> 03:40:48,719
and I will read your comment on the next stream.

3582
03:40:49,319 --> 03:40:52,159
Twenty dollars came in for Jay and jibs. Sharp analysis

3583
03:40:52,200 --> 03:40:54,159
of worldview is always a great duo. Yeah, it's always

3584
03:40:54,159 --> 03:40:56,079
great when he can jump on. He's a busy dude,

3585
03:40:57,360 --> 03:40:58,520
but it's always a fun talk.

3586
03:40:59,239 --> 03:40:59,600
Speaker 5: All right.

3587
03:40:59,680 --> 03:41:02,520
Speaker 3: Well, if you guys want to watch big Tech, go

3588
03:41:02,639 --> 03:41:05,639
over to Jay Dyer. Go over there. Now, I'm not

3589
03:41:05,680 --> 03:41:08,600
gonna send you to a different stream right now because

3590
03:41:08,639 --> 03:41:11,719
it's not set up, but and hit the like button.

3591
03:41:11,760 --> 03:41:14,600
There's four hundred and thirty nine of you, now, please

3592
03:41:14,760 --> 03:41:18,799
hit the like. It really helps.

3593
03:41:22,079 --> 03:41:22,479
Speaker 1: A lot.

3594
03:41:23,040 --> 03:41:26,959
Speaker 3: And then I'm gonna go see if there's a I'm

3595
03:41:27,000 --> 03:41:29,360
gonna go to like a trampoline place or something, you

3596
03:41:29,440 --> 03:41:33,639
know what I mean. Oh, whoops, I forgot