Speaker 1: It it it it it it it it it it.
Speaker 2: H m hm.
Speaker 1: Hm m hm hm h m hm hm h m
hm hm mm hmmm h m hmm.
Speaker 3: I I I I, oh.
Speaker 4: What do you wait?
Speaker 1: Wait?
Speaker 3: Wait do wit what? What's going on? What's going on?
What's up? Shout out h tur about what's going on?
Both and Philip Jessica, we'll get the rip in the house.
All right, are you guys ready. I wasn't gonna do
a stream today because I had planned to take my
kids to like go kart racing and all stuff, and
it turns out it's the only day it's closed.
Speaker 5: A god A.
Speaker 3: God a So instead, let's do a stream now. I
tried to plan this with Jay because I did want
to do this stream, but he's a busy dude, and
today opened up. I was going to do a Thursday.
But you know, maybe in the future we'll take a
couple of these questions and we'll do another stream with Jay,
maybe even add in other questions that atheists can't answer.
So we're gonna look at that. But of course, first
before that, we have to look at another terrible argument
from breakfast Tacos. I mean, it just wouldn't be fair.
I have an obligation. I have an obligation to constantly
push back on any new atheist coming up the ladder,
any of them. Dummerdox, He says, you're so silly, jam Bob,
don't you know that logic grounds logic? Wait, wait until
you hear this one, doomer, Wait until you hear breakfast tacos,
other plate of garbage. It's gonna be great. Did Becky
help you plan the go kart racing? Now Becky doesn't
help with anything, Okay, Becky extreme? Maybe I don't know.
We'll see, we'll get we'll get into that. I guess
we can just start, you know, get going. Got one
hundred and fifty people here, So before we go to
the big video, we're gonna go to the small video.
Smaller guy, breakfast tacos. Now, his audience is not doing
him any favors. It was good to see that even
some of the atheists there were like, well, you're kind
of interrupting them and not letting him cross examine you,
which was obvious. But this next argument is rather silly
as well. Okay, so you don't need to read the premises.
I'll read them to you, and he'll read them and
we'll go one by one. Okay, let's start with the
beginning of it. He's trying to argue again, this is
what the naturalists are trying to do. They're trying to
press up, they're trying to tag They're trying to say
that there is a necessary precondition for all things, and
that necessary precondition for all things is just in this case,
the universal quantum field, which is hilarious. It's like, you
can't even locate such a thing. Plus, you need time
space matter for there to be a universal quantum field. Logically,
could there be time space matter hypothetically without a universal
quantum field. If the universal quantum field ends up being false,
you still have time space matter. So that's already a
problem here. But let's just hear them out. Okay, let's
just hear them out.
Speaker 5: Premis one.
Speaker 6: A necessary being is something that exists by its own nature,
is not dependent on anything else, exists in all possible worlds,
and provides a complete and sufficient explanation for the universe.
The universal quantum field is the necessary being because it
exists by its own nature, is not dependent on anything else,
It exists in all possible worlds, and provides a complete
and sufficient explanation for the universe invoking unnecessary metaphysical speculation.
Speaker 3: Metaphysical speculation. Can you tell me how the quantum field
accounts for everything in the universe if the universe includes
metaphysics rot Row Becky, Oh, Breakfast Tacos, Oh, Breakfast Tacos. Okay,
the universal quantum field is the necessary being. It's non dependent.
I'm sorry, Breakfast Tacos. I know you won't answer these
questions in a one on one, so I'll just do
it and pretend I'm having a good faith conversation with you.
Is the universal quantum field dependent on time, space, and matter?
Is the universal quantum field identical to time? If it's not,
and it's dependent on time, then premise through is false? Becky. Yeah,
is too easy. This is just too easy. How did
you determine the universal quantum field exists in all possible worlds?
What was the methodology for that that you smuggled into
premise to Breakfast Tacos. I don't think you have I
don't think you can tell me. And lastly, in premise
to again, I have to reiterate it provides the universal
quantum field provides a complete and sufficient explanation for the
universe without evoking unnecessary metaphysical speculation. It sounds like that's
unnecessary metaphysical speculation. How does the universal quantum field account
for I don't know, you don't like this one, but
the regularity of nature? How does it account for the
relations the logical consistent relations between parts? How does it
account for that? How does it account for mind? Wait
a second, how does it account for truth? Please tell
me how a universal quantum field, which is not a
being a person with a mind, how does the universal
quantum field breakfast tacos account for everything in the universe?
If what we include in the universe's knowledge, information, and truth?
Excuse me, you can't answer.
Speaker 5: That primis three.
Speaker 6: Any proposed necessary being that does not provide a complete
explanation for the universe is incoherent.
Speaker 3: Primis conclusion your necessary being being. The universal quantum field
is an incoherent because it's a proposed necessary being and
it doesn't provide a complete explanation of truth, knowledge, metaphysics. Okay,
doesn't provide an explanation for let's say, if morality exists. Now,
I don't know under this argument whether he's included including
such things as morality, something that's immoral, evil, good? Does
it account for the good? Is a good an actual thing?
Speaker 2: Is it?
Speaker 3: Is it good something you appeal to? How does it
account for the laws of thought that are conceptual and
not identical to the universal quantum field. Hmm, it's incoherent.
Throw your arguments in the dumpster, light them on fire,
and eat another sandwich.
Speaker 6: As far, any proposed necessary being that overlaps with the
universal quantum field old explanation without adding anything new is redundant. Conclusion. Therefore,
all proposed necessary beings other than the universal quantum field
or false because they are either incoherent or redundant. Just one.
Speaker 3: That's That's pretty much the end of his argument. Why
because he would argue that anything any other proposed necessary
being in this case the Christian God, doesn't add anything.
If it adds anything additional, then it's false. And if
it's doesn't add anything additional, then it's redundant. Well, no,
you have a problem of intentionality here. So if the
universe is unintentional and completely accidental and random, that's that
doesn't give an account for the universe that we see today.
If the universal quantum field is ultimately random, and has
no purpose or direction. It cannot account for the reality
that we exist in today. Why because you arguing the
fact the act of you arguing is inconsistent with a
result that a random quantum field would produce. Why would
a random quantum field produce an intentional, an intentional, seemingly
intentional outcome in which argumentation is possible? Rationality? Where's where's
rationality in the universal quantum field? How does universal quantum
field account for argumentation itself? This is why the tag
is superior to this nonsense, because once you remove a mind,
you remove the necessary component for truth. Things that are
mind dependent that are also in the universe but don't
aren't identical to matter or physicality. This is where physicalism
leads you, folks. It leads you to obscene gibberish, just complete,
complete gibberating. Now it's a disservice that has owned audience.
They want this to be true because it's fun, but
they're not really rigorous. Some of them are. There's a
couple I'll hand it to you. There are a couple
of atheists who follow this guy who go, hmmm, I
don't thinks so, dude, because they would say you're you're
doing the same smuggling or the same appealing to mystery,
appealing to ignorance that the theist is doing. If they're
if the atheist is consistent, they'll have the same objections
to Breakfast Tacos. They all have the same objections. Those
are the consistent atheists. So you know, in a sense,
Breakfast Tacos is doing a service by demonstrating and weeding
out the consistent atheists versus the inconsistent. This is metaphysical speculation.
It literally is metaphysical specula yeah, complete fancy pants. So
so that's the end of another argument, unfortunately from Breakfast Tacos,
and it happened very quickly. Josiah, thank you so much
for your five gifted memberships and whoever got those welcome
Dustin says, how does the universal quantum feel, explain? Star
wail fart music checkmate atheist, I did end Breakfast Tacos definitively. Yeah, well,
premise three disqualifies premise too. Yeah, let's look at that again.
Just to just to reiterate here, any proposed necessary being
that does not provide a complete explanation for the universe,
right premise to universal quantum feeling is a necessary being
because it exists its own nature, not dependent on anything else. Yes,
it is, it's dependent on time. Time is not identical
to the universal quantum field. Matter relations the universal quantum field.
The way you're positing it theoretically, by the way, requires
that existence itself has some sort of nature to it.
But time is a killer right there. Right to say
it's non dependent. This is where this is where eternality uncreated.
Eternality is necessitated in this argument. So what's the difference
between an eternal universe that's personless and forever existed. Eternal
does not mean uncreated. So they're ambiguous when they don't
know what they're saying. They're not sure what position to
take when they say the universe is eternal, right, okay,
is it uncreated? Is it uncreated? They don't know where
to go with that. They might think that's the same.
I think that's the point Heisenberg, that he's doing a
sort of parody, and I don't even think he really
believes this. I think he's doing a parody, you know,
and it's a fun parody, but it's ultimately incoherent. Brenda's
back as Billy Bob Billy Joel decided on Earth is flat. No, Now,
I don't really think it matters. Brenda, have you decided
if you're a man or a woman yet? I mean,
if all these things are up in the air and arbitrary,
I don't understand why it matters. If A doesn't equal a,
why would it matter. Huh? Flat is definitely a shape.
No it's not. No, it's not. Flat is not a shape. Okay,
it's not a shape. It's a description of a surface.
Speaker 7: Is bad.
Speaker 3: Now, I guess mathematically you can do like theoretical geometry
and like imagine some sort of crazy plane that's the
thinnest thing ever and it itself is like the shape
of a square or a circle or whatever you want
from the top view. But then from the side view
it's completely flat. But even that would have some sort
of height dimension to the side, like the ridge, you
know what I mean, like the like the it would
have something some other angle to it. So no, flat
can't be a shape.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 3: Joseph says, I'm not an atheist, but I think it
would be pretty easy to debate. Debate what at the
end of the day, you grant just about anything, and
your point really wouldn't be refuted. I'm not sure exactly
what you're Can your God change? No, the nature of
God doesn't change as soon as God changes. They introduced time. No,
God doesn't change. No, the creation of time, the temporal
state state uh that we exist in from a Christian view,
is not God changing. I don't know what you're talking about,
but it's nice to see some of the common atheists
here so confused and dumb. I know, it's rough.
Speaker 5: It's rough.
Speaker 3: They got a long they got a long way to go,
but they're here. But they're here, okay, So okay, so
we got that under the belt. Breakfast taco is another
failed argument. You failed, You keep failing. I look at
your arguments and I think no as to how easily
they're refuted. And it's easy. It is easy. It's like
getting on a bike, just like jumping on a bike,
doing a little lap around the up around the neighborhood,
you know, kicking over a person and a scooter naked
Big says. Keep in mind that the name Iron Charoit
here has another Bible verse taken out of contacts, and no,
Yahweh was not defeated by Iron Charity. Its yeah, I mean,
that's why I don't get into her her menuetics. Not
only is my study not sufficient, but even if it was,
the only thing that's ever being debated when you get
into that is someone taking their interpretation and the measuring
up against the normative authority. That's all that's happening every time.
And if the person wouldn't engage with the normative authority
or rejected wholesale, it really doesn't matter from their view,
it just it just doesn't matter. I butchered the word. No,
I didn't her menuetics. For those of you not the
debate is today Trump fans, that's gonna be interesting, I guess.
I mean, there's gonna be a whole shit ton of
people who cover that. I won't be covering that. Maybe
I'll get some clips or something.
Speaker 5: Her menuetics.
Speaker 3: No over on this channel. We forever use her menuetics,
because that's what Owen Benjamin said. He didn't know in
a debate about Christianity and scripture. He didn't know what
her hermaneutics was, so he said her menuetics. He said
her menuetics. So it's forever her menus and not hermoneutics,
her menu etics. All right, let's move over to this Okay,
Popular Channel, a couple of crumpet tea drinkers, Alex O'Connor,
one of the most famous young atheists, and this other
atheists unsolicited advice. I don't know his name. They cover
nine questions that are proposed by feists in general that
the atheists can answer, and we're gonna see if they
can answer. We'll see if they can honestly navigate them.
I watched a little bit of this. I found that
Alex O'Connor, even though I he falls into some really
bad reasoning a lot, that he he does have like
this open mind when he engages with people, he kind
of like goes, well, let me think about that. And
I do appreciate that, but ultimately British people are unbearable.
So so I'm more watching it for this guy because
he has a more refreshing approach.
Speaker 5: I think.
Speaker 4: It's gonna be sort of aious, facetious response.
Speaker 3: So the first question is I thought about this, why
is there something rather than nothing? I was thinking about
this yesterday and it's a you know, a question. It's
a natural question to come up to a rise. It's
something we think of when we're like thirteen. We look
up at the stars in the first there's this moment,
the first time a philosophical a jarring question hits us
in our youth. At least that's what I remember going
with the I was sitting with my friends, going, what
the hell, what the hell?
Speaker 5: What is that?
Speaker 3: Yes, what are we doing? What are we doing?
Speaker 5: Why?
Speaker 3: Space so big?
Speaker 5: So?
Speaker 3: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why? I thought
about this? And let's say you came to some strange
naturalistic conclusion of why there's something instead of something rather
than nothing? Something rather than nothing? Well, not that the
naturalists could answer that, because it's endless regress. You'd always
be going back in time to more matter like breakfast tacos?
Does stuff comes from stuff? But even if you granted it,
even if you didn't argue that view, let's imagine that
there was something, and there was a decent reason mechanically
why there's something. This doesn't answer another question because when
you ask why is there something, if you answer it
from a mechanical view, a mechanistic view, you have some
sort of explanation or description of a process that then
produced a new thing. Even if we granted that, which
we wouldn't concede that because it's endless. It ends up
in endless regress. But even if you granted it for
a second, I thought, yesterday I was thinking about this,
and I thought, wow. When you ask the question why,
you're asking a teleological question, not just an explanatory question
about mechanics. Because once you answer try to answer why
is there something, you're also answering a question about the
future of that something. So you're answering a question about
the past of something, the presence of something, and the
future of something. Because if you came to some mechanical
explanation of why there is something, you need to then
keep going with that of well, there has to be
a direction to that then, And that's why in Christianity
it isn't in fact coherent. When we ask why is
there something? And if we appeal to God's creation, there's
a pre existence, there's an existence, and there's a direction,
there's a there's a tel us to the why, there's
a whole reason to it. But a naturalist, even if
they came to the nearest, best coherent explanation of why
something rather than nothing, they can't tell you further the direction.
They've only granted themselves. What they're doing they have no
direction after that. Like let's say you just granted them time, space, matter,
material regularity, logic, and you just PLoP them down in
the universe, and you told them why is there something?
Because you know this, this mechanical thing happened, it's a
weird misfire or some crazy shit. They don't understand, Okay,
to ask why is there something? You're really asking why.
Ultimately in the future there's that thing too, not just
why is it now? Why is it now and now
and now? So you can't separate the teloss from the
question of why. You can't separate the direction of why
from the explanation of why. That's why Christianity it makes
perfect sense. Alpha and Omega. It does make sense that
you can't separate all of the all of it, all
the story. You can't separate it from its direction. But
they try to, and I don't know if they'd sufficiently
do it here.
Speaker 4: This is still something that for instance, like David Hume addresses,
which I think is an interesting spect for the very
least worth considering, is that he suggests that questions like
why is there something rather than nothing? The domain in
which they're operating is fundamentally unlike the domain through way
which we've acquired most of our knowledge gathering apparatus, so
you know, humans and empiricis, and he talks about how
well we're gathering our ideas from the material world around
us or that's not let's not be that controversial, just
the world around us, and yeah, and that and additionally.
Speaker 3: If Megan wasn't a good enough reason to never do
a sort of clean face mustache, if that wasn't a
good enough reason, Alex O'Connor.
Speaker 4: Is thinks that we learn reason, even if even if
he's not, you know, goes not entirely sure what the
kind of metaphysical grounding of reason is. He thinks that
our reasoning faculties are attuned to this reality that we
live in. And so something that he brings up, which
I think is very interesting, is the notion that questions
like why is there something rather than nothing are in
principle unanswerable.
Speaker 3: Is his idea at least well, under his model, he's consistent,
at least one of the rare consistent impirist Of course
it's inconsistent. You couldn't answer it from empiricism. Now, the
fact that you can't answer it from a certain standard
doesn't mean it can't be answered regardless if you don't
like the answer. So the statement that it can't be
answered by anybody, which is what the conclusion they come to,
is presupposing empiricism. They just don't like the answer. They
don't like a non empirical answer to a question that
can't be empirical. This is why atheist and naturalist physicalists
have to believe in miracles. Hence my fourth episode Upcoming
answers against arguments against atheism.
Speaker 4: And it's not that he thinks that. It's not that
he thinks necessarily, just that they are unverifiable, Like why
is that something rather than nothing? Oh, maybe that's a gould.
Maybe that's like a platonic ordering to the world that
dwells in a realm of forms. It's not so much
that's not so much as issue that becomes an issue
for a lot of like twentieth century pipe boot Hume,
through his kind of skeptical method UH basically raises the
idea that it's just unanswerable because the the tools that
we've got to form beliefs.
Speaker 3: And there we go, the tools we have to form
beliefs are reduced to sense data analysis evaluation. But that's
actually that's not true from the Christian view, like we
accept logic and mind evaluation, and yet we don't verify
mind evaluation through sense data, like we don't we assume
mind to do sense data stuff. There's no sense data
called the mind that we're evaluating. There's no sense data
attached to the laws of logic that are identical to
the laws of logic that we we empirically weigh and
look at meaning information truth. None of these things are weighable, measurable.
They're not They're not as items in the world, and
yet they're assumed when we talk about this stuff. So
even if you granted some weird answer to why is
there something and not nothing? You have a bigger question
to ask. Anyway, even if you granted the something, great, well,
grant you something. You shouldn't grant them something, but grant
them something, Grant them the word you know, the world
as it is, Grant them regularity. They still can't answer,
why is their rationality and reasoning and not? You know
what I mean? Why is their rationality and reasoning and not?
By the way they simul simultaneously exist. From their view,
there's a there's a number of beings in their view
that are rational and do reasoning and do metaphysics and
do philosophy. They use the laws of logic, and they
do moral reasoning, and they do debate, and they do calculus,
and they do engineering. All of these things you could
just as well the atheists. Why do we have that?
Why is that a thing?
Speaker 1: You so?
Speaker 3: Well, it's just the way it has to be. Well, no,
it doesn't, because you could look at other animals and
they don't have the same qualities traits status as a
human being. Why is it that humans specifically in their
account of the universe, Why is it that there's only
one peculiar known type of being in the known universe
that has the capacity that we have? Why is that,
you know, they grant themselves the whole other slew of things.
It's basically special pleading. The atheist does constant special pleading
when they start doing reasoning. Why because everything they know
about induction says everything else else out there in the
world that's alive. A tree, a crab, a dear, even
an ape is not doing the kind of philosophy and
metaphysics we're doing about that stuff. It's the same same
reason they are special pleading when they talk about if
they take a physical disposition, and they say, all other
effects of physics out there are non propositional, but there's
this one that is truth appt. There's this one and
only one effect of physics that's purely an effect of
physics that happens to be truth appt in contrast to
every other single one virtually we know of. And that's
a that's evaluation in a mind dependent proposition. It's all.
It's all special pleading. They're constantly special pleading.
Speaker 4: Full opinions on reason aren't suited to the domain in
which that question needs to be answered, which is sort
of a cup pound answer.
Speaker 2: Suppose, what does it mean that the question is right?
That this is a question that atheist human.
Speaker 4: Sits a question no one can answer. Yeah, which is
which I think I think may may end up potentially
becoming a bit of a theme.
Speaker 3: Did I disagree with that whether or not someone could
answer it or like come to the full veracity of
the answer from just pure rationality or empiricism. It's a
different question of whether that not they can answer it,
And you don't like the answer. So the irony here
is God done it. God done it. They always make
fun of the theists. God done it is still a
better answer. God done It is a better answer. It's
a more coherent answer if we're using coherency alone. God
done It, coincidentally, is a better answer than accidentalism. It's
more coherent. It's and as dumb as it sounds, I mean,
it's almost like a fun troll. God done it is
still more coherent than accidentalism.
Speaker 4: Well, because you know I and the other presupposition of
the of the wise, that's something rather than nothing right
you can't answer because it has this kind of like
TD logical bents to it, which I think is I
find really interesting.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah, he does a little look a little rough.
He looks like one of the characters from uh, what
was that movie where Matthew McConaughey played like an AIDS
victim at a rodeo. He kind of looks like is
someone who didn't make the cut, but he was prepared
at the audition.
Speaker 4: Because I think one of the presuppositional differences in almost
temperament between a lot of atheists and a lot of
theists is that I think that a lot of people
then I think that's a lot of theistic answers appeal
to this, like tediological instinct we have.
Speaker 3: Well, no, it's not just an instinct, a teleological instinct.
It's that the teleological aspect needs to be embedded in
the answer. I just explained this in the beginning. When
you ask a why question, why does something exist and
not and not exist? Well, anything we know inductively that
exists that we can bring into reality has a purpose.
We even look at the natural world and we can't
escape looking at it through a purposeful lens, that this
thing has a purpose. Even if you reduced it to survival,
you're still assuming purpose, right exactly, Marcus, exactly exactly. Biology
presupposes to teleology. Yeah, it does. You can't escape it.
So it's not an impulse. It's not just an impulse.
He's acting like it's just some sort of impulse that
we have, like a random like, oh, there's a spark.
Everyone has this impulse. Why would everyone have the impulse? Why?
Why would it matter if you had the impulse or not?
Speaker 4: In order to find not just mechanistic explanation.
Speaker 3: To ask why is the impulse? To ask why is
there something and not nothing? Is an expression of a
person that holds that is, that's pursuing a teleological position.
There's no there's no way around it. The moment you
ask why you're already in a teleological position, you're already
You're already in it.
Speaker 4: You're already assuming it actions and not just kind of
causal explanatory theories, but reasonable ones. So you know, you know,
I I if I.
Speaker 3: With a you know, drop this rain drops and roses
and whisks.
Speaker 4: Oh no, not that, And if you drink can, then
there's this new tonic, this new tonic.
Speaker 2: Wait at the camera. Oh yes, we're not sponsored, but
maybe one day.
Speaker 4: But if I were, if I were to drop it,
two ways of approaching that. One is approaching explaining that.
One is to say, well, the force of gravity actor
on the can and all of the muscles in my
hand unclenched.
Speaker 3: And they don't say gravity is a forest.
Speaker 4: Dude, Okay, stop, there was a natural signal that went
from my brain to the hand, and that would be
a kind of a mechanistic explanation, right, poppy explanation, like
quite right, always missed the l But that would be
a mechanistic explanation, and whereas a teleological one one in
terms of uh.
Speaker 3: Again, when we argue against physicalists who who try to
defend some purely mechanistic, you know, examination of the whole
entire universe, including their own reasoning, they're assuming, again a
teleological position, that examination has a purpose. They're in a
performative contradiction to say, like a mechanistic universe if it
reduces to note uh, teleology if no purpose, no higher
purpose can be derived from pure mechanics, just effects of
mechanic then asking from a mechanistic universe universal position, what
about teleology is already a contradiction anyway. I mean, it's like,
this is what the problem is with the modern atheist
philosophy is that it holds a basket of the branches
of philosophy, right, just the more basic branches that everything
else kind of falls under. Is epistemology, which is knowledge, metaphysics,
and morality. They like to say ethics, but ultimately it's
morality and everything under that ontology. It's all mixed in
into this basket. And they think they can pick up
parts of the worldview and and divorce them while they're
talking from the other in a basket. But no, that
can't be the case. It's never the case. It could
be demonstrated, it's not the case. For instance, someone says, well,
I'm arguing ontology, not epistemology. They'll do things like this. No,
to make an ontological statement is to make an epistemic statement.
To make an epistemic statement is to assume a metaphysical position.
To take a metaphysical position assumes an ontological and epistemic system.
To argue, we ought to come to some conclusion about it,
and there's a direction A quote good is to assume
the moral branch of philosophy. Now, from a Christian worldview,
we can look at this and make sense of it. Why,
because all of the branches tie into one root, and
the root is a necessary mind, a divine being that's unchanging.
We don't pretend we can hang out on the one
branch without assuming the other two branches. But these guys
do all the time. It's pretty much the foundation of
their entire careers is picking up the roots of the
branches of philosophy like their chopsticks, separated from.
Speaker 4: The rest reasons or purposes. One might say, kind of
broadly construed would be that I wanted to and then
I did, and those two types of explanatory hypothesis often
run parallel in everyday life. Especially Boo and I think
the why is there something wrong?
Speaker 5: Is why?
Speaker 3: This is why I can never get these guys to
talk to me. I'm such a arrogant child. I cannot
listen to these people without.
Speaker 7: Going skippity poppity Boo, eat a hard boiled egg in
a bowl with a tiny.
Speaker 4: Spoon rather than nothing, you know that one, oarsions. I
think that the kind of oh, well there was a
bad bang or like stuff like that, or well, because
you know, we have this causal story that runs towards
this thing.
Speaker 2: Okay, talking about the same thing.
Speaker 3: Okay, let's skip. This is a large section, so let's
let's uh, let's go to the next section.
Speaker 2: Okay, the real question.
Speaker 7: Too, Scooby de bu and it's raining out that starts
with a why I'm in England. It's raining and dark
and dreary out.
Speaker 4: There's a question that atheists can't answer.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that is that is? That is the word? Why
not the letter why? Yes?
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's oh no, that's fantastic. And again I actually
think that this this ties in quite nicely to talking
about before about brilliant we do have this kind of
crying out for teleology in our why questions because that
there there are two like why is wonderfully ambiguous as
a question in everyday life when we ask why, we
often have Yeah, we have. We we mean it in
two ways. What's caused this to be the case and
what is the reason this is the case?
Speaker 3: Yeah, you can't separate the two. What causes it to
be the case cannot be separated from the future reason
to be the case. You can never separate it. It's
never separated. But the atheist view, it is separated. It's
not it's irrelevant. It's irrelevant. I'm bearable. I can't even
do it myself, or you know, it's the hardest accent.
Speaker 4: This is interesting. Richard Bolty kind of offhandedly almost define
this distinction between reasonable and causal explanatory hypotheses. And I
think it's really touch to the point right now, you.
Speaker 3: Can't do that from atheism. Why is he assuming that
from an atheistic view, which is ultimately reduced to mechanisms.
Why would he think that there's this separation between a
causal mechanism and a reasonable explanation, a causal explanation and
a reason well no, you can't have that, you know why,
because under the atheistic view, your reason is caused, Your
reason is caused. So he's trying to now smuggle in
this distinction that you don't actually have called there's reasoning
and it's separate from the mechanistic determine universe that we
hold true. So yeah, we can go back in time
and develop causes and causal explanations until it comes to
my reasoning. Then I must hold that my reasoning is
somehow immune to the mechanistic constraints. They would say, well, no,
I'm not saying that. Well no, it's worse than you think.
Even if you came around and said, well, no, my
reasoning is not immune from the constraints of the mechanical universe.
Well no, I would say, whatever you're calling reasoning is
the mechanical universe. There's no like vantage point where you're
granted some sort of privileged position about your thoughts and
evaluations in your view. The atheist view doesn't matter if
you're an atheist who borrows a platonic view and grants
themselves some immaterial transcendental categories floating in the sky. Ultimately,
the what, the cause, and the the effect all reduced
to pure physical mechanics. But now here he is, Oh,
I grant myself, there's this lovely there's this lovely philosopher
who makes this distinction of cause and reason. Your reason
is caused from your view.
Speaker 4: In certainly in materialist atheism, and that there is no
materialist atheism, which is again it's so fascinating topic, but
it's I think it's about to say that most atheists
are coming up coming at it from a materialist standpoint, right, Yeah,
that that that you you eliminate teleology, You eliminate reasoning.
Speaker 3: Forget teleology, dude, you eliminate reasoning and truth and evaluation.
You eliminate it if you're coming at it from an
atheist perspective, and that reduces to physicalism naturalism. Everything you're doing,
all the things you're saying, is all just downstream from
that initial cause Domino's turtles stuff all the way down.
Speaker 4: You don't have, you know, arguably, you don't have purpose
trumpet and rice pudding reasons in this sense of why
is the.
Speaker 3: Hold an umbrella slide down the banister Scotch eggs.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it basically in the sense of purpose, right in
this teleogical fashion, at which point, yeah, you you actually
do lose questions of why. But it is worth noting
that that's not necessarily that's not actually an implication of atheism.
Speaker 2: It's material material to say that, no.
Speaker 3: No, no, you can't. This is what they always try
to do. They're like, I'm an athist. No, I'm an
asians an interior. I haven't had one atheist who claims
they're nano materialists are able to defend how it is
they deny materialism, if they deny God, not one. All
they do is positive They oh, well, I just hold well,
I'm an atheist. I just you know, I just come
to the conclusion that God. You know, I'm not. It's
not a reasonable belief for me to hold that God exists.
But it is even though I'm using empiricism to deny God,
I'm using evidentialism to deny God's existence. But grant me mind. Also,
something you can't verify through empiricism or evidentialism, knowledge, truth,
laws of thought, meaning regularity of nature, none of which
you can actually verify or or justify. Let's say a
bigger challenge. You can't justify any of it yet, yet
you just hold it to be true. Your very standard
that you use to reject God's existence is not used
for the entire category of things that are outside your
naturalistic paradigm. You just this is the Enlightenment bullshit that
they've been trained in. Well, you don't need to justify
there are oxioms. They're oxioms. No, he hasn't addressed me.
I'm small fish. You kidding me. You got to be
like Ben Shappier or Daily Wire to engage with this guy.
Speaker 2: It's it's not a problem for atheists because you, I mean,
the real problem is when you reduce everything to the material,
which I suppose almost materials. All materialists are going to
be atheists. But it doesn't mean little atheists are going
to be materialist.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, it does. It does mean that. Now
you think that it sounds reasonable to say that, doesn't it? Well, logically, yeah,
we could probably say, well not you know, all materialists
must be atheists, or all atheists or will be materialists,
but not all materials will be atheist. That's not true.
Now you think that's true, But you're just being lazy
about it. No offense, You're just being lazy. All you
have to do is push them by the way. This
still applies to spiritual, not religious. Still applies to spiritual
not religious, the spiritual New Age not religious people. When
you press them, they're like, no, I'm not a materialist,
and you go you press them and guess what they do.
They reduce God to material to energy, to frequencies, to stars,
to you know, feelings, to vibes, whatever it is. They
are materialists, and so are the atheists they are.
Speaker 2: You could be an atheist who believes that, you know,
consciousness is immaterial or something, but you still don't believe
in God.
Speaker 3: Now you can't justify that. We're not talking about beliefs.
This is why Jay Dyer sighs so much in his
engagements is because they constantly conflate whether or not you
can believe something and whether or not you can coherently
defend it in your paradigm. So these people come to
the oh, well, no, an atheist can believe in the
mind and the consciousness is immaterial, so therefore they're not materials. No,
when you ask them to justify the consciousness, they will
show up as materialists immediately. That's why justification is a
good question, not something you just you don't just grant
an atheist axiomatically that consciousness is immaterial. Even though we
agree with that, you don't just grant it to them
under their view. You don't let them borrow from the
supernatural the Christian worldview without justification.
Speaker 5: But he does.
Speaker 3: Oh, they believe it. So so that's like saying, well,
there are Christians who believe in Christ isn't divine, so
you can be a Christian. No, no, you can't. You
can claim that that's different.
Speaker 2: Like the problem I've always had with the example you
gave of that sort of being these two competing styles
of explanation. It's it's something I hate commonly and religious discourse.
Speaker 3: Like, okay, let's go to the next one. Atheists, that
is art.
Speaker 2: Atheists cannot get an ord from it. Is well to
a some extent that that's a strong Argment's just that
no one can make some this is this is a
fairly common.
Speaker 3: I've actually explored this, and even though it's a really
good counter to someone who's committing the naturalistic fallacy or
you know, like answers and atheism saying morality is biological
or whatever it is. I thought about this and I
still haven't fully exhausted it. And maybe you guys can
give me feedback in the chat here when they say
there's the is art gap that famously has been put
on the marquee of philosophy, Hume, it removes am I
getting throttled already? It removes the capability of saying we
ought to come to truth like the art claim we
ought to come to truth that I was thinking, well,
if looking at the world as it is and describing
the world as it is could never give you the
ought to be question, which I agree with. There is
one road that I've explored whether or not this gets
out of it out of it, and I don't know
that it does, so you guys can tell me. But
if it's the case, if the is a if the
isness of reality is that there's not a single person
who can demonstrate not valuing truth. Now I'm not talking
about someone who's incapacitated. I'm saying with their faculties intact,
with their faculty, these faculties intact. Is it the case
that everybody who exists can't escape valuing truth? And you think, well,
what's valuing truth? Like you're consciously thinking, I value this claim,
I value this claim like this active, which it is active.
I'm not talking about that. I'm more fundamentally I'm talking
about can you even exist in the world. You wake up,
you get out of bed, just waking up and getting
out of bed? Can you is it? It's impossible from
my view, to wake up and do the action of
getting out of bed without even unknowingly or unconsciously valuing truth.
What's the foundation? What is the that you exist, that
there's a bed, that you're trusting your senses, that your
your body is following the commands of your mind and
your brain. You're already appealing to truth. You're already appealing
to the truth. So if the argument is, if it's
the case that everybody who exists, who has their faculties,
values truth and they can't not, then now you have
an If you have an if if you value truth,
then how can you escape the aught? I'm not sure
how you can escape the aught of that. So if
the question if the like frame like this, if you
value truth, then you ought to be consistent. I think
most people agree with that. If you value because there's
an if there's a conditional. If you value truth, you
ought to be consistent, you ought to be coherent. Well,
if it's the case that everybody who exists values truth,
and you can't not value truth unless you're just like,
you know, brain dead, your faculty are gone. If it's
the case that everybody who exists values truth, then everybody
ought to be consistent.
Speaker 2: Theme in this genre of response video I find because
you know, why does the universe exist? The smammy atheist says,
I like that.
Speaker 3: He says they're smarmy atheists at least, I mean they're
smarmy theists too. Marcus says, I would say, more broadly,
you are appealing to intelligibility, but truth is not separate
from that. Really well, yeah, I would say to point
to intelligibility assumes the laws of logic, law of identity,
that there's a you intelligibly interacting with an intelligible world
that's not identical to your mind and brain and body.
But that the really the thing that I'm trying to
present is that they say you can't get in is
an ought from it is, But you could only get
an aught from it is if there is an if.
But the on there's the reality we're in has an
unescapable If I'm not inconsistent with veganism, Veganism is garbage.
Veganism is absolute trash. It's never rising, it's always going
to be under one percent. Veganism is complete trash. Vegan
metaphysics is garbage. It's it's a it's a horrific position.
Speaker 2: I don't know, and neither do you. And the point
is like, like, you're asking a legitimate question, but it's
a legitimate question that your answer to is either, like
you say, a bit sort of ad hoc or a
bit unsatisfactory or a bit silly, or you know, subject
to its own analysis and questions. So can an atheist
get an orphroman is no, But like you say, cannethists
do it either. I had this debate with Ben Shapiro
and Ben Shapier.
Speaker 3: Wow, Ben Shapira can't get an art from it is
even if he appeals to the ultimate circularity of God.
He has a unknowable God. He has an unknowable bagel
God Bagel.
Speaker 5: Cool it with the anti Semitic remarks.
Speaker 3: It makes sense that you would debate Ben Shapiro, who
couldn't possibly defend the ultimate circularity of is to art,
is to morality, which can only be God. He's gonna
he can't, he can't do it, And I.
Speaker 2: Think I didn't express this particular point well enough on
basically everything he was saying. You know, well, if you're
an atheist, free will can't exist. If you're an atheist,
you know, there's there's no way to get aught if
you're an And I was just sort of like, yeah,
like totally, you're you're you're right, But but where the
hell are you getting it from? What difference does it
make if if there's a god? And I think with
the question even even if just to be clear, like
there are sort of two questions to I mean, the
question actually have written down, is or rather the subject
to the statement, the question of why we ought to
do anything aside from arbitrary p.
Speaker 3: Whoa, I had no idea. Rachel shout out to Rachel
Wilson getting a question up on I didn't see that,
Rachel spotted in the wild. Nice Alex O'Connor brings your
question up, the question of why we ought to do
anything aside from arbitrary preference right preference?
Speaker 2: And so there are sort of two questions hovering here.
There's can atheists have a concept of aught? And I
think it's legitimate to maybe say that, you know, the
concept of aught can only come from God. But if
the question specifically as can you get an aught from
an is? Even God doesn't help you there or God does,
is just gives you the aught to derive more aughts from.
Speaker 4: Yes, I mean I think, well, yeah, and that makes
sense right because it's it's yeah.
Speaker 3: But here's here's my point is that when someone's arguing,
they're already assuming and ought to be consistent by arguing
the isart problem. So here they are debating the is
aught while while while assuming an otness toward consistency. This
is where atheism breaks down. If it's unavoidable to argue
without assuming an oughtness to consistency and some sort of
direction toward truth. If it's unavoidable, the atheist doesn't have
any reason to pursue truth, and the Christian does. The
Christian does have a position that's coherent toward truth. Why
pursue truth? This is why it falls apart. The same
reason why atheists don't like to be precept or tagged
is because what's in question is why you're even standing
in front of me arguing. From your view, can you
even justify coming to the debate arena? Moving the needle
toward truth. In the atheist world, it's descriptions of reality.
In the Christian world, it's toward a being, a participation
unity with the being, a likeness to the being, not
descriptions of the world. They have no reason to show
up for a debate. They're just saying, well, for the
sake of business and the sake of traveling, the think
of debating, I have an intellectual and Prouns mean we
assume that we need to come to trade with me
or to debate. Well, why debate?
Speaker 5: Then?
Speaker 3: Why debate? They're in their own conundrum right now. That's
the difference between a Christian view and an atheist view
is if you're arguing, is ought is something we ought
to acknowledge the same way we ought to acknowledge it? Consistencies, fallacies, uh, wrong, wrong,
the wrong approach to logic, in formal fallacies, the fact
that you debate this stuff as intellectuals, in doing philosophy,
you're already assuming and ought. If you want to be consistent, well,
why be consistent? Then that's the ultimate defeat or to atheism,
why come to truth? That's why when they call in
and less and less of them do now, But you
remember Danny, the little squeaky teacher called in and he's
arguing about tag and stuff, and I said, yeah, well,
the you know, forget X is the necessary precondition for
why God, necessary precondition for knowledge for a second, why
from your atheistic view, is an important to rearrange what
people believe toward truthness whatever you call that. And they can't.
They have no reason. I don't know. They say progress. Well, no,
that's arbitrary.
Speaker 4: JB.
Speaker 3: Weezer says. I asked Breakfast Tacos how the universal quantum
field theory could even minimally account for morality when by
its own admission, it can't even model gravity, he refused,
he won't answer direct questions. I do recommend many of
you go to the Politics Discord and ask him the
same hard hitting, simple questions that I have, and just
flood him. Go there, flood him with the questions, simple
simple questions for breakfast Taco in his own server, he
runs the Politics Discord. I invite you flood the Politics
Discord focusing on Breakfast tacos inability to answer a simple question.
Is the arising of the sun not the rising the
arising of it as an object from previous objects? Is
that a process.
Speaker 4: It's the problem of the old problem. This is kind
of controversial me to say, but I think it's a
logical problem. Right, You're your attempt from an is because
because of the idea that you know, basically, anything within
the logical closure of the statements you write must in
some way be contained within those original statements. Otherwise we
would be doing otherwise we wouldn't be doing logic, would
be doing something else, or we wouldn't be doing deduction,
we'd be doing something else.
Speaker 3: Imagine they both had those mustaches. This would be very uncomfortable.
Speaker 4: Would suggest that it is. It is primarily it just
is an intractable problem.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 4: You cannot get an aught from an is because if
you could via if you could get deductively go from
is to aught, then the aught must have been there originally.
Speaker 2: Well, here's a question that I spoke about on a
recent queen A Can you get an is from an aught?
Because if you have an aught statement like you know,
you ought, you know, like tidy the garden, then it
does seem to contain within that the is statement that
there is a garden, even even though it's like not
really there explicitly, because the statement is just you ought to,
you know, tidy the garden. It seems like you can say,
therefore there is a garden.
Speaker 4: Yes, I think that.
Speaker 2: And if it were a logical problem, if it were
like these are just two total.
Speaker 3: That's not deep. That's like saying, well, if I'm using
words that refer to things we already assume exist. Does
an art statement make a garden exist? No, you don't
get the is from the art statement. You're you're saying,
we ought to attend to the garden already assumes there's
a garden. It's not after you make the statement. Are
these people retarded? All caps? Breakfast Tacos? You fell into
my trap? No you didn't. You didn't set a trap.
You couldn't answer basic questions. Breakfast taco I already went
over it.
Speaker 5: Dude.
Speaker 3: Your premise one is everything we observe to exist arises
from previous stuff. I asked you, does regularity and nature
exist as a phenomenon? You have to say yes. If
it's true that the regularity of nature exists and we
observe it, then you have to say the regularity of
nature arises from previous stuff. And you can't do that.
It's the end of your argument. Dude, that's why you
fail to answer the question because you know it is.
You said in our quote conversation Breakfast Tacos that what's
more fundamental is that stuff arises from stuff. Well, that's
a process. You said, the stuff arising from stuff developed
the regularity. That's what you said. Can you imagine that
you said the stuff arising from stuff developed the regularity.
I'm sorry. The reason I asked, Breakfast Tacos is is
if stuff arises from stuff is a process, which you
fail to answer. The answer is yes, it's a process.
That means stuff arises from stuff is regular That means
your statement stuff arises from stuff develops regularity. It requires regularity.
You can't say develop anything without regularity. So it's the
end of your argument. Some of the atheists following you
know this. Most of them don't, but it's the end
of your argument. Your premise is flawed. Premise one is flawed.
Another problem is you're attempting to make an inductive argument
about particulars, and your conclusion isn't about a particular it's
about a universal premise one. Everything we see to exist
arises from previous stuff. Premise too. The universe exists. The
universe isn't a particular therefore the universe arises from previous stuff.
That's your argument. That's your argument. The problem with your
argument is when you make an inductive argument about the
particulars in the world, you can only conclude about other
particulars in the world. That's what an inductive argument would be.
I see particulars in the world act like this. Here's
a particular in the world. I'm gonna assume it acts
like that thing. That's an inductive argument. You can't say
the particulars in the world act a certain way, therefore
the whole acts the same way. That's a composition fallacy.
So again, you got your breakfast tacos, got sent into
the microwave by mister Jimbob, I put it on high
for four minutes, and now you just have leftover components.
It's over the fact that you failed to answer very
basic cross examination questions means that you're not confident in
your argument. The fact that you yelled, talked over me.
You basically rage quit rage quitting is this You failed
deliberately avoided questions and failed to answer questions simple as this.
You couldn't answer whether the sun arising from previous stuff
is itself a process? That's how simple the question was. Dude,
he demonstrated bad faith.
Speaker 2: Okay, totally separate logical categories. Then it would seem like
you wouldn't be able to go either way.
Speaker 4: Well, so as in the.
Speaker 3: Now, back to this, just to show how stupid what
Alex just said. And this is a problem with high
level philosophy. They assume each other our past stupid stupid statements.
That's not none of us are past making stupid statements,
none of us. But when your higher level philosophy, it's
more likely that you're gonna assume someone didn't make a
stupid statement. But he did, and the stupid statement was well,
can't we get an is from an aught? So if
I say we ought to tend to the garden, that
doesn't necessitate a garden. That means the garden already existed
as a referend So no, the aught statement about the garden,
the garden would still exist even if you didn't need
to tend to the garden. So the ought state and
didn't produce the is of the garden. The garden existed
as a reference that you can say tend to the
garden or not tend to the garden. You can say,
don't tend to the garden, and the garden still exists.
So that was really stupid. You saw what happened, Mendoza.
You saw the absolute destruction of breakfast tacos. Just just
I just ripped, ripped it to shreds. Simple questions. That's
what I'm learning, Simple questions, less talking, simple questions. Toast
toasted tacos. He by the way, between the two of us,
who did four to five consecutive COPE analysis streams of
the conversation, me or you, Joy says ten dollars, Thank you, Joy.
I wonder if they both tacked tacitly know if the
other isn't being consistent or honest. Atheists tend to allow
each other. I always say this, Joy. I think whether
they know it or not, I don't know. But I
find that theists, even general feists or umbrella Christians who
kind of you know, debate each other. They don't let
each other off the hook just because they kind of
wholesale agree with each other's general assumptions about the reality
about a Christian view or whatever. They don't let each
other off the hook. I mean they infight a lot.
They don't do this in atheism.
Speaker 4: There it would be if you were saying you ought
to tidy the golden someone might respond by saying, well,
the reason you can get it there is a golden
from there is because within the you alt to tidy
the goblin is the sub idea that the garden exists. Right,
it's and it's it's sort of a it's just sort
of within the within the constraints of deductive logic.
Speaker 3: That but maybe because like I mean, that was really
he just corrected him.
Speaker 2: But like it could be incorrect that there exists a garden.
Somebody could could think you ought to tie to the garden.
Speaker 3: And this is where you have to go five dollars,
Thank you so much, Bob Chat. The fact that Breakfast
Tacos is listening, probably recording for specific responses instead of
engaging in debate and discussion shows he's not about truth
but ego.
Speaker 8: He is.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's he's doing a pig snake approach, right, you
fill the pig snake. He can engage with my cross examination.
That's all we need to know. He can do all
this other stuff. He could do all this ranting and
raving he cannot engage with very basic questions like is
the sun arising from previous matter?
Speaker 2: A process be wrong but still derived from that, I guess,
I guess, like okay, to fine, like it like sub
contains the like assertion that a god can exist.
Speaker 3: Oh stop, Alex, just stop it ultra void five dollars.
Professor Tacos tell him that the statement has changed to
stuff evolves from previous stuff. Right, Yeah, well he also
changed his argument a little bit.
Speaker 2: But is there any way for somebody to say that
some is statements sort of subcontain automatic ords.
Speaker 4: Well, I think that is kind of what the theists.
That is kind of a theist position, right, because if
as in what it is a position that if it
gets in called to solve morality, then that is part
of your position, right, because you're saying.
Speaker 3: Well, not just that using God is a better explanation
for why we ought to pursue truthful beliefs or true
statements about reality. The atheist has no reason this is
so this whole thing can an atheists in and off
from is explain divine senses worked civilization guide to truth
that might exist? I mean their section in trusting human
rational as a guide to truth might cover this. Where
do the laws from logic come from? That's a good one.
What's consciousness of great we'll get to all these What
one question that's brutal that you don't need any of
these other questions for. So there's actually one question the
atheists can't answer. That the fact that they can't answer
this one question any other question in this video that's listed,
it doesn't really matter. And the one question they can't
answer that renders all the other questions in this video
irrelevant or secondary at best, is why ought we come
to truth? Why ought we pursue truth? This is a
teleological question. Teleology and ontology are It's a cryptonite. It's
a kryptonite. Now, would someone say epistemology too, because the
atheist has to take an autonomous approach, but ontologies. You
couldn't even do epistemology without referring to the ontological status
of things that aren't identical to nature, which is impossible
from the atheist view too. But why should we pursue truth?
Is the end game? It's what Bonson argued. But he
argued when he debated from a materialist position that the
consequence of strict materialism and mechanistic universe produces an atheist
that just shows up to the debate. But it's not
really them debating, and there's no reason to debate. It's
just that he can't help himself because there is no himself.
There's just a meat sack. That's the end of the debate.
You're coming to the debate and your opening statement is
I'm a meat sack who has no knowledge of what
I'm saying is true. It's just an effect of physics
and everything is determined. I'm not even here.
Speaker 4: Basically, well, Gold's will is good, you know, that's in
that that that that is in. It's not that I
think that you can't have mixed is old statements. Is
that I think that if you just have his statements
getting an alt it seems like it's.
Speaker 3: A George tacobis sure Taco Lips Rising nine ninety nine
says it. It's like that libertarian guy you had on
with Jay and Chad. I'm not an atheist, Chad goes,
how dumb? Becky, right right, No, you are, yeast. The
breakfast Tacos also get roasted in the chat. Dude, We're
not falling for your nonsense. It works on your dumb audience.
It doesn't work on mine. My audience is smarter than yours.
My audience is way smarter than yours. They saw the exchange.
I don't need to you know, there's not even a
need to do like you know, subsequent videos about it.
They saw your inability to answer basic questions.
Speaker 4: It seems like a problem that strikes me likely to
be intractable. I'm not saying it definitely is wrong.
Speaker 5: So maybe what.
Speaker 2: Theism does here is imparts certain is statements. Next question,
how can you explain census divinitatis, which I believe is
a term coined by John Calvin to describe the sense
of the divine that I'm not doing.
Speaker 3: There's another question we're not going to engage with Calvinism.
Speaker 2: Provide me with a single civilization that has ever succeeded
under an atheistic paradigm. Also, name me a civilization that
has come into being without a preceding binding myth. So
this practical question, like.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, this is a good question, and I don't
know if they'll cover it, but you know, if you guys,
remember Jay Dyer was on my mixed Bag and Derek
from myth Vision was on there. And it was pretty
much a soft conversation, and then Jay came on challenged
him on his assumption of the path and the definition
of a myth, according to the atheists, ultimately will lead
them to accepting that they have a myth uh position
on the past and progress of the future. So they
do they do engage with myth from their own by
their own standards, they engage with myth.
Speaker 2: How does the atheists respond to the fact, like implied
in this question, that there's never been a successful atheist
in paradigm, and that there's never been this is big
brain down, hasn't had some kind of like mythological founding.
Speaker 4: I suppose that, I mean one. I mean, obviously I'm
not an anthropologists, so all of these ants are going
to be teriably unreliable and you shouldn't listen to me.
Speaker 2: But oh no, no, no, they're not the onst thing
I would point out here.
Speaker 3: I don't think tacos are you know, if you say
we're having tacos for breakfast. The fact that you have
to say we're having tacos for breakfast and it doesn't
occur as redundant means it's not really in the realm
of breakfast, Johnny, Now, is it awesome to have pizza
for breakfast? And yeah, but when you have it, there's
no family who wakes up and when they say, you know,
breakfast is ready, that there's not someone one or two
people in the family who go, oh my gosh, tacos
for breakfast. That reaction means that it's out of the ordinary.
So they're not a breakfast food. That's why it's special
to have them for breakfast. You know what I mean,
breakfast burrito. When you say a burrito, a breakfast burrito,
now you've made the jump. But when you say a
breakfast tacos, it's just not as assimilated a breakfast A
breakfast burrito is very assimilated. A breakfast taco hasn't made
the jump, hasn't done its truons. It's a full transition.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 3: I'm not of those people that as long as you're
sitting on something it's a chair.
Speaker 2: There was that this This this at least implies that,
like I mean, the way the question says, also name
me a civilization that has come into being without a
preceding binding myth well prompt that it might not be true.
Speaker 4: Also preceding it.
Speaker 3: I think it may find the video Calvinism or Calvin
Nislam interesting. That's that is interesting because I I always
make that correlation. I'm sure I'm not the only.
Speaker 4: Ones interesting that right, because I suppose that that's that
might be a sort of chicken eg problem. I'm something
interesting that.
Speaker 3: Chicken over the egg? Well, it's a hot boiled egg
in a little bowl, eat with a tiny spoon to
nubble it for four months. Good lord. These two remind
me of the old c Span panel where people just
speak in monotone. It puts you to sleep. I'm sorry,
we have to cover it. I agree, though, ultra void
five dollars. I have request? Can you can you slow
down how fast you to bunk breakfast tacos? I don't
want to figure out a new topic for my super chats.
That's funny, ah, breakfast talk goes hey, breakfast Ta goes.
I jumped on your panel. How about you come onto
my channel?
Speaker 1: Now?
Speaker 3: Okay, I went to your little server. You owe me one.
Get one of your people to come and defend your argument.
Speaker 4: Interest conservations as he thought that we often got CAUs
as an effects really confused. So like you know, again,
come on to essential issues in a second, like I'm not.
Speaker 3: Gonna cover this part. The question is has there ever
been an atheist civilization that really that really planted its
feet and was long lasting without some sort of mythos?
I don't think there has been, but that's not a
great argument for whether it's true or not, which ultimately,
when you're debating an atheist about anything, again, the only
really important starting point is, let's say something's not true,
why should I pursue the true part of it?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 3: This was again I keep going back to Andrew's quote
almost debate with Dilla Hunty, where he just said, you
know what I'm gonna grant, Christianity is a complete delusion.
We're a bunch of delusional retards. Why why should we
avoid true beliefs? The question is if a secularism, if
an atheism is true, If secularism is true, then what
if you came to just the pragmatic application of a
Christian ethical system and you didn't believe anything, How could
you possibly argue against it? Well we saw that you
can't because Matt Della Hunty ran out, you can't. They
can't argue why you should pursue truth? If Ultimately, the
goal of pursuing truth from their view is pragmatism, and
it could be very pragmatic to believe false things. It's
the end of their argument.
Speaker 5: It's over.
Speaker 3: Toast toasted tacos Uh.
Speaker 4: He thought that it wasn't that ninistic people. He wasn't
that a belief in God led sorry, disbelieving. It wasn't
necessarily that a disbelief in values led to nihilism. He
was pursuing the door emotionally because of the disorganization of
their wills, and then it didn't make sense for them
to value things. And it's like, you know that that
he had a kind of.
Speaker 3: You're going to need to make full statements, vegan, or
I'm going to ban you. I like this new method
I have is if if someone says stuff in the
chat and I feel inclined to bring them on to
defend their statements, and they don't come on, they get
kicked out of out of George Landia, George Tacolyp's Rising,
four ninety nine. It's true. I think she's a lady.
I think she's a lady. I'm not convinced. I'm not
convinced she's not a lady.
Speaker 4: To, you know, simplifying somewhat, but was broadly someone who
just thought, well, my will inherently has value, Like, what
do you mean my will doesn't have value? I want something?
What moude can you ask of me? And so and
that's so. And to bring it back to this question,
one potential atheist answer is to say, well, yeah, if
you get if you get a group of people together
in a room of really any significant size, they'll come
up with with all sorts of like awesome ideas and
and and it could be that the civilization begets a family.
Speaker 2: If there's no God, there's no divining.
Speaker 3: So yeah, he just admitted that if you get a
bunch of people in the room, if they come up
with a bunch of ideas, the only question is why
abandon uh false ideas if they actually serve utility. You
can't answer that from an atheist perspective. That's a better question.
If false beliefs can produce utility. From an atheist perspective,
a question is why abandon the false beliefs. They can't
answer that question. That's way more, way more of a
crucial question.
Speaker 2: He's atheist divine guiding principle. Just to sort of lay
this out for the materialist, like the brain is just
a bunch of atoms bumping into each other. It's just
like it's kind of like a rock.
Speaker 3: That's the end of his all right, this is the
end of fucking Alex's position here. It's amazing how they'll
say this and then they'll follow without the entailment of that.
They'll just be like, the brain is just a bumping
bumping particles, right, bumping particles. We have no say in
the matter, you know, Evaluation it's more bumping particles. Evaluation
of those. Evaluation is more bumping particles, and we're basically arguing. Okay,
I want to see where he goes with this. The
covenant theology of Christianity is the false part that I reject.
The ethical system is not the problem. Well, I mean
these are I don't know if you're late here, but
you can't really argue for pursuing the truthfulness of an
ethical system, right, So rejecting false things in your system
is an ethical system. So you have embedded a meta
ethical position because everyone does that. You ought to pursue
the truth things. Now you pointed out something you think
is false and you reject it. That assumes that you
ought reject false things, right, should we reject false things
or not? If we shouldn't reject false things, And it's
all arbitrary. It doesn't matter that you reject the something
you find false the ethical system. You can't divorce the
ethical system big tech from your pursuit of true beliefs
because the act of engaging in argumentation towards something called truth,
you're already assuming an aught claim that you should be consistent.
So where do you get without the theology of Christianity,
Where do you get the oughtness toward truth? You don't
have one, at which case, if you don't have one,
there's really no debate. There's really no point in debating
the false parts of Christianity or the ethical parts that
you agree with, because when it comes down to it,
you don't have a standard, a basis, a justification for
your meta ethical oughtness toward the truth. Anyway, it doesn't matter,
just doesn't matter. The Coptic Orthodox Christians disagree, Well, that
doesn't matter because we reject the Coptic Coptics anyway, So
that says nothing. That's like saying, there's another church that
started that that abides by some of the traditions and
some of the theology, but not all of it that
disagrees with veganism or your beliefs on veganism that doesn't
mean anything to us, okay, or a.
Speaker 2: Piece of wood or something that happens to have developed
this weird thing cool consciousness.
Speaker 3: But so non Christians can't justify we ought not do things. Yes,
you can't, not from a moral position. No, no, you
just prefer it, right, Your justification ends up being at
best a reference Like I prefer not to be harmed,
but there are people who do like to be harmed.
So if it's reciprocal, if you're arguing some sort of
reciprocal metathical position, the moments where people want to do harm,
it follows that you can do harm to them because
they want it. So until while ten dollars, thank you
so much. I'm working but listening. Thanks for the great content. Jimbob,
Breakfast Talk Beard, Sorry, breakfast burritos are better than breakfast tacos,
I agree, easier to eat tacos in general. Like if
you don't have a beer and you're just you know,
accept it, you know, accepting the sloppiness of it, Like
it's some shitty restaurant or whatever table whatever. It's silly
to eat tacos. Honestly, it's like burritos. A burrito is contained,
it's a proper technology. A burrito is just a better
or organized taco. Anyway, let's face it, Mexicans, I mean,
this has been covered so many times as a cliche
at this point, Mexicans have really no food. They have
three things. They have no food. They somehow convinced everybody
that they have a variety of food. They don't. They don't.
It's tasty, but don't pretend it's a variety, like.
Speaker 2: It seems no necessary reason why it would have to
be formed in relation to truth.
Speaker 4: Like we were just talking a.
Speaker 2: Moment ago about how it makes sense to believe certain
things that are false because it's like beneficial for us.
Speaker 3: There we go, there we go.
Speaker 2: If it happens to be true that that actually applied
writ large to things like the laws of logic and
mathematical truths, we literally be incapable of knowing because it
might be the case that it's not the two plus
two equals four. It's that believing two plus two equals
four is beneficial for my survival. And that's why my rationality.
Speaker 3: Now this is planting. This is parallel to planting goes
argument evolutionary argument against the truth essentially, which is saying
that evolution as a process doesn't pursue truths. Ultimately, it
can come to well, the truth about the external world
and I'm gonna survive, So there are some fundamental truths
there that it does from its paradigm say well, no,
it has to come to the truth that there's a
threat out in the world, right. If it's gonna survive,
it needs to determine threat. So that's true, that's a truth,
but ultimately, like philosophical truths, it's not the ultimate goal.
Survival is the goal. So if it if there was
an event or a circumstance where believing something false like
paranoia in the jungle did in fact keep you safe, Like,
for instance, you thought there was a lion tracking you
that wasn't true, or ty panther tracking you through the
jungle it wasn't true. It turned out that it was
something else that you were able to defend against. But
you actually your preparation was based on a lie, something
not true. Are you saying burritos evolved from tacus? I'm
not actually sure what came first. That's a chat GPT
Mexican style, thank you for the five dollars. Cringe veganism,
there's I think cringe and veganism are redundancy, redund.
Speaker 2: Believe that kind of thing, and somebody will come along
and say, yeah, but hold on, like you know, it
just can't like my brain just can't conceive of the opposite,
like we can know it to be true, Albayori, And
I'm like, that's because that's how your brain evolved. Right,
there were people who believed the two plus two is fine.
Speaker 3: Here's the problem with his view, which I use as
a defeater to all of these people, which comes up
a lot. Came up with Big Tech and the other
dude in the in the in the spaces conversation. No,
he's arguing whether or not believing the laws of thought,
mathematic math being derivative of the laws of thought. Right,
the sister, the sister to the laws of logic in
its expression, would be math. No, we didn't develop to
believe the laws of thought because under an evolutionary view,
Alex O'Connor, the very process of evolution, if it produced
a brain and rationality, needed to abide by those laws,
and those laws are not found in nature, they're conceptual.
So now you have a mind dependent concept that has
its own ontology before your own brain exists. He's acting
like the laws of thought are identical to the descriptions
that our brain, in its development enabled us to discern. Well, no,
if we're discerning something, that means it existed before we
discerned it. We didn't discern it into existence.
Speaker 2: It's just that believing that was not beneficial to the survival,
and so they died out, leaving only us. Now people
will want to say, like, this is stupid. What do
you mean that the reason they died out and the
reason why believing two plus two equals five was not
beneficial to the survival was because it's not true.
Speaker 3: Do you think design designer argument refutes the non smart atheists?
Not necessarily, because someone could do a very basic bitch
design argument and presuppose like aliens. So it doesn't really
get us to God. It just pushes the argument further, right,
It just pushes it further. For instance, someone could argue
design and not believe in God at one level, they'd
eventually be pushed in morality, knowledge and all these other
transcendental things, but they could hold a position. At least
an atheist can hold a design. By the way he kinock,
I have a prediction that the secularists are going to
adopt in the next ten years, ten to fifteen years.
They're going to adopt an intelligent design perspective, but they're
going to attribute the intelligence to some larger sort of
naturalistic entity that they're gonna say has some sort of beingness,
because already they're trying to say some of these philosophical
circles are arguing that any object that can interact with
another object has some type of like consciousness. It's like panpsychism,
but develop it's being developed by a secular position. It's
really wild. That's why new neo paganism, technological paganism, pan psychism,
new agism is getting popularized because he can't avoid tying
it to some mythos or some sort of some sort
of larger paradigm that necessitates a greater mind, if that
makes sense, or a greater more complex set of operations, right,
because they hold that the brain is peculiar to all
of their objects because it's so complex. Well, complexity doesn't
really get you anywhere. So so the answer is, yeah,
you can use design to trap a dumb atheist, but
it really doesn't get you to God, a specific God,
so it's not ultimately a good starting point. You should
just go for the jugular with atheists.
Speaker 4: Right, And do you think that that's a well a
good response to this. I think this is a one
instance of what a huge of just a general problem
of se Well.
Speaker 3: It makes sense. It makes sense by the way, if
they try to extrapolate evolution, which they don't even have
a biogenesis covered, but they're already trying Carpenter to posit
some sort of evolutionary theory applying to planets and the
cosmos that's not identical to biology, but akin to it.
So if you do that, what's the logical end. Well,
if that's the case, you're going to take this approach,
that's that there was an initial organism, the same way
you have to apply that to evolution. There's this initial
Then the question of what's considered a biogenesis but for
the cosmos is going to be brought up. I mean,
there's no escaping the endless regress of this stuff. The
universe abides by the laws of physics because it's physical. No,
that doesn't follow. Even from our last conversation. Well, that's
just oh sorry, I thought you meant logic. Okay, laws
of physics because it's physical. No, No, that doesn't follow.
Like the way the status Big Tech of something physical,
it doesn't follow that there's a law on the behavior
of it with other things doesn't follow. That's a jump.
It doesn't abide by the laws of logic.
Speaker 6: It does.
Speaker 3: To say something exists and it's physical means that there's
a distinction of what physical means, which means it abides
by the law of identity and non contradiction. We use
logic think about the world. No, the ability to think
about the world presupposes a process that produced your thinker.
If there's a process that presupposes your thinker, Big Tech,
you should be getting this by now. With the example
of your parents existing, it demonstrates that the laws of thought,
law of identity non contradiction, that your father couldn't have
sex with himself another version of himself to have you.
It needed to be specifically, there was a father who
is your father, and there was a mother who's your mother,
and there was a set of operations which also abide
by the law of identity, and the operation has a
result that abides by the regularity of nature and law
of identity, and then nine months later there's a result
that abides by the law of identity in the regularity
of nature, and so on. So No, saying the universe
abides by the laws of physics because it's physical. No,
you don't grant yourself that there are laws simply because
there's physicality. It's logically possible from your worldview that something
could exist and have no logical relation, no, no causal relations.
It could have been the case that water existed and
heat Putting heat to water didn't produce boiling. See you
see this same problem breakfast Taco's ad. By granting yourself physicality,
you think you can automatically smuggle behaviors. You can't. You
can't smuggle behaviors. To say something exists is a thought. Yeah,
it's a thought that required No. No, no, no, no, no,
you don't understand. You still don't. You're still not engaging
with the defeater here. Okay, saying I'm confused doesn't engage
with the defeater. It's clear who's confused here, and I
don't need to say so okay again, to say any thing.
To have a thought, Big Tech, to have a thought
means there's a previous existence that existed before you were
capable of having a thought. If there is a previous
existence that occurred in a certain way for you to
even exist, that means the law of identity existed before
you had a thought. You were born as a baby
before you had a thought. Now, break I've almost called
you breakfast tacos. Listen to what you're saying, Big Tech.
Is it is you existing as a one day old baby?
Does that abide by the law of identity and the
laws of thought even though you're not having a thought. No,
the things existing it's outside of your thinking. Yeah, I
just demonstrated that the law of identity, it's ontology. You're thinking,
what part don't you understand? You have to admit it.
That's why when I asked you, Big Tech, do you
have a pass that includes two parents? And you're like, well,
I don't know. That's why you have to go to
like nihilism, because I'm not sure why you would just
not just answer that question, be like yeah, yeah, yeah,
why don't you just say you know, Jimbob you're right
about this. I have to rethink this. If there's a
process that produces the capability for humans to think, if
there's a process, the law of identity is upheld in
that process, the process itself can't violate the law of identity.
And you're like, no, I have to think it first.
No law of identity equals the stuff is the same
as other stuff. No, that's the opposite of law of identity.
What are you talking about? What do you I don't
know if you're following this. You're not following this anymore.
You're out of the convers.
Speaker 4: You've got two claims. You've got one about a pistemology
and one about ontology. And effectively, the question is how
we're going to get them to play nice together. And
the trouble is, I mean, on the classic Aristotelian model philosophy,
you have a bunch of branches.
Speaker 3: By the way, this section is called trusting human rationality
as a guide to truth. It's perfectly, perfectly parallel to
the engagement I'm having with big tech right now.
Speaker 4: The outer branch of the tree, and you get to
the middle and it's metaphysics orontology. It's like the stuff
that is. This is why Descartes meditations on Metaphysics is
called meditations on first philosophies, because metaphysics is the first philosophy.
And I think that the trouble is that there is
in practice, there's an interplay. There is mutual dependence between
your pistemology and your ontology, because your ontology.
Speaker 3: Could will justify your phenology, but.
Speaker 4: Your epistomology has to justify why you believe in your ontology.
Speaker 3: What is Finally the atheist who actually properly assesses the
interconnectivity and the inseparable nature of the branches of philosophy.
Now I don't know if he's going to continue there
to meritfit to morality. But yeah, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, you
cannot talk about any of this stuff without assuming the
other branches constantly. You're just constant. It's like three circles,
three spheres of influence that are always overlapping. You cannot
separate them ever. Do you even know how to engage people?
Brough just so fucking dumb.
Speaker 4: Yeah, epistemology like the study of how you can come
to know things, and ontology the study of what is
so my epistemology is in that. That's a really good
example of where somebody is put forward the argument that
the ontology has undermined epistemology. The idea that we are
simply evolved creatures atoms bumping together and that's all our
brains are, and that's what our rationality is, has undermined
or pulsively undermined the epistemology. And then the.
Speaker 3: See now he's already ahead of most atheists, all the
atheists that we engage with, all of these discords, they
fundamentally would spur get this. They probably are in the
in the in the comments, honestly going no, no, you
can't say that that if the ontology of rationality is
purely physical molecules bumping together, if you're ontology. If if,
then you're epistemology is reduced to molecules bumping together. So
they undermine each other.
Speaker 4: And this is it's kind of fascinating, right, But then
the you have to assume the reliability of epistemology in
order to come to any sort of ontology.
Speaker 3: So the so when the theists, so, I don't know
what you mean by that, ian the extent, no, I
do reviews. And then I open up the panel sometimes
or I'll go on, what are you talking about? I
engage constantly. What are you talking about? It's actually you
guys who don't engage. Iron Charioteer has been here for
year a year plus and he's never called in. That's
called not engaging with me. It's you guys, project You're
just a bunch of chat pussies. All. You a bunch
of chat pussies.
Speaker 4: Not just that the theist argument is circular. When they
would say, oh, well God would ground that's, well, how
do you have the prans to gold grounding it?
Speaker 3: How do you know that?
Speaker 4: What's what's the pre considered reliability of your pistemology?
Speaker 3: Now he's using some sort of criteria problem, right, And
it's not like the problem of the criteria isn't a
isn't a valid thing to look at. It's just the
problem here is this is why everything pushes to the
necessary preconditions argument, that you can't escape making a tag argument,
even if you're not a God believer. You have to
make the tag for something. They do tag for initial state,
they do tag for you know, quantum foam, the tag
for quantum, you know, the transcendental argument for quantum. They
can't escape it. This is why you can't use autonomy,
autonomous reasoning, and epistemology to get you to the necessary preconditions.
You have to argue the necessity. You have to pose
it something that's ultimately circular as a starting point. You
can't avoid this, It's impossible. The only difference is the
autonomous reasoner is saying they're the necessary precondition for truth
because they're appealing to their own reasoning. They're not justifying
how it is they have reasoning. They're just granting themselves
reasoning the fact that we're given reasoning to come to
the necessary preconditions. It doesn't mean you're doing autonomous reasoning.
You have to account for a reasoning existing altogether, which
means you're already appealing outside of yourself.
Speaker 4: Gee, that has allowed you to know that your reasoning
chain from God existing to the reliability sugar pistemology looks
but this, and this is sometimes polsted as a problem
for the theists, but it's not. It's a fun basic
what do you think for everyone?
Speaker 3: We're just molecules? But also yeah, the rational but we're
just molecules, but there's a we we're just molecules. But
there's an eye? What no, what is this ie you're
talking about it? What a uh conglomeration of particular items
and patterns? Is you?
Speaker 5: Is the you?
Speaker 3: Rationality? Certain molecules are rational and propositional and others aren't.
So I love bringing up the waterfall. How is it
the case that everything is fundamentally made of atoms and
the mere organization, the difference in organization of those atoms
can render one thing completely propositional and rational and the
other thing not. It's insane, that's an insane fairy tale,
that's greazy, that's magic. By They're like, oh, the theist
is using magical reasoning and thinking and magic. You're you
have no distinction between what you call an arrangement of
carbon and water called a human being, and a lightning storm,
And yet you grant yourself one having the ability to
be rational in the other not. Wow, who does that?
Alex O'Connor looks like a actor. Charles Bronson looks like
a Charles Bronson.
Speaker 4: It's a it's a problem for everyone, right, it's because
it's because of this, it's because thank you for prediction
on what we think is and what is? What we
believe is the case is predication on what we think
we can Yeah, so so so.
Speaker 2: Well, we'll break this down even if you just feel
sach Alex, I could see looking you.
Speaker 3: Want to bake and I'm too little for him. Look,
I have seventeen thousand followers.
Speaker 2: Come and I think, no, don't apologize. That's what we're
here for.
Speaker 3: But they won't. They won't. If they did, that would
be great. It's just that they won't. I'm also too aggressive.
I can't sit here and try to pretend I am.
I'm sitting in a fucking library that smells like a pipe,
like a pipe. You know, I'm low class. I grew
up in an old farmhouse. Okay, I'm aggressive, I'm arrogant.
I'm gonna mock you. Okay. They don't like that. They
don't want that, they don't want that. I think I'm toxic. Toxic.
Speaker 2: There's like a circularity potentially in the Godge justification and saying, well,
I can trust my rationality because you have seven fifty.
That's what day caught does, and you have seven to fifty.
Speaker 3: Everybody go over and follow mister Westford. Just we've got
to get this guy over one thousand and Also, this
is a good time to hit.
Speaker 5: The like button.
Speaker 1: I thought I died.
Speaker 3: Right, Alex Jones, right, am I right?
Speaker 5: Love it.
Speaker 2: The famous criticisms of descartes work is known as the Cartesian.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he'd have for better, Yes, Andrew, Well, if you
need God, Andrew is in the position to debate a
lot of these people. Yep, and he could, he could manage.
He's just more he's more inclined to political debate and
granting all of the ship, and he's less like you know,
I think Jay Dyer should be debating Alex. Right, you know,
these two should be debating I wouldn't even say me
or Andrew jay Dyer should be debating Alex At the
paradigm level of these, these two counter views of really
the debate ultimately ends up being theonomous reason and autonomous
reason and then everything else that follows under those two
umbrellas physicalism versus non physicalism, maybe naturalism versus supernaturalism. Jr.
Is going to be on AP's channel. Who's a P
I don't know shorts short letters anymore? I don't know
who's apho? Who'd at?
Speaker 2: Who did it to justify your reasoning ability? How do
you reason that God exists in order to justify so
it goes around in the circle, right, and.
Speaker 3: So yeah, kind of what's happening now. I mean Jay
has done and continues to do lots of work against atheism,
but it's kind of a like a fun trio. My
buddy texted me and he was like, Oh, it's fun
to watch you guys, because Andrew's got the d Jens.
You know, he attacks the Djens, debates against the Muslims,
but mostly focuses on the d Gens. And Jay is
focused on Heresi's Islam assists and so forth, but still
debates atheism. But I'm like, rigidly focused on materialists and atheists.
You know, is he a tall mood apologist? He's a Zio?
Isn't he a zio? Guy Montana Moser five dollars thank you.
I know I'm harping on this ken Ham legit. No,
I don't really take ken Ham seriously. Scientific approach to
the faith make any sense? No, No, it doesn't. Scientific
approach to the faith. There's a great video on this
by David Patrick Harry over at Church of the Eternal Logos.
I forgot what it's called, but essentially goes over in
great detail the difference between correspondence theory and coherency classical
foundationalism versus the transcendental approach. And what we find is
that someone like ken Ham or anyone else, if they're
arguing from the scientific paradigm, they're really in the atheist paradigm.
And if you're in the atheist paradigm, how are you
going to try to use the atheist paradigm, which is naturalistic,
to jump to supernaturalism as a result from an argument,
rather than questioning the starting point of why you even
have the scientific approach to begin with. That's why it's
kind of frustrating because the people who argue like ken
Ham and the other they get more play because they're
inside the atheist paradigm. They get more service, lip service,
they get more spots on panels, they get more debates
because the atheists is going to mostly engage with that
because it's their paradigm. It makes sense that the William Lane,
Craigs and the ken Hams are the more popular fodder
or subjects for the atheist community to kind of entangle
entangle themselves with because they're arguing from the atheist paradigm.
It's ultimately a bad position. It's a bad position to take.
Caramazzo gifted one membership. Thank you so much, Tony another
four ninety nine. I appreciate that. How do you think
a serious conversation between Dier and William lane Craig would go.
I think it would go well. William lane Craig is
very well mannered, very well mannered. I mean it's takes
a long time. I think Jay would might be bored
in fact moral duties. If the atheists can't ground their
moral duties, there's ultimately a deontological necessity of God. Now,
I will give William Lane Craig some credit for absolutely,
hands down decimating Sam Harris's moral landscape. I believe I
have a knockdown argument. That's a good William lane Craig
I'd never tried before. I just heard him in my head.
If the highest peaks of well being can be occupied
by people who have done evil things. He's old now,
though he's old now a little quiver, Yeah, he has
a little quiver in his voice.
Speaker 2: Think about like the atheist urgeon of this or the
atheist problem here is really put together best I think
by Alvin planting it his evolutionary argument against naturalism. So
he specifically makes the case that if you believe in evolution.
I've talked about this a lot, right, If you believe
in evolution and your materialists assume you're a materialist, you
believe in evolution by natural selection. Natural selection selects for survivability.
It doesn't select for truth, which means that if you
believe in evolution, you believe that your reasoning faculty has
not evolved to be sensitive to truth but to survivability.
Why do you believe in evolution because you've reasoned your
way into it. But the thing you've just reasoned your
way into evolution has undermined your ability to trust the
reasoning process.
Speaker 3: Also, it results almost universally, results in a secular view
that at the point in time they've used their reasoning
to come to the conclusion to not reproduce. So even
the aspect of evolution we called fitness, if planting a
new the future of the secular behavior we see today,
which is ultimately, don't have kids, you know, pursue your
own wants and desires without consequence, pursue convenience above all things,
freedom above all things. And it resulted in what's also
considered an evolution. The purpose, the goal, the only goal
they could actually say is survivor. Survival and survival can't
be separated or divorced from reproduction. Survival and reproduction go
hand in hand in evolution. And yet now the people
pople who believe in evolution come to a their reasoning,
their apparatus, their rationality have led them to a position
where they're annihilating their own DNA. That's wild. That's wild
that the people who believe in evolution almost universally agree
with a set of behaviors that ultimately remove them from
the gene pool. That's like, if God's not a comedian
speaking of a terrible take on how to look at God? Boy,
are you gonna be Yeah, we'll do that in a second.
I'll do that in a second. Saw a terrible clip that.
Speaker 2: You've used to reason into it. So he sort of
points out that, like, you can't be a materialist and
believe in evolution, self cleaning up and cuts the reasons
you have for believing in evolution.
Speaker 3: The thing is right, Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2: One of these that's right is a vicious circle, and
one of them is horrifyingly true. Because for the atheists,
you've got this horrible problem where like you've got this
weird circle of like like, yeah, I believe that it's
just atoms bumping into each other that has no connection
to truth, and that's produced this belief. But it's that
belief which is caused this this reasoning fact, and you're
getting all messed up.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 2: The theist goes around in a circle, but they say, okay,
sure it's circular, but we all have to start somewhere,
and everyone's circular in some degree. But my circle is
one that says, well, God justifies reason because he's an
agent who is, you know, the foundation of truth and
gives us access to truth.
Speaker 3: Not just that no reason itself is a mind is
a mind oriented thing, reason, logic, truth, meaning these are
all mind oriented things. So we don't just we don't
just you know, out of nowhere, pose it the same
way someone would pose it like spaghetti monster. We don't
just pause it that God is the foundation of reason.
There there is a way to communicate that that makes sense.
We would say God is a foundation of truth. You know,
even from a an atheist view, who wouldn't put truth
as a being like we would even if we granted
that category of truth lower T truth, low T truth,
lower testosterone truth, we would say, okay, So if truth
is is mind dependent, but it's absolute, even from the
atheist view, to deny its absolute is a contradiction, then
how do you ground such a thing if it's not
an object in the world from an empirical standard, you can't.
Speaker 4: So it's not just this.
Speaker 3: It's not just this like lazy leap to link truth
to a person. It's not a lazy leap to link
absolute concepts to an absolute mind.
Speaker 5: It's truth.
Speaker 2: And yeah, sure to get that. But that circle is
like consistent and self contained and gives you it could
be circular, it is one that sort of gives you
trust and truths.
Speaker 3: I mean I think that, I think that the Yeah,
the circularity still appeal is still applies to the atheist
who is an empiricist, because they're ultimately saying, I I
trust my senses, and my senses tell me to trust
my senses. You don't escape circularity. All worldviews are faith based,
all knowledge all worldviews are theory laden. And if we're
on a web, you know, this is the analogy I use.
If there's a bunch of random people on a web
of knowledge. The person who wants to know the truth
of the matter, ultimately of the web of knowledge, They're
not going to go to the side strands. They're going
to go to the anchors. What are the anchor points
of the web of knowledge? That's theory laiden. What is
it grounded to? What is it tied to? Like, you
couldn't have a web without the anchors. You need the
anchor points to be drawn out to stable objects, stable things,
uninvariant things, or it collapses. So what's the invariant thing?
The anchors? The anchors. I hope you guys are following this.
The anchors in a worldview. If they are. If the
anchors are not identical to the longest strands of the web,
those are in an atheist view. The axioms, Well, I
use my axioms. No, you have nothing to tie your
axioms to. If your axioms are those long those longer,
thicker threads, that are stronger from the middle outward, If
your those are your actions. Oh, I use a lot
of identity, I use my reason, I use rationality, I
use science. Okay, what are those tied to? Brah, What
are they tied to Well, don't know. They're tied to themselves.
That's what they have to say. They're tied to themselves.
That doesn't make sense. They can't be tied to themselves.
Thank you for your Polish money. I believe appreciate that.
May Our Lord Jesus bless you for your hard work.
Mister Jim Bob just found out your channel atheism is
winning debates on the internet in my country. Now I
know more and can use your knowledge for myself. Yeah,
please continue the debates my axioms.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think I think that is essentially the Coole
difference betwe the too right self undermining versus self reinforcement. Yeah,
that's the Yeah, I just want to point.
Speaker 3: Out that let's go to the laws of lot of logic,
where the goals of logic come from.
Speaker 4: Oh, yeah, I know this is a fascinating one.
Speaker 3: He's sorry, he's done.
Speaker 4: One thing is that I you know, excited when I
was he specialty was my mastical logic. It was like,
that's what's what I focused on during my like doing
using my master So it's it's it's it's a very
interesting question. There there's a lot of dispute understandable as
some argue that logic is a fundamentally emperi system founding.
So some people argue that the laws of logic are
abstracted from observations. We don't see contradictions.
Speaker 3: So nope, no, no, no, no, no, he already start.
I mean, come on, dude, you really think that's a
good take. No, you have to use and assume the
laws of logic before you do intake data. What are
you talking about. The first fundamental assumption of the laws
of thought is that you exist and there's an external world.
By the way, the moment you state that you exist
and there's an external world, you're now beyond assuming the
laws of thought. But you're now doing metaphysics something called
the external world. That's interesting. He's saying, Oh, well, some
people think. Now. Notice how he didn't say he believes that.
This is what the philosophers always do. They just cover
a broad variety of what some people can think. They
never answer what they think some people think. He says
that the laws of thodd are empirically derived. No, you
can't derive anything in the external world without assuming the
law of identity that objects aren't identical to other objects.
That's this sense of heat isn't the same as this
sense of brightness, this sense of smell is not the
same as this sense of pain. Why would he say
something so obviously dumb? Love this stream, jamab I hope
you'd keep it up. Thank you before you go, hits
a like button thought, appreciate you.
Speaker 4: We have the law of un contradiction, and oh we.
Speaker 3: Have it, Hey, guys, we have it. So because there's
a physical thing out there in the world, we have
the law of non contradiction. No, no, no, no, no
way to grant yourself. The first starting point of there's
something out there in the world is the assumption that
you are not identical to that thing. So he's like, oh,
we see this in stuff, We see this in objects
and stuff. No, who's this you? Who's this we? What
are you talking about?
Speaker 4: Like there was so many an attempted research program called
quantum logic and like the eighties by Hillary Putnam. I
think oh, Hilary attempted. He multified the classical Hillary in
line with observations from quantum theory about.
Speaker 3: What the thing is the same as the thing. No,
it's not the same as the thing. That's the point.
Big tech. How are you not following this at this point.
Your first fundamental assumption that you you presuppose logic in
is that you exist, that you have a mind, and
there's an external world and other minds that are attached
to other beings. That's the first assumption. Only after that
do you do like higher resolution uh, sense input? You don't,
by the way, you don't sense the laws of logic.
You don't sense them. There's nothing called the law of
identity that's a data input. There's no data law of
identity that you're inputting. There's nothing. That's why empiricism has failed.
That's why David human Is is completely consistent when he
points out this problem sense data. There's no law of identity.
There's nothing called the law of identity that you're discerning
with your senses. Yeah, the fact that we have it
principles and stuff.
Speaker 4: I don't understand physics in the slights I'm.
Speaker 3: Gonna by the way, even the law of identity, even
the perception. Another problem with the law of induction, right,
is a different problem, but related to just assuming logic itself,
the assumption of the regularity of nature and that logic
is invariant, and then the regularity maintains. Just because the
law of identity and the law of regularity work together,
or one upholds the other, or one governs the other,
doesn't mean they're identical. It's not the same. So the
regularity of nature now the problem of induction. All of
their reasoning is basically postdiction. And to do postdiction rationality
and reasoning is to assume the law of identity that
you think you're experiencing actually maintains, and that your recollection
of the past, while you're doing some evaluation, you're actually
evaluating properly. So there's a couple of things. There's the
past that you don't have access to anymore, that through
your sense data, the thing you're engaging with is no
longer itself itself in a sense right, that there's a past.
This is why, this is why nominalism fails, is because
under nominalism you reject universals have some sort of actual existence,
and you're only engaging with particulars. But the moment you
engage with particulars, the moment you're referencing those particulars, you're
now referencing something not identical to the particulars you're in
you're referencing your evaluation of the particulars. So there's no unity.
There's nothing that ultimately unifies the particulars called your evaluations
to the things you're evaluating. This is how insane you
have to be to be some sort of strict nominalist
or muzzle.
Speaker 5: And I.
Speaker 4: Imagine that the general document was right. Imagine that you
couldn't know position and velocity in my general life. What
we would modify the laws of logic to reflect that, right?
You wouldn't be able to you if you knew the
you wouldn't be able to distribute certain properties, for instance,
and stuff of that. So he says thing, okay, Well.
Speaker 3: The laws of logic are prescriptive recommendations from I don't
know if they're recommendations. You know why, because to make
a recommendation you have to already presuppose logic. So there
are laws of thought because you can't abandon them to think. Now,
whether or not we can jump to a metaethical position
of prescription versus description is something interesting, because why ought
we properly describe something? Is an ought? So if someone
says these things are descriptive, like the atheist says, well, no,
the laws of logic, Jimbob, You're you're making them seemingly
it seems like you're trying to give them some sort
of ontology that exists outside of our brain. Well, yeah,
I do, I do, and you do too, and they go, well, no,
they're just description. Well, the debate of whether they're prescriptive
or I think you can jump to how the laws
of thought leads immediately to a prescriptive position, which is
to say, why ought we be consistent? Why ought we
come to truth? But the atheist would push back on
that anyway. They would say, no, they're descriptive. Yeah, yeah, yeah, definitely, Jay, absolutely.
I don't know if you caught any of this, but
that would be great to jump on, dude, save me
from myself. So he probably won't answer where they come from.
He's going to try to do some sort of describe
them into reality, and they're necessary ways of looking at
things because stuff exists. Well, no, stuff existing is not
identical to the law.
Speaker 4: It follows we modify the littles of electic in accordance
with that.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, no, what did you just say? Wait,
hold on, a say we would modify the laws of logic.
I don't know where they get off saying stuff like this.
I don't know what it is that they're learning where
they're not catching themselves in this statement. Maybe it's because
I'm novice that I catch this stuff and they're all
in their you know, they are all in these like
well dressed stuff and they have so many books and
stuff to say you could modify the laws of thought.
Let's to take the three classical laws, law of identity,
non contradiction, excluded middle to say you could modify them
appeals to those things. The act of doing a modification
is the act of engaging with non contradiction or excluded middle.
He's like, well, if reality is a certain a way,
we would modify the law of identity. No, the act
of modifying quote this process that you have access to,
well just modify it. No, that's like someone saying we
created the laws laws of thought. You can't create without
appealing to those things. You can't do that. You're using
the thing that you're saying you could modify this is
I don't know. I just don't know how they got
to this point. Jay I put the I don't know
if you missed it. I put it in the general chat.
The link whenever you want, I want.
Speaker 4: To modify logic because of modifications.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, no. Even quantum mechanics, even if they
run unbridled into quantum mechanic world where one particle is
the same as another, but they're in two spots, even
that appeals to the law of identity. You couldn't even say.
You couldn't even say that there's a particle called itself
and there's another one in a different spot. Is the
same as that, even your mind being blown at theoretically
that being a thing. Even if you granted that a thing,
you still need to know that this particle is this particle,
they have an identity. All you're really saying is that
they exist in two spots. That's just some theoretical like
consequence of looking at the results of the experiment. Even
if you granted it, like forget the that doesn't collapse
the law of identity. That actually affirms the law of identity.
The reason is is because how could you come to
the conclusion that this particle is itself and this particle
is itself unless you knew that one of them Wasn't
this other particle you were confusing for this one. You're
actually affirming the law of identity. You're not changing you're
not changing the rules. You're not changing them at all,
Caesar are the Great four ninety nine. If the laws
of logic were anything other than real and objective, I
should be able to change them. Yeah, it's interesting you
said that, Caesar, because he's actually proposing you could if that.
If that's the case, right, If that's the case, the
laws of thought, according to this guy are conventional, and
that they're not actually laws. And if they're conventions, now
he needs something absolute that governs how he comes to conventions.
Does that make sense If he changes his conventions and
he says we can change the laws of logic because
they're just conventional to our goals and how we perceive things,
there now needs to be some ultimate new set of
laws that allow even that to be the case. It's
impossible to think illogically in a sense. I've actually thought
about this before. When we say something's illogical, it's impossible
to escape logic to say illogical. So when we say
is it impossible to think illogically? We can use that
phrase and say someone's not thinking consistently with law, where
something's wrong, and we call that illogical, but it is
in fact impossible to think even illogically without assuming logic,
like you like, like the same thing, like like. If
logic is the positive and illogical is the misuse of it,
or or a misfire or a direction away from logical consistency,
then that's just the thing that's missing the mark of logic.
So yeah, yeah, I do I do ja Yeah yeah,
I jump on. So this guy's saying, yeah, okay, here,
we're gonna change.
Speaker 4: Law of this thought, suggesting, well, what this does show
is that the laws of logic would be ulterable if
we encountered certain things in the world.
Speaker 3: Now, that's so stupid. That's so dumb. I can't even blieve.
I can't believe this is It gets frustrating. I'm starting
to do the Jay Dire sigh. All right, this is dumb.
Is domb next scuber dude, listener done, this is Oh,
if we observe something else in the world, let me
change the laws of thought, the laws of logic you
used to perceive those things needed to be true. Okay,
just listen, just listen to what he's saying. Listen again,
listen what he's saying.
Speaker 4: You wouldn't be able to distribute certain properties, for instance,
and stuff like that. So he says saying, okay, well,
we would modify the laws of logic in accordance with that.
So whether or not you know you want to modify
logic because of observations and quantum mechanics, he's suggesting, Well,
what this does show is that the laws of logic
would be alterable if we encountered certain things in the world.
Speaker 3: Encountering certain things in the world, presuppose the logic that
you're thinking is alterable. You notice that, So he is
going to pursue leave some things using the standard logic
that we have that he can't refute or counter, and
then he's going to use that logic to give himself
his data input. And then his assumption is that after
he's received the input of things in the world through
the classical laws, after the fact, he's going to abandon
the laws that he used to perceive to then rewrite
the laws. That makes no sense. I mean, that is
so idiotic. Yeah, Jay, definitely hit the link if you
see it. It's so idiotic. The reason, the reasoning, the
reasoning you would have to change the laws of thought
in this case would be based on the laws of
thought you're trying to change, being intact and reliable. This
is how this is how mind numbingly dense you have
to be at this point. It's insane to say this,
and they are, you know, the mustache guys. Hey, real,
that's interesting. Oh that's let's let's philosophize more than that.
This is why it's so frustrating, you know, it's so
frustrating because there are these these two like philosopher guys
that are not Wait a second, that doesn't make any sense.
That doesn't make any sense. How to think yourself off
a cliff correct? Yeah, yeah, Kelly Mitchell. Five dollars, Thank
you so much, Kelly. Then I'll just create a universe
where the laws of logic can be modified. Yeah hear,
he did it. You know, abandon abandon the laws that
you use to perceive the external world as a as
a reason to change the the laws that you that
were required for you to perceive that thing. I mean,
this is insane.
Speaker 4: There is some empirical compontis, but that's the that's the
epistem logical answer for Putnam. For other people, it's intuition,
and for others.
Speaker 3: But he didn't answer the question. The question is where
do the laws of logic come from? The question was
not can you hypothesize an imaginary clown world in which
you can conventionally change the laws of thought? That wasn't
the question. That was not the question.
Speaker 4: But there's also the metaphysical problem, which is why do
the laws of logic work?
Speaker 3: And again you no, no, no, you're just not answering
the question. Guys, you're just sharing your tea and crumpets, right,
you're shopping for these collared shirts together online in the
breaks you know, in the breakroom, and you're not answering
this question where do they come from? Where do they
come from? Which ends up being an ontological question. Fine,
he's just saying, well, the question actually brings up a
bigger question I can answer, which is what's the ontological
status of logic? Not the question where does it come from?
Where do they come from?
Speaker 4: That's the quest kind of human humans. It's really annoying
directions of explanation where some people say, will say, with
the laws of logic work because we've they are designed
to fit the world. We have design them to fit
the world.
Speaker 3: No, we didn't design them to fit the world. No,
that's just insane. Now we describe something, we describe the
laws of thought, and the fact that the laws of
thought are consistent with the world doesn't mean the laws
of thought are identical to the objects. We didn't describe
them because they work, because to describe something already appeals
to the thing is already in existence. They're just like,
you know, I don't know if Peterson would consider this postmodernism.
Speaker 8: Postmodernism. He's taking a fundamental approach that if you describe something,
then it's real so long as you accurately describe it
and it's consistent with reality.
Speaker 3: There's a real shit take, real garbage take.
Speaker 4: And then for a lot of people that's deeply unsatisfactory
because they say, well, you know what, why does the
world correspond with the laws of logic? How have we
been able to do that? Why is the world not
not chaos?
Speaker 5: And and uh and and.
Speaker 4: Darkness and and lots of other nasty, unpredictable things that
make logicians nervous and and yeah, and that's a broadly.
Speaker 3: Those are two different questions. The law of identity, the
law of identity non contradict contradiction excluded, middle could very
well have its own invariant status, and there could, from
an atheist view, be a world where it's indiscernible the
regularity of objects that they pop in and out of
the existence, like let's like take chair, like anything natural
like a tree or something else. If suddenly trees shared
the status of the double slid experiment with as particles.
From their view, it wouldn't if objects popped into existence
constantly and never kept their form such that we could
never categorize them as universals like a tree or an apple,
or any a circle or whatever. It's not inconsistent from
an atheist view that the the laws of thought could
exist and reality hard reality could be completely undiscernible and unintelligible.
They just think the laws of thought are justified just
because the reality we have is the reality we have.
I mean, this is just ad hoc, and I can
get any one of them to admit when they're pressed
that the law of identity is not identical to the object.
You're referring to the law itself that's abiding by itself.
A is a is not identical to the tree existing.
Dean lemb gifted one membership appreciate that what will atheism
sound like when they're forced into absolute corner obtuseness. While
we hear it most of the time, the problem is Ian.
The problem is they need the right people to force
them into those things. And speaking of the right person
who forces people into those corners, jade ey or what's
going on?
Speaker 5: Dude? Hey man, what's up? How are you?
Speaker 3: I'm doing good, you know, I'm just getting naturally frustrated
when you when I do these streams and I start
to hit my point of sighing and gasping. I don't
know if he saw this. This is fairly new Alex O'Connor,
which eventually you'll be able to debate this guy it'll
be beautiful or this other guy too. I mean, he's
got a decent channel unsolicited advice. His channel is they're
talking about answers atheists can't answer. If you missed it,
why is there something rather than nothing? We covered why
any why question? In general? Aught is? We covered the
aught is gap?
Speaker 1: Uh?
Speaker 3: I covered there this video. I'm going through their chapters
of what they list as the argument the questions the atheists.
Speaker 5: Can't answer, right, But did they cover is art?
Speaker 3: They did?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 3: They essentially said, well, the Christian can't uh can't answer
the art problem either, and and so you're in the
same problem. And I brought up, well, there's a different question.
Why ought we be consistent with let's say, is art
fallacies or following fallacies? Why why aught we pursue true
things or consistent beliefs at all? Is a bigger question
that's not listed in this video. And that's a question
that if they can't answer that, the rest of the
things that they list are kind of useless anyway, Right,
So you know, I just wish I wrote the questions
for their video. What would you write as a question?
What's something you would ask an atheist you don't think
they can answer if it's not listed here.
Speaker 5: Well, I haven't seen the list, but I would just
say stuff like, how are their laws when a law
cannot be identified with any set of atoms? And if
they say something like or molecules, well it's a recognition
of a pattern. To call something a pattern assumes what
is in question, which is what's the unifying thing between
these particular instances, And they can never get anything more
if it's all just molecules. Well, there's not actually any
similarity between these things unless you want to say, because
they're all molecules, which doesn't actually tell us any pattern
because everything's molecules, so really there would be no pattern.
And this I think derives from the fact, as you're
probably figuring out as you go through this video, which
I haven't seen, but I'm assuming because all atheists do
this just simply that. Look, atheism has to essentially reject
metaphysics for the most part. Yeah, and then the same
time pretend that they have some kind of common sense,
simple way to account for the metaphysics and the principles
that they're denying. That's always what happens, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So an atheist view, which ultimately almost every time
reduces to physicalism or naturalism. They're engaging with a bunch
of in their worldview, particulars that don't have a unifying
principle or law to them. They're all just particulars, and
that because they occur as they work together, that's enough
for them to just grant themselves some sort of uniformity.
But the particulars themselves don't give them the uniformity.
Speaker 5: And what is the law exactly if and usually when
you drill into it, they just end up being it
just ends up being a circle. They just restate that
it's the things that are similar, what are the things
that are similar, the patterns that are like It's just
like they can never really give you anything substantial because
once they admit metaphysical principles, they're in an even deeper
dilemma because they have to then try to give an
account for something that most of the time they're positioned
out of hand. Rejects.
Speaker 3: Dude, every time its just to me, it always goes
to all his foot. It's it's every single time where
you're like, well, what's what are you referring to that's
similar to this other thing he's trying right now, this
guy by the way, Jay, he's saying that, well, the
law of the laws of thought are just consistent descriptions
with how we see the physical world, which obviously is
appealing to the thing in question because in order to
engage with it.
Speaker 5: So they're descriptions of the actual physical world or the
way we see the physical world, because those are two
different things in the history of empiricism.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so there's the things in the world, and then
they just grant themselves, well, their interpretation of the things
in the world are self evident, but that's not true,
is it? Like so so also, the uniformity of how
people interpret things in the world has this so coherency.
It's not identical. We misfire, we get something's wrong, but
there's a general unity between mind concepts in the material world.
And those are particular things under the atheists that they
can't even justify, but let alone that they work together.
That's two different things correct.
Speaker 5: And then there's another layer two, which has often missed
because a lot of people don't do anything with linguistic philosophy.
And I'm not a linguistic philosophy expert, but I had
enough of it to notice some of the big flaws
or the big holes in the atheist position, which is
that if you get into the nitty gritty of linguistic philosophy,
you start to realize there's a difference between a proposition,
like the truth value of the proposition and what it's
referring to. So to say that nature operates in a
lawlike fashion, there's a truth value there that's assumed that's
not reducible to identical to the symbols on the page
or the words coming out of your mouth, or the
breath coming out of your mouth, or the things themselves.
So you see that there's different layers going on, and
almost always, because of their stupidity, their reductionism, their lack
of knowledge of philosophy, they always collapse everything. So if
you were to actually start to distinguish these things, they
really would kind of, you know, they become deer in
the headlights because they've never thought about distinguishing those things,
the proposition itself, the truth value of the proposition, which
is in some way universal, and the things themselves the reference.
Speaker 3: Yeah. And by the way, I've argued that when I
argued that from the physicalist atheist view that laws, evaluations,
and propositions, if they're reduced to material end up just
being effects of previous mechanical physics. But I granted them
too much in that video because I use laws of
physics that's already a whole category that's in question that
I shouldn't grant them, so instead I got it reduced
to well, for the knowledge to be possible under the
atheist physicalist view is that you have to have a
meaningful distinction between a reference and a reference. And what's
fascinating about their view is that every new reference that
they grant themselves under their own view, is just a
new event in time, which means it's a reference. Now,
so it's like a percolation from the brain, some weird
epiphenomenal thing happens, a brain fart, and they call that
the evaluation or the proposition about the other thing that's physical, right, Oh,
this other thing called a tree or my thoughts. Well, no,
now you're stuck with a thing called a reference, which
is another event that you need an evaluator for.
Speaker 5: And hears over in the mind over time, right, not
just identity over time in terms of the objects, but
if they predicate meaning of some object or some subject
or whatever, the idea is that there's the same meaning
that's going on in my head is actually matching up
over time to the objects in the world which have
identity over time. So the more you dissect this, the
more it really is resting on all kinds of things
that they just never even thought of. And most of
the time they don't know what you're asking. When you're
asking these questions.
Speaker 3: I'm trying to find ways to draw this in like,
you know, not a huge insult, but it's just kind
of funny. Like in basically whiteboard crayon stuff to show
physically what I mean, because you know why, because if
you defend physicalism, you really do have to Yeah, whiteboard,
you really have to tell me the difference between a
bunch of molecules you call a water for fall or bubbling,
or a tree, and the molecules you call in the
brain called thinking and evaluating, and the difference between those.
You're gonna have to tell me physically, the difference between
the two such that one has the capacity to be
true fapped and the other is just an object in space.
They never quite understand what I'm asking, So I'm trying
to get better at just doodling and maybe put it
up on a board. You know, the whiteboard wins every time,
doesn't it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, if I write this out this proposition
nature is Lawlike I mean, this is a series of
symbols on a board that refers to what thing I mean.
It's not obviously referring to any specific particulars in nature.
It's referring to this supposedly universal pattern. And to make
it universal will add all nature because they typically do
make universal quantifier claims all nature is Lawlike, Okay, what
what's the truth? They are assuming that this is a
true proposition, not a false proposition. So the truth value
is not identical to the symbols themselves, right, And the
phrase is referring to something other than either just the
truth value or the particular instances. So in other words,
we've got all of these layers of stuff with absolutely
no explanation. And that's just the sentence itself. What about
the things going on in my head, which I'm assuming
are conveying meaning about the external world over time? That
meaning stays the same in terms of the identity of
objects out there over time and the meaning in my
head over time, because remember, I'm just chemical reactions firing.
What if the meaning that I thought yesterday for all
Nature's lawlike has completely fired to be the opposite meaning today, right,
I mean it's just and not just the meaning of
the phrase. What about these individual words themselves? So you
can break you down into individuals, right? Right? What is
all nature?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 5: Just at any point if you think about it linguistically.
And I'm not telling you what they were saying in
the sure you saying like, nobody really goes after the
atheists on this, not because of any being stupid and
on our side. But just people just don't even realize
how much goes into Like to be able to make
a sentence meaningful requires a certain kind of world.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it's a crazy world. If you're going to
try to explain it in just particulars that are unrelated,
it can't. Well just you can't.
Speaker 5: Chaotic molecules firing of unrelated particulars. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Also that brings up the law thing in general, even
if you said granted them the statement nature's law, like
I always like to put it, like, Okay, objects exist, right,
forget about how you're going to justify how objects exist
and what their beginnings are. You know, stuff comes from stuff.
As an argument I've been debunking the last couple of months.
The stuff, even the collection of the stuff, let alone
the particular stuffs that you're listening. They don't give you
the justification for how they behave with each other. Those
are two different things, but they grant them. They're they're
the same. Well, no, we have a tree, and because
we have a tree, we're just throw into the basket.
It operates a certain way right by nature of it
just being a tree. But you're like, well, no, these
things are all working together. It's not like the object
existing gives you how the relationships physically, causal relationships and
behaviors that that you that you observe. That's not the
same thing. But they're like, no, no, it is the
same thing because we you know, that's how we observe it. Well, no,
that's not you know, you're you're just granting yourself a bunch.
But let me let me move on. You tell me
Jay when to stop. We're gonna listen to this guy.
He's in the he's currently trying to argue if, uh,
you know, if we observe the law the world a
different way, we can just change the laws of logic
to suit that world. I don't know if you heard
my refutation of this that if you said I observe
the world a certain way, and if I observed it
a certain way such that I can conventionally change the
laws of thought, you're actually using one standard of the
laws of thought to perceive the world a certain way
and trusting that is true in order to come to
some conventional alteration to what you perceived right to fit it. Well,
this conventional view of changing the law of identity, so
long as it fits. Whatever you're observing assumes the law
of identity, doesn't it Like, you can't change the thing
you're ultimately using to discern what's going on. It makes
no sense to go backward.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean if then they're no longer laws different,
I mean, if they could be otherwise they're not.
Speaker 3: They're not laws right right, And you're and you're appealing
to something you're calling law like uh, to observe it
and then going well I'm gonna change it. Well, no,
you're you're trusting the thing you observe to begin with.
That doesn't doesn't make sense anyway. Let them ramble on that.
Speaker 4: That strikes me as a sensible question, right, and and
and and often you know, and the kind of the
only answer that that somebody who suggests that who's doing
the human direction the metaphysical human direction explanation, that is
to say something like, well, if the world have been
different than the laws of logic would have been different,
and we would have made different laws of logic, and like, well,
let me see if he pushes back on that, I
can kind of get I sort of some again. I
go back and forth mis intuitively, where sometimes I find
this like incredibly unsatisfying, and sometimes I'm like, okay that
maybe there's something in this because we do do things
like reason with uncertainty, because we have probability for reasoning
with uncertainty. We if if the world, if we were
never uncertain about anything, we wouldn't have had probability, there
would be no need for it. Likewise, if there if
deduction was always uncertain for whatever reason, like that was
just empirically true in the world, as weird as that
is to say, then our deductions would have uncertainty attached
to them and stuff like that. So there's there's an
argument that you can you can you can say there,
but then we're also at this point.
Speaker 3: He's also conflating right now, the methods we use to
do induction or deduction, deduction being certain, induction being probabilistic,
are identical to the laws that we use to do
those things. The question is in the methods you use,
but rather the laws that govern the methods of reasoning.
And I don't know why they always collapse these two.
It's like the laws of thought are not identical to
the descriptions of them, Like there's a law of identity
that exists in some weird some way. Right, that's not
identical to our ability to describe that in a three
statement bullet point.
Speaker 5: Right. Yeah, I mean the first phrase that I'm still
trying to think through that he said that I think
was wrong is that we would make we made these
laws right. In fact, they're discoveries, they're not creations. So
because atheists don't believe in you know, divine truth or
the divine mind, they assume that all this stuff has
to be some sort of human social construct or some
individual that made them or created them. So even though
aerosol might be the source of the you know, classical
laws or whatever, we would say he's discovering something. And
even mathematicians nowadays will say that a lot of the
things that they that they've discovered, like Mandelbrot sets, it's
impossible for those to be made up by the human mind.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Also, something really obvious here is that to say
someone created something is to assume the law of identity
before you're creating the law of identity. Like, this is
why it's fun when I talk to these people when
they assume axioms. They're like, they're like, I just you know,
we developed the laws of thought, the three classical laws
as axioms, and I say, how do you develop something
without using the thing that you're saying you're developing?
Speaker 5: It's impossible, right, So it's like, yeah, it's just stupid,
like if they actually think that it didn't exist before that.
So in other words, two rocks and two rocks wasn't
four rocks until somebody decided.
Speaker 3: That it was for all right, right yeah, as opposed
to if you discover the law the laws of thought,
the math of two plus two is derivative of the
laws of logic, and that that too, right, you know,
is under some sort of discovery and not from a creation.
It's no, you don't create, it's not creative.
Speaker 5: There's an eternal truth that humans have the ability to discover.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm, as opposed to invent, and if it's invented,
create no discovery. Yeah yeah, if you're creating the truth,
you could just create a not a truth tomorrow and
wouldn't have any problems. So, you know, the pursuit of truth.
Speaker 5: In other words, you can just make it absurd and
say so. Until Aristotle listed the law of identity, nothing
had identity.
Speaker 3: Nothing identity Yeah, yeah, even him, even Aristotle. You know
there was no there was no hymn.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Something we talked about the beginning of the episode, which
is what is the limits of possibility?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 2: Is it is?
Speaker 1: It?
Speaker 4: Is it in some sense impossible for the loss of
logic to have been different because like the lads of logic,
that's a component as well, because the laws of logic
all themselves kind of controversial. So you know things like that,
you know, a few a few uncontroversial as well as
uncontroversial as anything.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, by the way, the fact that something
is controversial or I mean that I'm guessing they're going
to probably get.
Speaker 3: Into fuzzy logic or something.
Speaker 5: Well, the foulas give incredulity. Like when you were talking
about his account of saying that Christians they don't have
an answer is ought and I'm thinking, I didn't hear
what they said, but I'm guessing it was probably that
they have a they don't understand or consider it to
be a sufficient answer. Right when when a Christian says
that God is the reasoning for and they would probably
say something like, well, I find that hard to believe.
I don't see how that's a good answer. And so well,
the fact that even the laws of logic are controversial.
That has nothing to do with whether they're necessary for predication, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, whether they're not con controversial or controversial is irrelevant to.
Speaker 5: It's like what people say, Well, Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox
disagree over the Church of the first thousand years, so
we can't know. Well, the fact people disagree is irrelevant
to whether it's for false.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I got you. Yeah, that seems to be a
good safeguard from coming to any certain conclusion about it,
which is all they've done so far. They haven't really
said no, we can answer that question. They're kind of
being I would even say humble in their responses so far.
Speaker 4: A implied to be then dumb from humble b stuff
like that. One of the one of the less controversial
ones is the law of non contradictions. So you not
a and not a, So if you have a, you
can infer.
Speaker 2: Not, So something can't be true and false at the
same time.
Speaker 4: Yeah, basically, I mean it's it's very intuitive, right, but
but but but there are people that you say not
as in it's true that not brackets.
Speaker 5: A and not a.
Speaker 4: So I mean I don't know.
Speaker 3: Now, another thing, Jay, I know you covered this. But
if you're just purely relying on science and induction and
you believe that everything's in flux, then there is no
maintained identity of a at the molecular or the larger
scale of the thing you're referring to.
Speaker 5: So now that they believe in flying spaghetti monsters called
laws of love, right.
Speaker 3: Right, totally, and it's always changed if it's in flux,
then the thing you're constantly referring to to make statements
when they say, well, a can't be not a and
this is a law, well, well, if the thing you're
referring to out in the world is always changing, you
could actually say that there is only one instance that's
that's tiny in the fraction of time where something existed
as purely itself and everything else is some weird changed
version of that even at the molecular level. They would
have to argue that even them granting themselves induction to
do inductive reasoning is the assumption that that that's not
the case, that things are always in flux at every level.
But yet they some of them argue that that's what
they've come to a conclusion. As a conclusion doing their
reasoning is that everything's in flux, and you're like, including
your reasoning is an old one that even Bonds and
I guess would would have popularized maybe before that is
that he's just saying, well, no, the flux position of
rationality and molecules in motion, you're referring to something that
no longer existed as itself called the molecules in a
particular pattern. So what the hell is it you're trusting
right now and you.
Speaker 5: Couldn't even identify molecules without right.
Speaker 4: And make like a little little icon pop up.
Speaker 2: We're getting getting a hard no from our video not
a and not a and close bracket and there's but
there's there're also more controversial logical laws, like the law
of the excluded middle, which is, oh, I always get this.
Speaker 4: Actually that's let's just say.
Speaker 2: Something can only be tru or false, be true false.
There are two really similar laws here.
Speaker 4: So one is the law of the excuded middle, and
one is by valence and some reason, I always get
them the wrong around, like completely roasted by supervisors.
Speaker 2: But what's the what's the difference?
Speaker 4: Well, so loa of the law of excar middle is
something is either a or not a. The law of vivalences.
Any statement is either true or false, and they're clearly connected.
But they are different in the way. Well they're distinct
in the way that.
Speaker 2: They have been misusing that too.
Speaker 4: But I mean I misuse it all the time, and
I meant to know about this.
Speaker 2: It's like I always say whatever, man, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3: So, Jay, would you say the three classical laws are
distinct from each other on their own or are they
entailments of each other? And you don't know where the
starting point is necessarily.
Speaker 5: Like it like it's they assitate each other. There's not
really a starting point, gotcha.
Speaker 2: So here are some examples of the kinds of laws
that we're talking about, These kinds of like fundamental, seemingly
self justifying, self intuitive, like like bases You don't it?
I mean like if A implies B. That is, like
if A then B A, therefore B. Well, how do
you how do you how do you know that? It
just seems like you're kind of saying the same thing twice.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it just has to be true. Yes, what if
you don't have this, what do you have? So the
one of the one of the quotes of classical logic
is that you can and a contradiction implies anything, and.
Speaker 3: So if jay, so if the atheist says, well we
accept logic, whether we call it axiomatic or not, we
can't not accept it because it's it's a contradiction to
attempt to reject it. Now, is that sufficient in just
one level of argumentation?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 3: Can you talk on that quickly?
Speaker 5: Yeah, there's a great section on this in the Russ
Manion paper where he covers this. Because you might think
that just pointing out that we absolutely have to have
logic might make it a justification, but as Manion points
out in the paper, just saying that it appears to
be NICs necessary for predication doesn't mean that it's the case.
It also doesn't tell me that my mental schema of
what's necessary for me to have predication necessarily applies to
anything in the world. So that's why you need more
for the justification of these things than just the idea that, well,
it appears to be irrational to deny it them, because
a lot of times if you for example, the first
argument I have with Tim Gordon and DMS four years
ago was I mentioned this point and he said, well,
you're just talking about retortion, which is Aristotle's reductio Aerosotl says,
I if you disagree with the classical laws of logic
or the three you know law of identity, you are
not just assuming it to use it. But there's a
reductio here that without it, logic would be impossible. So
that's true, and it's correct to say that. But as
the manupaper shows post cont remember people at aerosols on
they didn't think the way count and human did. After
kunt other questions get raised. The show that you need
more for epistemic justification than just saying that it appears
to be crazy. Otherwise, you need a stronger case, which
is why you have to also argue that there are
all these other sort of transcenital category. In other words,
you need a worldview that goes along with these things.
You can't just have these as self evidence starting principles,
because again that might be a little am I getting there?
Speaker 3: I understand it. It sounds like just to translate here
is that pointing to the necessary the necessary existence of
one thing isn't sufficient because there's a whole slew of
other things that need to be the case alltogether. Is
one thing that for that to operate. So, for instance,
if I come to the conclusion of rejecting the law
of identities absurd, therefore I shouldn't do it. Or like
Christopher Hitchins was like, well, people ask me if I
have free will and I the choice otherwise, right, Yeah,
this kind of thing.
Speaker 5: That will give you the justification for the principle itself.
Speaker 3: Gotcha? Yeah, because there's just one isolated instance that you're
referring to. Even if you granted, okay, fine, it's absurd
to reject it. To reject something assumes the mind. Now
you have another thing that is absurd to reject. And
now how many things can you put in the basket
that are observed to reject? Well, we would call would
correct me if I'm wrong, the things that are absurd
to reject for anyone to reject as a folder of
a giant folder called the transcendental category itself, the whole
list of things we can point to. The only meaningful
question would be whose worldview accounts for that those things
all together holistically correct? Yeah, and all of it together.
Speaker 5: I think that's true. But if I remember in the
in the manupaper, he just makes it even more simpler.
Basic reply, which is like he uses the kantient argument
that Okay, so let's say for the sake of argument
that it does it. It is seemingly absurd to deny
the law of identity, and so therefore I need the
law of identity, and so let's grant that. But that
doesn't tell me that the law of identity, which I
think is going on in my mental schema, actually applies
to anything in the world. So in other words, what
about the external world and all that. You haven't solved
that stuff yet. And so just on that basis alone,
it shows that it can't be self evident, and uh,
retortion is not enough for justification because then he goes
on to say, well, maybe maybe the laws of logic
are conceptual schemes that we all think work and we
think they apply to the world, but they don't in fact.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, you're just thinking the is pragmatic enough that
we just do Yeah, then it's then it's pragmatism. It's like, oh,
we do exactly, because yeah, so we can do stuff
right Like that's no, it's like, yeah.
Speaker 5: It's a pragmatic and that's not a number destigation and
by that, by that logic, anything that seems to work,
would therefore be justified right now?
Speaker 3: Okay, so let me ask, and again you don't need
to go into super detail, but maybe if there was
a key distinction here, what if an atheist said, oh, actually,
what Jay, just he made a lot of sense right
there with these individual things that you can argue the
absurdity of the conclusion. You know, what was it called? Sorry,
the absurdity of the contrary, like to deny these things?
If you said, if they agreed with you and said, okay,
so if arguing something by necessity doesn't really fully justify it,
but you can accept the argument that to reject something
and use it is silly, so you shouldn't do that.
What if they put that to you and they say, well, Jay,
you know, if the argument for God from the transcendental
argument is of necessity, what's the classification difference between this
unique item called using logic and rejecting logic uses logic?
What's the difference? Now if they're going to say, well, shit, dude,
you're saying argument for necessity right now that you just said,
that's not true just because it's necessitated.
Speaker 5: Yeah, That's why I always argue that you can't just
do the negative critique. When you do tag, you also
have to present the positive case of a Christian worldview.
So the first critique is kantient, and if we were kantients,
we would have to admit, like the Barry Stroud paper
says that there's a problem in CONT's arguments that don't
necessarily prove what he wants to argue for. So remember
in the first case of why say the law of identity?
The reason that doesn't get you to justification is because
I can just simply counter with cont critique and say, well,
just because it seems to me that it's necessary mentally
and psychologically to understand the world, does not tell me
that that's a real metaphysical principle in the world.
Speaker 3: I got you.
Speaker 5: Maybe it is, but how does just it seeming and
my coherence in my mind necessarily that the whole world
externally to me is operating that way. Uh, that's just
that's a sufficient enough objection to show that you need
more for justification. So that's different than than arguing that
the Christian worldview as a whole, which includes all of
these things, is the solution to.
Speaker 3: The that makes sense that Yeah, analogy would be I
have a Swiss army knife of epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, morality
or whatever, and I have it because it's useful. Right,
that's a normal approach, you just ad hoc take it.
But a Christian worldview is saying, not only is another
any other of youew can't tell it, can't justify the
Swiss army knife. We're gonna tell you how it is.
You have the Swiss army knife altogether that you're using,
not an argument that you you have it because you're
using it. That's not a real position, right. That's like
like like Matt del Hundy, will we use logic because
we have it? It's like, well, no, that's you're just
taking the tool that you have. We're asking for. And
this is the thing you always sigh about, which is
people will constantly conflate an assertion with a justification. That
asserting something that sounds right, you might even agree with
the assertion, it's not the same as a justification, right.
Speaker 5: And this is even stronger a level beyond that, because
this is actually saying not so much against the atheists,
but against a foundationalist who would say, like Tim Gordon
would say, well, look, law of identity equals a I
mean through retortion or through a reductio. If you deny it,
you can't have knowledge at all. That's true, But that
doesn't tell me that the principle itself is true. Because
Father Deacon has a paper where he argues along these lines,
and he says, well, take the case of a schizophrenic.
In the case of a schizophrenic's mind, it might be
to him it might seem like all this craziness makes sense, right,
like all the voices in his head and all the
weird stuff. For him, it's this coherent worldview that the
government is persecuting him, right, and so everything makes sense right,
But it's not true in the external world. So the
schizophrenic is an example of why the and we're not
saying schizophrenic is true. It's just a counter example that
shows that seeming coherence in a mental schema is not enough.
You need the entire world.
Speaker 3: What do you say to this one? So ironic because
the first Christians would have drug you both into the
streets for being philosophers. Well, they didn't deny philosophy. They
denied vain philosophy and not all philosophy. I mean, you
couldn't actually I mean it's just a silly position.
Speaker 5: Saint Justin Martyr is called Justin the philosopher.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean philosophy. You can't really engage with any
of the truth of the matter. You just think philosophy
is a gross word.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 3: This is a view that probably a Protestant, probably someone
who's saying, oh, I read philosophy in the Bible and
it says warning against it. Therefore, all philosophy.
Speaker 5: And the most Ecclesiastes is a book of philosophy. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, by the way, that did during the all of
the Seven Councils and before did they was philosophy not
necessary to debate and fight off heresies using consistency and
logic and why things need to be accounted for using
our God given faculties called the logic, heart, news, mind, rationality.
Of course, I mean this is this is silly.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's vain philosophy, that'sful.
Speaker 3: Yeah, vein, Yeah, vain philosophy.
Speaker 4: My logic tutor in first year used to say that
a good way to get your head around this intuitively
is well, if this is true, then anything can be true.
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, that's a great way of putting it. I'm
go've been planning on doing a video about about this
concept you know from X Also yes, yeah, yeah, I'm.
Speaker 3: Gonna actually skipto consciousness here not being a materialist.
Speaker 4: Yes, I mean this is this is almost like that.
We've the kind of runs like that would apply to
the logic one, indeed loads of ones.
Speaker 2: You can believe that consciousness is this strange immaterial you
could believe in.
Speaker 5: The of the soul.
Speaker 3: Okay, I wanted to you weren't here for this. Jay
he was in the early part of this video. He
was saying that, you know, there are atheists who are
materialists or a materialists who are atheists, but there are
people who are atheists who reject materialism. I'm saying, Okay, fine,
people can try to hold the view I've come to
the conclusion that I'm not. They can claim that, but
I'm not certain how an atheist is not going to
be whittled down into some sort of materialism or physicalism.
Just like New Agers, right, they we grant that they
use all of these metaphysical terms like spirit in mind
and all these things, but when you press them on them,
a New Age or a spiritual not religious person, they
you push them and they end up folding down into
like energy and frequencies and all of these things. Now,
is it possible because Alex has taken the position, well,
all materialists are atheists, but not all atheists are materialists?
Now is that? Is that just kind of like you go, okay, yeah,
they can.
Speaker 5: Hold There are in the minority, you know, atheists, philosophers
and academics who are not strict materialists.
Speaker 3: There are some, But are they consistent as opposed to
the position? Okay, That's what I'm saying, is like if
I yeah, that's that's a question, is like are they
really when pressed? I think the answers no, do they
hold the position?
Speaker 5: Fine? Like you could be you could be a you
could be a platonist atheist, and you could be a
transcendental idealist atheist, and like you could you could conceivably,
for example, think that all of reality is pure idea
like Barkley did, and just not believe in a deity.
I suppose, But I mean that's like very rare positions,
like maybe one in a thousand professors as that position.
Speaker 3: Yeah, That's why I ask, like, well, someone could post
the position up and if we start kicking at it,
it seems like they would have no place to go
then to reduce things to empirical things and matter and physicalism.
If they're questioned, unless you they just go listen. I
just take this weird, unjustified platonic view that there's things
out there that aren't identical to matter and somehow we
have access.
Speaker 5: They could actually they could just be barkley An idealists
or Platonist idealists, and they could just simply deny matter.
They could just say what you think is matter is
just ideas and there is no God, there's just ideas.
So what exactly ideas are would just be, you know,
something immaterial invariants or something like that. But again that's
a very few people. I mean, there are philosophers who.
Speaker 3: Would think yeah, but then they have a they're bracypically,
they're basically halfway into solipsism. And at that point because
then you just ask, well, whose ideas? Whose ideas are
the proper assessment of the external world, And then like
you know, it's this battle of like one person set
of ideas versus another person. But then that person has
to be beyond an idea, Like if the objects in
the world there are just ideas, then the people in
the world are just ideas. So then you know, I
don't see how they can escape a solipsistic view.
Speaker 5: But well, I mean they might think that there's many,
many ideas in many minds, so all that exists is mind.
Matter is illusory. There's many minds and many ideas, and
then what we call matter is just the what we
think is going on with molecules, when really it's all
just ideas as they're presented to us. Yeah, so there's
the reason, the reason why. There's actually a reason why
they might think this though, and this has to do
with the there's an Enlightenment dispute. I don't want to
get too far a field, you probably don't want to
talk about it, but it has to do with what's
called direct and indirect realism. And so like John Locke
and people like that, at the time of the Enlightenment,
they were debating whether or not I'm actually sensing solidity
when I touch a thing, or whether solidity is something
that's presented in my mind. And they had a really
hard time if you're if you're an empiricist, they had
a hard time with this because people like David Hume, well,
obviously there's an external world and these are just sensations
imprinted upon my camcorder mind. But other enlightenment flusters said, well,
now wait a minute, that's an unjustified assumption. Maybe the
sensations are in the mind and everything that's happening is
in the mind. And in other words, they can just
deny the external world assumption and say that there is
no external world. There's just a commonly experienced mind world.
Speaker 3: Right right right, And that leads to would you say
that leads I think.
Speaker 5: If I mean, I think you could go towards syllipsism, yeah.
Speaker 3: Or pant psychic. I don't understand how you could be
a pan psychic. And then also it makes some sort
of distinctions between I.
Speaker 5: Think the problem that position is that they have to
end up like having a bunch of metaphysical assumptions that
are very contrary to kind of common sense reality. So
it's sort of like everything that you think is going
on isn't going on. And then it's like, okay, well,
if that's the case, then why should I assume this
metaphysical assumption of there being mini minds and there's like
a giant mind. And it's just sort of a lot
of leaps.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, also that what you said before, if there
are these people that you said during that phase of
philosophy were who are saying, well, there's just ideas out there,
and then the sense input. If the sense input had
nothing to do with being dependent on an actual object,
then you wouldn't need the external world to perceive what
we call the external world. There would just be like
this sense input coming from wherever. It didn't need to
be an object, so that what is sense input? What
is input if it's not separate from the thing that's
doing the interpretation.
Speaker 5: Well would just say, for example, that what you're sensing
is just another idea. So he's not saying it's all.
He's saying that there are sensory inputs, but the sensory
inputs are ideas from other ideas.
Speaker 3: So this is the basis you know for Is this
the basis for the similarcrum like which became the famous
movie Do you think this view or is it before that?
Like it seems like if that's that's that was the
first like basement people being like bro like like what
if we're just.
Speaker 5: That's probably more so like from Plato, And the difference
is that Barkley is an empiricist, and so Plato's Plato's
not a big I mean, Plato believes that knowledge comes
from since theive, but it's like the lowest level of knowledge.
So they have a huge difference on where we get knowledge.
But Barkley is a I mean, he's just as much
an empiricist as well as Locke or David Hume. The
only difference is that he's saying, David him, you're inconsistent
by assuming an external world. You have no justification for that.
I'm going to be the most consistent empiricist and say
that all reality is ideas because didn't we just see
in these Enlightenment disputes that you can't really justify the
difference between the sensation and the object.
Speaker 3: Wait, so you're saying, even no, famously human is the
most consistent. There was another guy who was even more consistent.
Speaker 5: Well, just on that one point of world. So he's
basically saying and by the way, Barkley, because he was
an Anglican clergyman or Irish Anglican clergyman, he wanted to
defend theism against Hume and the skepticism, and he thought
a way to do this would be to say well,
maybe all knowledge does come from sense data, but the
mistake is to think that it's corpuscles or corpuscularianism. From
what they cart talked about, that everything is just little
atoms bouncing around, right, he says, rather than thinking of
it as a bunch of material atoms, all your ever
sensing is literally ideas, because all that exists as ideas.
Speaker 3: Interesting. But then again, that would mean that to do induction,
you're actually interacting with a set of particular ideas that
aren't identical to the previous ones in every moment, right,
but every.
Speaker 5: Moment would mark as theists would say. Yeah, but in
my case, I don't have a problem with there being
universals and particulars. There's one ultimate idea, Who's God? That's
the big idea?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I gotcha. Do you ever get something as silly
as this in your chat? The transcendental argument for evolution,
that's funny is how you can have be a non
materialist atheist. I'm sorry, but evolution is a materialist paradigm, right,
So what is this non materialism you get from evolution?
By the way, evolution even can't even tell you how
information being immaterial and not identical to matter exists, and
yet evolution requires the transfer of evolution. Becky, thank you, Becky.
H do you want to respond to that goofiness?
Speaker 5: Well again, like, it's really misunderstanding the function of the
transcendental argument. It's not an argument to give you an
indirect basis for anything. It's in our case, it's an
it's an indirect argument to give you a base for
the entire Christian worldview. So it wouldn't make sense to
say that it proves an immaterial process that somehow gives
rise to a material process, as gives rise to masteriality.
There's no way that an abstract transnial argument could actually
justify that. It would just be assuming what's supposed to
be proven by that. That's why it's a comparison of worldviews.
It's not like this transcendental category proves that matter gives
rise to immateriality. Yeah.
Speaker 3: By the way, these transitental things would be mind dependent
and can't be identical to a physical process called evolution anyway. Right,
So it's like to even post diction, uh summarize evolution,
you're appealing to things that are not found in the
process of evolution.
Speaker 5: So I mean and Also that sounds like emergentism, which
it's an argument against materialism. So right, matter gives rise
to consciousness and immortation immateriality, that would be a refutation
of materialism, and that would mean that evolution ultimately isn't true. Right.
Speaker 3: Most people don't realize that. I talk to Father Deacon
Anonius about that. How most people don't when they say
emergent property, oh, the mind's emerging, they really think that
the material reality can produce and percolate something that's not
identical to the machine that's doing it, you know, like
you know, steam over the pot of water or something.
And and like you just said, it's most people don't
who use emergent property as a term. They don't realize
that emergentism the school of thinking, refutes the thing they're
trying to argue using emergent properties.
Speaker 5: And by the way, if they're allowed to make that
leap as a Dila hunty person is misusing that argument,
then why then what's what's wrong with me saying? Okay,
then there's immaterial things like angel souls and god.
Speaker 3: Sure, sure, yeah, that's what That's one of my favorite
angles is that I'll just take an ordinary atheist who
says God doesn't exist, I have no reason to believing
God because X Y Z empiricism evidential ism missing. And
I go, oh, that's interesting. I'll just list the categories
of things that they assume without evidence. This doesn't prove
that all claims of things that are immaterial exists. It
just shows that their standard they use to negate God's
existence are a bunch of things. The very standard they're
using is an immaterial standard that's not verified through empirical data.
Speaker 5: It's like exactly, well, back to the great paper the
Two Dogmas of Empiricism by Kwying. He ends the paper
by saying that anytime somebody in the empiricist atheist tradition
tries to predicate, predication itself is the equivalent of the
ancient Greek god's meaning is the equivalent of the ancient
Greek gods and the vice spaghetti monster.
Speaker 3: Wow, so this stuff, you would you say, the criticisms
of all this stuff, and the fact that this stuff
percolates back up into culture is the result of the
Enlightenment itself, because they just got lacks on their rigor.
They just granted a bunch of things and people ran
rampant because didn't the Enlightenment correct me if I'm wrong,
just say, well, let's take a self evident axiomatic approach
to all these fundamental things, and we don't have to
justify the fundamental things. We just kind of accept them.
And now if you just accept those things, why would
we be surprised at a resurgence of all this insane
stuff you and I critique and laugh at on you know,
popping out of TikTok and all these Well.
Speaker 5: Yeah, exactly, you're right. Enlightenment is critique, right. It's basically saying,
let's take the laws of logic, the self evident actions
and principles, and let's critique the metaphysics of Christianity, the
ancient world in the Middle Ages. And what we see
when we do that is we basically hack off everything metaphysical.
But then the next generation says, wait a minute, if
we're going to be consistent and we're going to hack
off the metaphysics and the things that we can't justify,
we're gonna start hacking off and getting rid of the
things that the enlightens our mind, our mind, any everything
Enlightenment is going to get hacked away too. Laws of logic,
external world identity, over time to self the mind, meaning yeah,
so as they hack away, you get the end result
of basically Kwine saying, nobody in the empiricist, materialist atheist
tradition in five hundred years has given a sufficient answer
to David Hume. And basically all that's happened is that
everything has become psychology, So epistemology becomes psychologized that sense,
we're still we're still there, he says, We're never gonna
get out of this box.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, And they're and they're taking their approach altogether
is backwards, like using instead of asking what's the ultimate
start point for all of this being possible? They go, well,
what what endpoint can we get to using our faculties?
And it's like, well, no, the question is how did
you get your faculties to begin with? How is it
the case that you can even reason to a conclusion?
Not you know, the other way around. And hence I
believe that would be the basis for pursuing the tag
argument in general. Because you're asked, you're not granting them
all of the things that are required for them to
come to conclusions. You're asking a bigger question. I guess
you would call that a metallogical question, is well, no,
let's ask a bigger question that the Enlightenment people just
didn't want to deal with Or was it that they
didn't want to deal with it in your estimation, or
it's just just kind of culture. It just kind of
happened that way, Like, yeah.
Speaker 5: I think men are limited by their times and we
can't expect, you know, people in the Middle Ages, we
can't expect them to necessarily ask the questions of the
eighteen hundreds because a lot of things have to happen,
a lot of questions of people kind of creatively saying, hey,
wait a minute, what about this, Like we've assumed this,
we haven't asked this because remember, I mean, there's those
type linguistic philosophy. For example, there's some linguistic philosophy in
the ancient world, people asking questions about signs and symbols.
There's a little bit in the Middle Ages, maybe a
little more, and it doesn't really get questioned until the
seventeen hundreds. So it's the first modern linguistic philosopher is
Jean Bautista Vico, and he's pretty late, like early seventeen hundreds,
so people hadn't even thought to question the propositions at length.
I mean again, some people had questioned these things, and
they raised issues in the Middle Ages, but to really
drill into even linguistic philosophy, it's pretty late. So we
can't assume that, you know, you know, we might think, well,
why didn't they just ask the questions we're asking. Well,
there's people. Humans operate a lot of times with assumptions,
and they don't oftentimes question their something.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, someone recently asked me, hey, Jim Bob, you're
doing a lot of talk about evolution. You know, why
is it the case that people in this field haven't
brought up your contentions and the contentions of your your
you know, your associates and peers. And I'm like, well,
this assumption that if something's false, the presentation of how
it's false is going to be adequately accepted in the
time frame that the paradigms delivered, we're still very new,
by the way, in the infancy, right.
Speaker 5: This is the point of Thomas Kuhne's Structures a Scientific
Revolution that that famous book one an a word, because
the whole thesis of the book is that new paradigms
are not accepted immediately at that time on the basis
of pure reasoning and demonstration and proof. In fact, when
challenges to paradigms are put forward, the tendency for human
nature is to cling even more intensely to the existing
paradigm before they concede to the new paradigm.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, it's interesting. And by the way, if we
get to a point where, you know, natural selection and
all the all the rest is adequately offset by something new,
the people who believed in all that dogmatically are just
going to move over to their their authority anyway and say, well,
it was our authority who debunked.
Speaker 5: In exactly what. There's a pattern there between. I mean,
they're talking about two different topics, but Kwind's two dogmas
of empiricism, right, He's pointing out that empiricism was intended
to get rid of dogmas of metaphysics. And yet empiricists
in their extreme reach, like people like what does he say,
Popper Carnapp and others like, they've gotten to this point. Carnapp.
I think they in the strict positivists have gotten to
this point where they think that they don't have any dogmas,
but they still got two dogmas and then and then
it's the same point with Kun's book. People think that
in the realm of science they operate on pure facts
and art and logic and objectivity, but rather the opposite
is true, and they treat it like a religion.
Speaker 3: Which is why, you know, even in my own chat,
the impulse is to have this negative aversion, you know,
to dogma, and we go, no, no, you can't escape dogma.
In general, the term it's just that you gotta you
gotta isolate, you know, when it's incoherent or limited or
something like. Because we wouldn't just say dogma icky. People
think that that's just what you should do. You just
go dogma, ikey yucky. Well, obviously in Christianity we don't
say dogma ikey yucky. But in their tradition and in
that world, they think they're purely skeptical. They really think
there's a purity to skepticism. But that is a dogma
in itself that has its own dogma.
Speaker 5: So it's a total worldview. In fact, I mean the
famous skeptics and Skeptic magazine like Michael Schermer and those
characters like they notoriously never deviate from the establishment teaching
dogmas and positions on everything. So whether it's the Big
nine event or whether it's GMOs stabbis like they literally
go across the line for the Stadt, which is not
very skeptical to me if you're basically in line with
whatever the basically the State Department and the establishment says,
how is that establishism?
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's not skeptical at all. But you know they
get their their touring badges. Yes, from that anyway, So
let's move along with this and see where if they
take make us anywhere.
Speaker 2: All you can believe in all that kind of stuff
and just not believe in like an agential god overseeing
it all, it would be quite weird.
Speaker 5: Agent.
Speaker 2: It will still be like weirder that there wasn't some creative.
Speaker 5: Wrong?
Speaker 3: Is that something not tangential like an agent?
Speaker 5: Like, but he said agent, make it, I'll make it populous.
Speaker 2: I've persuasion. It's worth noting that. But I think really
the question here, put in the context of atheists not
being able to answer it is like conscious a strange
thing to expect, reputed.
Speaker 3: Me, refer referring to having agency thinking mind.
Speaker 5: I got to retire, he reputed me.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's over.
Speaker 2: If there is no they're going to bring verse and
if there is no immaterial element to the universe, because
consciousness seems like it's immaterial. It seems I mean, we
can answer this as if we were looking for questions
that materialists can't.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Like consciousness is very strange. I've talked about a
lot recently. The people Who've been listening to my recent
material will know that I'm just amused by consciousness.
Speaker 4: As it's it's well, it's actually it's it's a bit
like the laws of logic in the sense, and it's
one of the weirdest things. I'm one of the most
obvious things. What are you going to do to Like?
It's like I think it's Paul Churchman is a limited materialist,
so he thinks that the consciousness doesn't exist and he
thinks about it. He's funny because, like I remember reading
one of his papers and be like, what do you
mean how do I even go about disbelieving in consciousness? Yeah,
it's like how how how do you expect this?
Speaker 3: Is another thing? Uh, there are two separate questions, Jay,
is what is consciousness? And are you able to coherently
reject consciousness? As the way you know it to be. Like,
even if you positive a non exhaustive definition of consciousness,
the act of denying it would be utilizing the thing
that you're denying, so it'd be absurd. But this isn't
a justification for consciousness or what it is. This is
just assuming well, whatever it is that describe, you know,
by just simply being able to observe and evaluate things
or have some sort of like interaction with the external
world or whatever. That doesn't tell me how it how
it came to be what it is specifically. So they're
close to I think he's close to saying, well, denying it,
it's gonna you know, again, we went over this, the
fact that you can't deny something exists would be different
than giving a justific justification for how and why it exists.
Right in this case, yeah, well we have it.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I think typically atheists make that mistake. They're gonna
start trying to talk about where they think it came from,
as if that justifies it or if that gives an
account for it, which it doesn't. It's just telling a story.
But what is it? I mean, in the Orthodox view,
it's I guess the the energy of the of the
soul's awareness of what's going on in the world and
in terms of the beings of the world. So I
think we would have an energetic description of it.
Speaker 3: Would that be distinct j from the news, the sort
of conjunction of the mind heart interaction with the metaphysical.
Would consciousness be something not identical to the apparatus that
engages with consciousness?
Speaker 5: Okay, Yeah, the news is the heart. So basically, you know,
the mind's up here, hearts over here. So fathers always
say that the the mind. There's nothing wrong with the
intellect the mind, but it's a limited thing. It has
to be put into or or moved into the heart,
meaning that has to work in union with the heart faculty.
And until we are repentant and in relationship with God,
our heart faculty is out of whack. And so we're
going to think that, like all the atheists do, that
pure mind can explain the world. The irony, of course,
being that in their denial of God, they are also
denying the existence of immatial things like mind, so they
end up denying themselves.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that they exist. You know, I don't exist. That's
interesting because I thought about this, how we from a
Christian view, we say something like morality is written in
our heart. That would be pointing to the news that
something is not reduced to intellect but uses intellect, wouldn't
deny the intellect. But then I thought, well, is there
a similar statement, and you tell me from a Christian
view orthodox specifically, is that the way in which morality
is written on our heart? Do we have it written
on our heart to want to know the truth or
is that a brain? Would that be reduced to like
the intellect wanting to know the truth?
Speaker 5: I think the way that fathers describe it is that,
and they're not coming from a philosophy view on this,
they actually is actually rooted in the Hebrew prophets, because
you'll read like David talks about his heart. You know,
Paul says the Word is near you, even in your heart,
which is not to say that God is not connected
to the mind, but that fallen man has the tendency
to worship and only go with his intelluctenced mind, which
is a limited faculty. It's good, it has a lot
of uses, but it can't become a god. And for
all the atheists it's their God. And then again, ironically
they turn around and deny their God. But the best
essay on this is Saint Justin Papovich's essay on the
Doctrine of Knowledge of Saint Isaac the Syrian. It's in
his book Life in Christ by Justin Popovitch, and he
explains in there that I think ideally what is supposed
to happen is that man's mind is basically in his heart,
and so that means that through repentance and through relationship
with God, I can then correctly interpret the world through
my heart, which is seeing it through the eyes of
God right and seeing that I can see the world correctly.
Whereas when the heart and the mind are divided, I
see the world in this bare cold intellectual way, which
actually ends up destroying.
Speaker 3: The intellect got you and then not and holding that
view doesn't clear the windshield, so to speak. That from
our view, the practice the going to divine liturgy, the
practice of clearing the hard, clearing the soul like a
it's not like it's not like you just yeah, it's
not like you just go, well, I hold this view.
Therefore it's like I'm not exactly it's.
Speaker 5: An acquiring of the virtues. In other words, this is
that point we have to always have to come back to, like,
you can't divorce a pistemology from ethics because, as Wood
points out W. J. Wood in that book, he points
out that like wouldn't we think that the realm of
intellect and reasoning, Like wouldn't we want people to be
intellectually honest? Like So in other words, obviously you can't
divorce the pistemology from virtues. So in the same way,
like if I'm going to interpret the world correctly, am
I going to be able to interpret it correctly? If
I am im mentioning all the and I don't care
about fxture, Yeah, I'm gonna lie about the world. I'm
gonna lie about what I think. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, That's what fascinates me about that the Scripture, the
fool in his heart, you know, rejects God essentially because
it's not that they're using just their intellect in their
sort of in their rebellion of God, you know, because
coming to the conclusion like, oh, God doesn't exist if
it was just purely intellect, it's not like the emotional
aspect of rebellion of that or or let's say counter
apologetics is based in just the mind, I find I
find not that, not that I'm trying to fully interpret
that myself, you know, here is just that I just
find it interesting that the select word used is the
fool in his heart, not in his mind and his intellect.
The fool in his heart has this engagement with rebellion,
which means he's actually engaging in something that his intellect
can't justify, which is this like urge to deny or
or fight. That's not an intellectual process necessary.
Speaker 5: Exactly the difference between East and West. I mean, the
entire Roman Catholic tradition after Augustine equates the soul with
the mind or the intellect. And so that's why it's
another reason why they think natural theology is true. It's
another reason reason why they think that, well, if I
just present the evidences, you'll believe right, they're missing the
whole point that, like, you can't interpret even the natural
world correctly without repentance.
Speaker 3: Right, because the intellect would be some sort of added
tool we're given to point to God or to find
in a sense, but it doesn't fully get us there.
But the intellect doesn't give you the heart that to
give you the sense of why it is to even
use the intellect like the intellect does and give you
the reason.
Speaker 5: It's like the difference. It's like the difference between me
listing all the facts about my wife versus the actual relationship.
Speaker 3: We have, right, right.
Speaker 5: The facts aren't wrong, they're not bad. Yeah, but it's
not the relationship, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's interesting. It's not like that. You know, our
loved ones are like magic to gather or baseball cards
would be more appropriate, and they have a list of attributes.
And then you're like, I want to be with my
wife and you're just looking like at a baseball part
of your wife. It's like, no, that's not the participation
that my wife is a fog and I throw down.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Total, you're like down, like you're downloading info and facts
and just read them over and over. My wife is beautiful,
My wife is beautiful.
Speaker 5: That's funny analogy that FDA had between like imagine thinking
that this is all like a rational contract or like
a letter, right, rather than like the relationship you have
with your wife. Right. So if somebody read a letter
about me, would they know me in a limited sense? Yeah?
I know about Jay. I read that letter that described
what he's like that doesn't mean.
Speaker 3: They know me, right, right? Yeah. That that's also gets
into the our energies is our nature and our or
our essence, is that when we engage with each other,
we're engaging with energies and they're not reducible to a
list in an essay, right, Like, so there are these
things and you know again, even energies might even be
like limited analogy, right because you know, because we have
the words that we have, right, someone might press me like, well,
energy refers to like a for like a force, something
you can like physically manipulate. Well, I guess it's I mean,
what are we saying.
Speaker 5: No, it's not just physical. That's why. Uh, like we
were talking about with Maximus and other Orthodox saints and theologians,
like the energy of the mind. So when you talk
to me, there's there's an energy, a mental energy that's
happening here that's not equated to It has a relationship
to the neurons firing. But it can't be reduced and
equated to uh, physical energy, like you're saying.
Speaker 3: Right, right, because intent an active activity like you could
say activity. Someone might take a mechanical approach, but intent,
you can't isolate the intent right.
Speaker 5: Got a great point, you know, I think, yeah, that
intent would come from your innermost being, your your innermost desires,
which is not is not reducible to your mind. Like
your mind is not identical to your intentionality or or
or your love right love. Uh, you know, your love
for your wife relates to your mind, and it manifests
in thoughts about it, but it's not reducible to or
identical to your thoughts about your right thoughts about love.
It comes from your from your innermost being.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's actually a good point. People were bringing up
the relational argument for like say that trinity. We don't.
We don't have to get into depth. But it is
interesting how once you point these things out, how even
our engagement with let's say love, the act of loving
is this participation between persons. There's an activity. And if
it wasn't that you would just be able to participate
in your own head and say your loved your wife.
You just be If Islam was true, for instance, or
Unitarian Christianity quote Christianity would be true, you could just
love just in your brain and you'd be doing the
virtue of what You'd be just doing the practice of love.
It would just be an internal exercise with engaging with
the self projection of the thing you say love is
or the sorry the subject of who you're loving. And
if you did it internally, it would be sufficient because well, I.
Speaker 5: Mean, this is what we say about all Western deviations,
and even you could include Islam and Protestanism as well,
because we would typically say they're worshiping their idea. Yeah,
the idea of God.
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, that's a good point. I'm actually going to
not listen to the rest of these guys, Jay, is
there anything coming up exciting for you, whether it's in
the physical or non physical Online.
Speaker 5: My mind will be engaging in a zone theory energy
consciousness transference to the fifth dimension next week. It's called
a sension Millennium. Corey Feldon will be playing Lives going on.
I thought about kind of opening up to debate. I
don't know if I'll have time to do that today.
We just did a long interview this morning. Tomorrow I'll
be doing a live stream on Islam with a pasta
profit over on his channel Jamie, and that will be
covering the vm as I think tomorrow night as well. So, yeah,
that's what's coming up.
Speaker 3: Nice. That should be fun vm as from a sort
of Hollywood uncoded occultism view.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I have no idea what's happened. I haven't watched
any of those kinds of shows since, Like, I think
the last one of that I've ever watched was like
the whole thing was the super Bowl back when it
was like Beyonce Black Lives Matter, and then then Coldplay
came out with like giant golden rainbow patch or giant
rainbow patches about world government and that was the last
super Bowl.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was wondering, like how you're still engage with
that stuff, because once you isolate what they're kind of doing,
like it almost becomes almost like a gimmick where you
almost don't even take it. I think it's serious. I
think it's serious as far as like demonic stuff. But
I always I'm always wondering this, like how much I
put into their really serious people about this versus it's
like this cultural thing that has like demonic undertones to it,
but they're all not fully aware of what they're doing.
Speaker 5: Well, that's I think that happens at times for sure.
I mean I think like Coldplayer, just like you know,
you buy them off and they play and they do.
They promote rainbows and the New World Order for money.
But I mean, if I forgot about the Olympics, I
mean that that was very anti Christian occult Jacob, and
so the Olympics stuff was pretty crazy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that was a I always thought of that. People
asked me, and like some of their defenders were like, well, no,
you know, Christianity has these visuals that are downstream from
previous visuals and they're just promoting the previous visuals. Well, no,
you can't really separate these two as far as how
people perceive them in public now. But then I was thinking,
you know, how much of this stuff do you think
is a troll versus there's an actual concerted sort of
demonic warfare or they just know they're going to upset
people and then upset is going to bring eyes to
more of it.
Speaker 5: Like I always, I think some people are committed to
being a ritual action against the good. The good. Yeah,
and I think there's a lot of low level dumb
dumbs that eat it up and think that it dude.
Speaker 3: Just art, bro. Yeah, yeah, it's pretty gross. Well, I
really appreciate you jumping on if you're if you're doing
a space later. I'm sure many of us will show up.
The spaces are pretty fun. They have a different sort
of nature to them.
Speaker 5: I can't get. Yeah, you know it's weird. Yeah. Like
so if you're on Twitter, it's like it's its own vibe.
If you do a live stream debating with videos on TikTok,
it's a whole nother lower IQ level of vibe. Yeah
yeah said whereferent audience.
Speaker 3: Yeah yeah, so I'm going to do more of those
as well.
Speaker 5: But experience, I know you're trying to go, but no, no, no,
it is like me, it seems like they're crazy.
Speaker 3: It hurts my spirit. It's like I resent it and
also go well, like you saw. The only way for
me to really deal with that in long term doing
it is becoming like crystological and going as a character.
It's the only way I can do it. You know,
I've seen Andrew do it. He can do that and
just deal with that. I literally have a limit where
I just lose. I lose it, like I can't. I
can't do it, So I have to either do a character.
But on on Twitter, it's definitely attracts higher level exchanges,
you know.
Speaker 5: But now that where are you getting your pool of
atheists from. Is it from YouTube crowds?
Speaker 3: I have no Actually I'm still just starting, so my goal.
Speaker 5: Only get breakfast tacos. Did he come from?
Speaker 3: Oh oh yeah, yeah, Well I think breakfast tacos is
basically from when I did arguments against atheism one, two,
and three pretty much was tossed around as a hot
potato in the atheist communities like oh, look at this dork. Oh,
I can't wait to debunk this, so they eventually got
their eyes on me, which is very effective. Like if
you do Jay, you've done a bunch of anti atheist arguments,
if you like, just tag all of them, like not
that you want that attention because it really it really
brings in low tier stuff, which I always say, well,
Jay's currently above this right now, but I can do this.
I can deal because you're just gonna be like, yeah, dude,
you'r goober, move on, and and you're gonna try to
get into higher level stuff. I'm still you know, you know,
quote Baptism through fire dealing with these people. But it's
certainly fun because breakfast tacos, it's hilarious to go in
and just annihilate to the level I can do it.
Speaker 5: So of these perish I listened to about half of
that of you and him, and then I got to
the point where I was like, I can't listen to
this guy anymore.
Speaker 3: He can't well, he's just yelling and screaming. I'm just
not answering very basic questions. By the way, did you
want to talk about that really quick? Because I know
I sent you his silly stuff and it's like, I
don't even expect you to give it a wink.
Speaker 8: But uh.
Speaker 3: The argument is this, Jay, premise one, everything that we
observe to exist comes from previous stuff arises, sorryrises, right, Okay,
premise to the universe exists. Conclusion the universe comes from
previous rises from previous stuff. Now I went three different
angles to completely destroy this. What is the main one?
You would would have gone right away from this or
from this?
Speaker 5: Well right away. It reminds me of what we were
talking about when I first came in today with you,
which was, well, this seems to be making kind of
an almost universal claim about states of affairs. I don't
know how you have any access to our knowledge of that. Yeah,
so this sounds like a universal law, Like.
Speaker 3: He says inductive, he says induction. He said, Jay, I'm
using an adoctive argument, right, that's what he says.
Speaker 5: I'm using, right, But induction can never get you to
your universal state of affairs, right, And he said it's
not lawlike.
Speaker 3: No, he would say, he's not making an argument of
certainty or universal claims about states of affairs. But you
have to because to say there's a past, you can't
you're not using induction to us to come to the
conclusion of the regularity of the past, you have to
assume that, right, that there's things.
Speaker 5: In other words, he's basically saying to reduce this to absurdity,
he's just saying that the stuff that I've ever observed
comes from other thoughts, which is basically to say, not
much question.
Speaker 3: It doesn't. Actually I did a swap out of his argument.
If his argument is everything we see today quote stuff, right,
because that would be stuff arises from stuff. Okay, stuff
arises from stuff. Premise one universe exists, Well, what's the universe?
Stuff stuff exists. That's that's pretty much the translation. The
conclusion is stuff arises from stelf So you know, he's
positing something as an inductive argument when really it's just
a circular argument that starts.
Speaker 5: With the You could also critique it as really a
meaningless statement.
Speaker 3: It is, it's just gibberish.
Speaker 5: Yeah, so everything, it's like saying everything comes from something
and then that produces more things stuff. Yeah, and what
is that tall us about the world. Nothing.
Speaker 3: It tells us nothing, which is why it's like a parody.
Speaker 5: P A. R. I. T.
Speaker 3: Y of I think the colomb this is where he's
run off with this. Uh, these sort of components that
go back in time and have this initial cause or whatever.
Stuff comes from stuff. But again, my another critique I
had jay is stuff arising from.
Speaker 5: Stuff arising as a process.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, problem.
Speaker 5: You could also.
Speaker 1: Are there.
Speaker 5: You froze? There? Are you there?
Speaker 3: Yep? Keep freezing?
Speaker 5: That's okay. Also, basically you could just run through everything
that Hume raises as a major issue at critique any
position like that, Like, Okay, how do you know that
the stuff that you're using as a mental conceptual thing
and then you're saying there's a causal relationship of it
producing or causing more stuff? How do you know that
there's this stuff in the external world? And how do
you know that there's actually causation in the external world
because you haven't observed that.
Speaker 3: So he says circular arguments and tautologies are only allowed. No,
we accept tautologies of language. We'd accept using logic, but
the justification is what we're really asking for. So, like,
even if we granted you some sort of like linguistic circularity,
like you know, a tree is a tree, we know
what we're referring to, will allow it or whatever? I
would disagree with this that when a Christian's a Christian
does a circular argument, right, well, we would say and
correct me if I'm wrong. Jay, Here is that if
you posit God, if you posit any ultimate necessary grounding
for all things, I don't think you can get away
with what you're calling circular or ultimacy, like some ultimacy
that you have to appeal to eventually. So you're just
saying circularity wrong. But why you know why is why
circularity right? Do you want to respond to.
Speaker 5: Me's seeing the point that, like as FDA was saying
the other day, I mean, if you're talking about in
normal day to day conversations about this or that thing
tru or false, you can't commit a circular argument. But
when you're talking about the final court of appeal for
anybody's worldview or their starting point. Everybody will have a
self referencing, self authenticating, recursive starting point. And we're saying
that that's true for everybody, right, And the only other
option if you don't believe that is to pause to
some kind of self evidence, which is very easy to
refute to show that no, actually you are believing in
some kind of self referencing, recursive thing. And that's the
whole point. When we talk about Girdell in completeness, theorems
or the limitations of any system, they ultimately they become
self referencing. So we're saying that's true for everybody. Atheists, materialists,
christian they're all self referencing world views because it's inescapable.
So we're not saying that we are allowed to have
fallacies and atheists aren't.
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, because fallacy is actually referencing a particular kind
of system of logic. Where you reject fallacy a circularity
like well Emmanuel says, not all circularity ends up being
viciously quote viciously or whatever, But that gets into a
newer debli.
Speaker 5: Yeah, fallacies are not allowed at the normal level of
logic and argumentation. But when you ask metalogical questions about
how does logic itself work? What's the logic of logic,
then everyone will be forced into some sort of self
reference saying recursive position.
Speaker 3: That's the point, gotcha?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Well, by the way, the guy who just said that,
I had a little exchange with him on the UH
on this channel and on the X base, and he
said he was he couldn't be sure he's not an apple.
So I mean, you know, I usually I usually UH
start with are you you know, to what extent you're
certain you're not an apple? And then we can get
into the circularity of Christianity. Cool, Well, everybody who's listening,
go follow J Dyer or J Dyer or is it
Jay's analysis? What's the title of your And then yeah.
Speaker 5: I think I think I'm pretty much in a mood
to debate, so we're going to open it up here.
Speaker 3: All right, we got Jay in the mood for a debate,
So go over there, Big Tech if you want to
debate Jay. I know he was on and you click
the link. I wanted to go through this with Jay
without any interruptions or cross talk. If you want to
debate him big tech, go for it. Go over to
Jay and and do that is as.
Speaker 5: Well as everyone. I'll have it up in the next
thirty forty five minutes.
Speaker 3: Okay, man, all right, thanks a lot. I'll see Oh yeah,
no problem, okay, cool, Thank you Jay, and I'll just
check these chats before I head off. I got a
fifteen dollars bob chat from Glenn Hall fifteen little Krabby's
for a master. Thank you, Thank you for the native krabbies,
Native Krabbys. We'll just creat universe. Okay, I've searched that.
I got that. Let me just check one more thing
over here and uh, and then I'll leave you guys
to do it. Okay, make sure uh. If you want
to support the stream, become a member super chat or
if you're hearing this after the fact and got a
lot of good stuff from this. If you want to
support the channel, go to bob chats dot com. Uh,
and I will be I will see your donation there
and I will read your comment on the next stream.
Twenty dollars came in for Jay and jibs. Sharp analysis
of worldview is always a great duo. Yeah, it's always
great when he can jump on. He's a busy dude,
but it's always a fun talk.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 3: Well, if you guys want to watch big Tech, go
over to Jay Dyer. Go over there. Now, I'm not
gonna send you to a different stream right now because
it's not set up, but and hit the like button.
There's four hundred and thirty nine of you, now, please
hit the like. It really helps.
Speaker 1: A lot.
Speaker 3: And then I'm gonna go see if there's a I'm
gonna go to like a trampoline place or something, you
know what I mean. Oh, whoops, I forgot