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