# 2025-03-02 LIVE DEBATE \[Welcome to the Copium Den\]

An episode of [Deconstruction Zone](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1837730286), 4 Sep 2025, 4 h 30 min.

Audio: https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/67637891/2025_03_02_live_debate_welcome_to_the_copium_den.mp3

Live debating every theist on the planet. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Get Member Perks: https://www.youtube.com/@Deconstruction_Zone/join https://patreon.com/Deconstruction_Zone --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUPPORT THE STREAM: https://venmo.com/u/JHCOFFEEFUND https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/JHCOFFEEFUND https://cash.app/$JHCOFFEEFUND --------------------------------------------------------------------- SOCIAL MEDIA LINKS: https://www.tiktok.com/@deconstruction.zone https://www.youtube.com/@Deconstruction_Zone https://www.youtube.com/@DZDebates https://www.twitch.tv/deconstructionzone_ https://www.instagram.com/deconstruction_zone/ https://clapperapp.com/Justin_DZ https://x.com/Justin_DZ_ https://discord.com/invite/WmeAmrhkxZ https://linktr.ee/justin_____ Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/deconstruction-zone--6451535/support.

## Transcript

[0:00] Speaker 1: Should be live. Welcome in, guys, shop, have all the
[0:06] Speaker 1: streams live. We double check make sure everything's working. I
[0:13] Speaker 1: got to change the chat real quick. Shoot on the
[0:20] Speaker 1: on my stream labs feed. Hold on, weird, stream labs
[0:47] Speaker 1: is not showing my chat. Welcome in those guys. Give
[0:50] Speaker 1: me a second to fix up stream Labs. The stream
[0:53] Speaker 1: Labs chat right now is whack. Read just a second,
[1:05] Speaker 1: we're gonna have I don't know why my audio is
[1:17] Speaker 1: doubling either. This happened yesterday for some reason at the
[1:20] Speaker 1: beginning of the stream. Did it went away? It's really weird.
[1:28] Speaker 1: So weird that'll begin audio doubling. Let me restart my headphones.
[1:55] Speaker 1: All right, Well, we'll see that takes care of the audio.
[1:58] Speaker 1: My headphones should be back on. Wait a second and
[2:02] Speaker 1: see if my audio doubling is still doubling. There's always
[2:09] Speaker 1: a new problem, you know what I mean, Like it's
[2:12] Speaker 1: never things can't just work anyways. I think the audio
[2:20] Speaker 1: is working the way it's supposed to at the moment,
[2:22] Speaker 1: so I think we're good to go.
[2:23] Speaker 2: There.
[2:24] Speaker 1: Actually I forgot what I was doing. Yeah, I was
[2:26] Speaker 1: gonna adjust a chat real quick. On there I go.
[2:36] Speaker 1: Now I can see everyone's comments. Sorry, guys, I had
[2:39] Speaker 1: to adjust the chat real quick so that I can
[2:43] Speaker 1: see all the YouTube comments that were on stream. Now
[2:46] Speaker 1: we're good to go. I can see everyone's comments, and
[2:49] Speaker 1: we should be ready to open up the guest boxes.
[2:53] Speaker 1: Video Ninja is open. If you're on YouTube, there's a
[2:56] Speaker 1: link to join the discussion in the distribution of the video.
[3:00] Speaker 1: If you're on TikTok, you already know how to join
[3:03] Speaker 1: the discussion. You just have to hit that join button,
[3:06] Speaker 1: that guests request button. And to the nameless person in
[3:11] Speaker 1: the comments, that's spamming. You got served, bro. It's okay
[3:14] Speaker 1: if your brain is too tiny to comprehend what happened
[3:18] Speaker 1: during that conversation. But there's no spamming in this chat.
[3:21] Speaker 1: So if you want to get served, you're welcome to
[3:26] Speaker 1: get into the guest box and see how far you
[3:28] Speaker 1: can get. I guess you don't have the courage for it.
[3:31] Speaker 1: If I had the guests, you don't have the courage
[3:33] Speaker 1: to last even two minutes in the guest box. All right,
[3:38] Speaker 1: let me grab our first guest and guys, welcome in Dexter.
[3:42] Speaker 1: Thank you so much for sending out five Deconstruction Zone
[3:46] Speaker 1: memberships right off the rip. Let me get my screen
[3:51] Speaker 1: loaded real quick. One second. I almost got everything set
[3:56] Speaker 1: up and ready. There we go now super cheer to
[4:00] Speaker 1: work and Dexter, thank you so much. I really appreciate
[4:03] Speaker 1: that setting out five Deconstruction Zone memberships very generous and
[4:08] Speaker 1: big w to Ed as well, gifting out five Deconstruction
[4:12] Speaker 1: Zone memberships very generous, guys. I really appreciate that. Everyone
[4:15] Speaker 1: who's got a deconstruction zone a deconstructor. Oh, I see
[4:22] Speaker 1: the problem here, why my audio was doubling. I got
[4:24] Speaker 1: to disconnect my phone. There we go, there we go.
[4:32] Speaker 3: Cool.
[4:33] Speaker 1: Yeah, everyone who's got a Deconstruction Zone membership on the
[4:37] Speaker 1: elite level on YouTube's got access to the cheat sheet.
[4:40] Speaker 1: And Jake how thank you so much for the super
[4:42] Speaker 1: chat and the heads up saying that the YouTube is good.
[4:45] Speaker 1: I appreciate that. I suspect the audio should be fixed
[4:47] Speaker 1: now I think my phone was interfering. And Chris, thank
[4:50] Speaker 1: you so much for the fight. Our super chat says,
[4:52] Speaker 1: is it true that Doug is the brute fact that
[4:55] Speaker 1: substantiates causality and logic? It is true, Doug, Sharon Stone
[4:59] Speaker 1: and Rocky they are a triad and bads, thank you
[5:04] Speaker 1: so much for the super chat says it's past midnight,
[5:07] Speaker 1: so I'll have to catch the replay tomorrow. But technically
[5:10] Speaker 1: it's still Sunday, so I must render under Doug. What
[5:13] Speaker 1: is Doug's happy cooking? Well, thank you so much. I
[5:16] Speaker 1: really appreciate that. Bads, thank you for supporting the channel
[5:19] Speaker 1: and praise Doug. Let's get our first guest in here. Hello,
[5:29] Speaker 1: welcome in ESUS. How you doing, I'm doing good to
[5:32] Speaker 1: thank you all about you? I'm doing good. Thank you
[5:35] Speaker 1: for asking? Are you at least eighteen? And do you
[5:39] Speaker 1: believe in God?
[5:42] Speaker 2: Yeah? And now I was wondering, why'd you say God's fictional?
[5:46] Speaker 1: Because you can't demonstrate that God exists outside of your imagination.
[5:53] Speaker 1: I mean, unless I'm wrong, can you demonstrate that God exists?
[5:57] Speaker 2: I'll try my best spot just to agree on terms.
[6:02] Speaker 2: What is God?
[6:04] Speaker 1: Well, God is typically some kind of a creator entity
[6:07] Speaker 1: that is responsible for bringing all things into existence something
[6:11] Speaker 1: like that.
[6:13] Speaker 2: Yes, so we can just say like an ultimate being
[6:17] Speaker 2: that created the universe basically.
[6:19] Speaker 1: Although I would say in most models, God is typically
[6:23] Speaker 1: also like a mind, like he thinks and has emotions
[6:28] Speaker 1: and things like that that still fit your conception.
[6:32] Speaker 2: Yeah, of course God has a mind, God think lack
[6:35] Speaker 2: has thoughts, and I'd say, by definition, would be an
[6:38] Speaker 2: ultimate being.
[6:40] Speaker 4: Cool.
[6:40] Speaker 2: Great, it's inconceivable, I guess, and might be a bit unrelated,
[6:45] Speaker 2: But I guess I'd say something that is, something that
[6:49] Speaker 2: necessarily exists, is greater than something that does not necessarily exist.
[6:54] Speaker 4: So was that?
[6:56] Speaker 2: Sorry?
[6:57] Speaker 1: I mean you're saying that something that necessarily you exist
[7:00] Speaker 1: is greater than something that isn't existing just by necessity.
[7:05] Speaker 2: That does not necessarily exist.
[7:08] Speaker 1: I mean, do you exist?
[7:12] Speaker 2: Yeah?
[7:14] Speaker 1: Do you exist just out of necessity? Or is it
[7:16] Speaker 1: just happens to be the case that you do exist?
[7:21] Speaker 2: I guess, But if we're talking necessity of supposition, I
[7:24] Speaker 2: guess in that sense, Yeah, but I wouldn't be like
[7:28] Speaker 2: I wouldn't have to exist in all possible worlds. But
[7:31] Speaker 2: when we talk about something that actually does exist inside
[7:35] Speaker 2: of reality, of course it has been actualized, it has
[7:42] Speaker 2: the property of being real. Let's say, all.
[7:44] Speaker 1: Right, well, I think you and I have the property
[7:46] Speaker 1: of being real, but I don't think that your God does.
[7:49] Speaker 1: So what'd be the argument that would lead me to
[7:51] Speaker 1: believe that God is real?
[7:55] Speaker 2: Yes? Like, of course we can see what we think
[7:59] Speaker 2: on this one and stuff like that. But of course
[8:02] Speaker 2: I would say that something that necessarily exists or exists
[8:05] Speaker 2: in reality is greater than something that does not necessarily exist.
[8:09] Speaker 2: So if God, what's it could exists only as an
[8:14] Speaker 2: idea in the mind, then we can conceive of something
[8:18] Speaker 2: greater than God. But we cannot conceive of something greater
[8:21] Speaker 2: than God. So if God exists inside of the mind,
[8:26] Speaker 2: then God exists in reality.
[8:30] Speaker 1: I cannot exist. I can think of unicorns, but doesn't
[8:33] Speaker 1: mean unicorns exist.
[8:36] Speaker 2: Yeah, so how is that analogous.
[8:39] Speaker 1: It's not analogous. It's just a statement of fact. Just
[8:41] Speaker 1: because you can think of something doesn't mean that the
[8:43] Speaker 1: thing that you think of is true.
[8:46] Speaker 2: That That wasn't my point. And the thing is is
[8:49] Speaker 2: it has in order for you to bring up the unoconpoint,
[8:52] Speaker 2: it would have to be analogous. If you're saying it's
[8:54] Speaker 2: not analogous, then it's not really relevant to the discussion.
[8:57] Speaker 1: I don't think you would know what the word analogous means.
[9:00] Speaker 1: Our guess is when an analogy is mapping on to
[9:03] Speaker 1: the thing that it's supposed to be analogizing. I'm not
[9:06] Speaker 1: using an analogy. I'm just making a statement of fact,
[9:09] Speaker 1: which is that just because you can conceive of something
[9:13] Speaker 1: doesn't mean that the thing that you can conceive of exists.
[9:18] Speaker 2: Yeah. But if we're conceived, if like we're agreeing on
[9:21] Speaker 2: a definition of God, which is the greatest thing conceivable?
[9:26] Speaker 2: If the greatest thing conceivable exists only as an idea
[9:30] Speaker 2: in a mind and doesn't exist that side of it,
[9:33] Speaker 2: it generates a sort of contradiction because the contradiction, the
[9:38] Speaker 2: contradiction is that we can imagine something greater than the
[9:42] Speaker 2: greatest thing to ever exists.
[9:44] Speaker 1: It's not a contradiction worth the P and that P.
[9:47] Speaker 2: There is a P and P which would follow from
[9:50] Speaker 2: maybe a premise to that something that necessary that exists
[9:54] Speaker 2: in reality is greater than something that does not.
[9:57] Speaker 1: You haven't really said anything worth the contradiction in believing
[10:00] Speaker 1: in something and or not believing in something. These are
[10:03] Speaker 1: just mental states.
[10:05] Speaker 2: I just told you.
[10:06] Speaker 1: I don't think it did.
[10:08] Speaker 2: Yeah, because, like we said, the greatest thing. If we
[10:12] Speaker 2: say that we can the greatest thing conceivable can only
[10:16] Speaker 2: exist as an idea in a mind, then we can
[10:18] Speaker 2: conceive something greater than the greatest thing. Because even if
[10:22] Speaker 2: we look at premise to or my second premise something.
[10:26] Speaker 1: I didn't ever hear premise number one yet. Also chat
[10:29] Speaker 1: thank you so much for the hands up big w
[10:31] Speaker 1: chet and for the king you.
[10:32] Speaker 2: Can give you. Would you like me to say them
[10:36] Speaker 2: all again?
[10:37] Speaker 1: Or we'll start at premise number one?
[10:41] Speaker 2: Yes, so premise one would just be defining what God is.
[10:44] Speaker 1: So God is what the definitions aren't premises?
[10:48] Speaker 2: Yeah, So in the first premise, we're going to like
[10:52] Speaker 2: elaborate on what God is. So I'll say the first premise,
[10:55] Speaker 2: which is God is the greatest thing conceivable as he's
[10:58] Speaker 2: an ultimate being by what we agreed on by definition.
[11:03] Speaker 1: Yeah, but there's no definition strictly of like what God is.
[11:06] Speaker 1: We're just going by your definition. So I agree. Like,
[11:09] Speaker 1: if you want to say God is the greatest conceivable being,
[11:13] Speaker 1: then yeah, I can agree to that premise. The question
[11:16] Speaker 1: is that can be conceive of it? The question is
[11:17] Speaker 1: whether or not it's real.
[11:19] Speaker 2: Okay, that's fine, sir. You've agreed to premise one. So
[11:22] Speaker 2: premise too would be something that necessarily exists in reality
[11:27] Speaker 2: is greater than something that does not. No, so you
[11:32] Speaker 2: disagree with that.
[11:33] Speaker 1: Existing by necessity has nothing to do with whether or
[11:36] Speaker 1: not something is greater than something else.
[11:39] Speaker 2: Yeah, So what does the term greater mean to you?
[11:42] Speaker 5: Uh?
[11:43] Speaker 1: Like, typically we would give it attributes like more powerful
[11:47] Speaker 1: or you know, having a different set of capabilities. So like,
[11:52] Speaker 1: if I was greater, I would say my qualities would
[11:55] Speaker 1: be you know, more complete, Like I would be all
[12:00] Speaker 1: love something rather than just part of it.
[12:03] Speaker 2: Okay, So when we talk about greatness, we can understand
[12:07] Speaker 2: that in a form of completion. Basically, is that what
[12:10] Speaker 2: we're saying.
[12:11] Speaker 1: I think it's not a terrible way to say it, right.
[12:15] Speaker 2: That's fair enough. So if we look at something that
[12:19] Speaker 2: does not necessarily exist in contrast to the idea of
[12:22] Speaker 2: something that does necessarily exist, we can see that the
[12:26] Speaker 2: thing that necessarily exists would be more complete than the
[12:31] Speaker 2: thing that doesn't.
[12:32] Speaker 1: No, that's not true.
[12:35] Speaker 2: Why is that not true?
[12:36] Speaker 1: Why would it be more complete just because it exists
[12:40] Speaker 1: by necessity? Do you I don't know if you know
[12:42] Speaker 1: what that that phrase means.
[12:44] Speaker 2: You can't answer a question of a question because you
[12:46] Speaker 2: just made a claim.
[12:48] Speaker 1: I did, and I just did it. I don't think
[12:50] Speaker 1: you know what it means to exist by necessity? What
[12:53] Speaker 1: do you think that means?
[12:55] Speaker 6: So?
[12:56] Speaker 2: Do you mind answering a question? I asked, I.
[12:59] Speaker 1: Don't even know what queserositymore, do you know what the
[13:02] Speaker 1: phrase means to exist by necessity? Because I don't think
[13:05] Speaker 1: you and I are using the same meaning of that phrase.
[13:08] Speaker 2: Would you like me to repeat my questions? Say, I understand.
[13:11] Speaker 1: I want you to actually define what you mean by
[13:14] Speaker 1: existing by necessity, because you and I obviously have different definitions.
[13:19] Speaker 2: Yeah. So when we talk about something existing by necessity,
[13:25] Speaker 2: or something that exists in reality in contrast to something
[13:29] Speaker 2: that doesn't, we can define necessity as something that has
[13:33] Speaker 2: to be the case.
[13:34] Speaker 1: We can say, right, exactly, something that has to be
[13:37] Speaker 1: the case because like it couldn't be another way. Means
[13:40] Speaker 1: that it exists by necessity, but it doesn't mean that
[13:42] Speaker 1: it is more powerful. We could find something in the
[13:45] Speaker 1: universe that exists by necessity without that thing being the
[13:50] Speaker 1: most powerful entity. Like, yes, we can say dark energy
[13:54] Speaker 1: exists by necessity.
[13:58] Speaker 2: Can you explain how that's the case?
[14:00] Speaker 1: Or yeah, because it exists by necessity. We could say
[14:03] Speaker 1: that even if we don't have evidence for dark energy,
[14:06] Speaker 1: dark energy must exist by necessity or else everything else
[14:10] Speaker 1: falls apart. But that doesn't mean that dark energy is
[14:13] Speaker 1: a god or the most powerful thing.
[14:15] Speaker 7: In the universe.
[14:16] Speaker 2: Can you prove Can you prove that claim or.
[14:19] Speaker 1: It's just a definition, it's not something that needs proven.
[14:23] Speaker 2: So you said we can say dark energy is necessary.
[14:28] Speaker 1: No, I'm giving you an example. I'm saying that if
[14:30] Speaker 1: we have dark energy as something that exists necessarily, even
[14:35] Speaker 1: though we don't have like direct evidence of it, although
[14:37] Speaker 1: I think there is, But if we assume that it
[14:40] Speaker 1: only exists by necessity, that doesn't mean that dark energy
[14:43] Speaker 1: is the most powerful thing in the world.
[14:46] Speaker 2: But that's an assumption. That's it. You're assuming dark energy
[14:49] Speaker 2: is the most like is necessary in that example. That
[14:53] Speaker 2: doesn't really have much to do with my point.
[14:56] Speaker 1: No, My point is that things can exist by necessity.
[15:00] Speaker 1: There are lots of things that are existing by necessity.
[15:04] Speaker 1: That doesn't make them gods.
[15:07] Speaker 2: There can't be loads of necessary beings existing.
[15:12] Speaker 1: I didn't say beings. You said things or I said things.
[15:18] Speaker 2: Yes, a being is a thing that exists by my life,
[15:21] Speaker 2: That's what I mean.
[15:22] Speaker 1: When I say beings are things and not all things
[15:25] Speaker 1: are beings.
[15:26] Speaker 2: I'm saying what my definition of being is a thing
[15:29] Speaker 2: that exists. That's what I meant. But even if you
[15:32] Speaker 2: say things, there can't be multiple things that are necessary that, yes.
[15:37] Speaker 1: There can, there can be multiple things that are necessary
[15:39] Speaker 1: for existence, Yes there can.
[15:42] Speaker 2: I explain to you why that wouldn't be the case,
[15:45] Speaker 2: and we can hopefully get back to the premise. So,
[15:49] Speaker 2: of course, like when we think of talk about.
[15:52] Speaker 1: Unnecessary how often do you have these conversations?
[15:58] Speaker 2: I think that's a bit irrelevant.
[16:00] Speaker 1: I think it's really relevant. I'm actually really curious how
[16:02] Speaker 1: often you do this? Please don't you don't do this often?
[16:07] Speaker 2: That's irrelevant. So I explained the other point I was
[16:13] Speaker 2: talking about. So we couldn't have loads of necessary beings
[16:16] Speaker 2: that exist or things.
[16:17] Speaker 1: I didn't say necessary beings.
[16:19] Speaker 2: I said those things or things.
[16:22] Speaker 1: I said, I said things, not beings.
[16:24] Speaker 2: Yeah, I said all things. So if you didn't say beings.
[16:28] Speaker 8: That's right.
[16:28] Speaker 1: So the point is that the point is something being
[16:33] Speaker 1: necessary doesn't mean that it's God just.
[16:36] Speaker 2: So I can just I'll just finish in a sex
[16:39] Speaker 2: or the point is that core. So if we had
[16:43] Speaker 2: multiple necessary things, like there would be multiple purely actual
[16:49] Speaker 2: beings that exist, and they would all have to be distinct.
[16:53] Speaker 7: In some way.
[16:54] Speaker 1: Keep you keep going back to beings.
[16:57] Speaker 2: When I please finish, not if you keep it not
[16:59] Speaker 2: if you.
[16:59] Speaker 1: Keep contradicting yourself. We're not talking about beings yet, we're
[17:03] Speaker 1: talking about anything that is necessary, and something necessary doesn't
[17:08] Speaker 1: necessitate a being.
[17:10] Speaker 2: Yeah, just let me finish real quick, and you probably understand.
[17:14] Speaker 2: So the problem with saying that there's more, There can
[17:17] Speaker 2: be multiple necessary things is that these are necessary thing
[17:23] Speaker 2: would be purely actual.
[17:24] Speaker 3: It doesn't.
[17:25] Speaker 1: We've already covered this something being necessary, Does it be
[17:28] Speaker 1: that is perfect?
[17:30] Speaker 2: Am I allowed to finish? No? So I'm not allowed
[17:34] Speaker 2: to tell you my point in it.
[17:35] Speaker 6: No.
[17:36] Speaker 1: I need you to literally stop going back to talking
[17:38] Speaker 1: points that we just talked about five minutes ago. Let
[17:41] Speaker 1: me finish, because you're ridiculous. You're ridiculous, and you're annoying.
[17:47] Speaker 2: Yeah, you can feel annoyed, but if you're here for
[17:49] Speaker 2: a conversation, it's better to let people finish.
[17:52] Speaker 1: What I want you to do is address the points
[17:53] Speaker 1: that we already talked about and that go back to
[17:56] Speaker 1: them and tell you weteral we just talked about this.
[18:01] Speaker 1: Something existing by necessity doesn't necessitate that it's a being,
[18:05] Speaker 1: and it doesn't necessitate that it's all powerful. Yeah, so
[18:10] Speaker 1: it doesn't doesn't. It doesn't even fit the definition.
[18:19] Speaker 2: All right, Can we address the point that there can
[18:21] Speaker 2: be multiple necessary things because that's what I'm trying to
[18:25] Speaker 2: go for it respond to, but you're not letting me.
[18:27] Speaker 2: So the point is is that these all of these
[18:32] Speaker 2: necessary things would have to lack something that the others
[18:36] Speaker 2: don't in order to be huh why Well, in order
[18:42] Speaker 2: for a thing to be distinct from another thing, it
[18:44] Speaker 2: has to lack identity to that thing.
[18:46] Speaker 3: Do you agree?
[18:47] Speaker 1: Identity has nothing to do with powerfulness or completeness.
[18:52] Speaker 2: It has to do with you saying there can be
[18:54] Speaker 2: multiple necessary things existing, there can be yees. So the
[19:00] Speaker 2: point is that these multiple necessary things in your example
[19:04] Speaker 2: would lack something to make them distinct from one another,
[19:09] Speaker 2: and they wouldn't be purely actual.
[19:12] Speaker 1: And literally the quite opposite of that. They they literally
[19:15] Speaker 1: are distinct from each other. That's why there are multiple
[19:19] Speaker 1: necessary things because they are distinct from each other.
[19:23] Speaker 2: Yeah, a necessary being possesses all perfections and it's purely actual.
[19:27] Speaker 2: Like I've said, so, if there's multiple necessary beings dating again.
[19:31] Speaker 1: We're not talking about beings. I don't know why you
[19:34] Speaker 1: keep going back to beings.
[19:37] Speaker 2: If you want you.
[19:40] Speaker 1: If you say beings one more time during our conversation
[19:43] Speaker 1: of necessity. I'm just gonna boot you.
[19:46] Speaker 2: You can boot me whenever you like.
[19:47] Speaker 1: Okay, So we're not talking about beings. We're talking about
[19:50] Speaker 1: just anything at all that is.
[19:52] Speaker 2: What does that work? What does that word mean to
[19:55] Speaker 2: you when I say that? Like, maybe there's a misunderstanding here.
[19:58] Speaker 1: A being is sentient, that's not what being means. Yes,
[20:04] Speaker 1: a being is sentient being. That's not You're literally ruining
[20:09] Speaker 1: words right now. You're talking about being as a sentient
[20:14] Speaker 1: and we're talking about beings, nouns things, things that have
[20:19] Speaker 1: being are sentient. That is different than true, That is
[20:23] Speaker 1: different from something that is being. Being is a true?
[20:28] Speaker 1: Being is a verb? A being is a sentient entity.
[20:34] Speaker 2: That's not true. A being is not is not sentient
[20:38] Speaker 2: by definition. There are beings that are sentient, I agree,
[20:43] Speaker 2: But a being by virtue of being a being is
[20:46] Speaker 2: not to be sentient. So a being, like by by
[20:50] Speaker 2: like what I'm defining it is a thing that exists.
[20:53] Speaker 2: That's simply what I mean when I say being. So,
[20:56] Speaker 2: I wasn't a straw man in anything you've said.
[20:59] Speaker 1: So, like I've so everything in the world by your
[21:01] Speaker 1: definition is a being. So it's lost all meaning.
[21:06] Speaker 2: How does that follow?
[21:08] Speaker 1: Because if a being is anything that exists, then the
[21:11] Speaker 1: word is now useless. How because it's just now a thing.
[21:16] Speaker 1: You've complated. You conflated the word.
[21:18] Speaker 2: Being with things. The word's useless though.
[21:22] Speaker 1: Because we're talking about things and you're conflating them to
[21:26] Speaker 1: be beings.
[21:28] Speaker 2: A being is a thing that exists by definition.
[21:32] Speaker 1: Literally everything, then just say a thing.
[21:37] Speaker 2: Yeah, everything is a being. Everything has being.
[21:40] Speaker 1: Okay, just just say thing, because in modern English, when
[21:44] Speaker 1: we use the word being like a being, we're typically
[21:47] Speaker 1: referring to something that is alive and sentient.
[21:50] Speaker 7: Yeah.
[21:50] Speaker 2: Look, I've literally given you a syllogism. I'm trying to
[21:53] Speaker 2: address this point right that you've said there can be
[21:57] Speaker 2: multiple necessary things, so we can get back to the
[21:59] Speaker 2: disc agism. So the point is multiple necessary things would
[22:06] Speaker 2: be a problem because a necessary thing has to be
[22:10] Speaker 2: purely actual, possess all perfections. But if no, it does not,
[22:16] Speaker 2: can I finish please? And then you can just respond
[22:19] Speaker 2: existing by necessity.
[22:22] Speaker 1: No, I'm wait, fucking a, I'm not gonna let your
[22:24] Speaker 1: word salad. Holy shit, some.
[22:26] Speaker 2: Word slid and I'm just going to try.
[22:28] Speaker 1: To something that exists by necessity, by no means necessitates
[22:34] Speaker 1: that it's pure act and for everyone here who doesn't
[22:37] Speaker 1: speak Philbro, being pure actors means that it's one hundred
[22:40] Speaker 1: percent complete, like like a god. Something that exists by
[22:45] Speaker 1: necessity doesn't have to be purely actual?
[22:49] Speaker 2: Yes it? Why not?
[22:51] Speaker 1: What's up, Jeff? You want part of this word salad?
[22:55] Speaker 2: Well, why not valid? Why there's something this necessarily existing?
[23:01] Speaker 2: Means that mean that it doesn't have to be?
[23:04] Speaker 1: Actually, why would it? Why would something existing by.
[23:07] Speaker 2: Necessity made that? You've made the claim, So.
[23:10] Speaker 1: Why would something existing by necessity require that it is
[23:14] Speaker 1: the most powerful thing? And I'm just asking you a
[23:18] Speaker 1: very easy question. It shouldn't be hard for you to answer.
[23:22] Speaker 1: The question is why does something that exists by necessity?
[23:25] Speaker 1: Why does it have to be the most powerful entity?
[23:30] Speaker 2: You've just made the claim that it doesn't, So can
[23:32] Speaker 2: you prove it?
[23:33] Speaker 6: No?
[23:33] Speaker 3: No, no, no, Well hold up on. So, just to
[23:35] Speaker 3: be clear, right now, you're saying that a necessary thing
[23:40] Speaker 3: and we're really equivocating on the thing and being so
[23:43] Speaker 3: I'm just going to use thing has to be purely
[23:46] Speaker 3: actual and has to have all perfection. I don't think
[23:49] Speaker 3: that follows. So can you can you provide an art well,
[23:55] Speaker 3: because I haven't seen an argument that shows that it follows.
[23:58] Speaker 3: I'm unconvinced. I'm agnostic on whether it's required.
[24:01] Speaker 2: Yeah, that's fine, so of course you can figure it
[24:04] Speaker 2: out from the host explanation.
[24:06] Speaker 3: But what is the what is the hold on? What
[24:08] Speaker 3: is the argument that a necessary thing requires like one
[24:12] Speaker 3: hundred like whatever you said, I don't even.
[24:14] Speaker 2: Know what like. I'm not talking to you now what
[24:16] Speaker 2: the host.
[24:18] Speaker 3: The look, it's a simple question. I'm not even like me.
[24:22] Speaker 2: To you at the host.
[24:23] Speaker 1: You're clearly talking to a guy that's talking to you
[24:26] Speaker 1: right now. You can cry about it all you want,
[24:28] Speaker 1: but that's what's happening.
[24:29] Speaker 2: I'm just trying to understand, bro.
[24:31] Speaker 1: I think you do understanding.
[24:35] Speaker 3: So what we're looking for, just to be clear, all
[24:38] Speaker 3: the extra meta is just listen hold on. The extra
[24:41] Speaker 3: meta is super boring for not just me, and for
[24:44] Speaker 3: Justin and definitely for Danny. Danny, do you find it boring?
[24:49] Speaker 6: No?
[24:50] Speaker 9: Yes, yes, what we're what we're you said something else, yes,
[24:55] Speaker 9: of course boring.
[24:56] Speaker 3: Yes, So just to make it an entertaining what we're
[25:00] Speaker 3: looking for is some argument where the conclusion is that
[25:03] Speaker 3: a necessary thing has to be all the attributes that
[25:08] Speaker 3: you listed.
[25:09] Speaker 2: Can we agree on what a necessary thing is?
[25:12] Speaker 3: I would say necessary would be like the not contingent,
[25:16] Speaker 3: meaning it exists in all possible worlds.
[25:19] Speaker 2: Exists in all possible words. The point is is that
[25:23] Speaker 2: if it exists in all possible words, it have to
[25:26] Speaker 2: be and you said it's not contingent, it'd have to
[25:29] Speaker 2: be the cause of all these contingent things.
[25:31] Speaker 3: No, look, my brain is fuzzy. Danny, can you help
[25:34] Speaker 3: me out with.
[25:34] Speaker 2: Some Hold on, I'm talking to.
[25:37] Speaker 3: My buddy, Danny. Hey, Danny. Underdeterminism, aren't all things necessary
[25:42] Speaker 3: in some sense?
[25:44] Speaker 9: That would be necessitarianism. Everything would be necessary, and determinism
[25:48] Speaker 9: is implied by necessitarianism. Okay, but there could be still
[25:52] Speaker 9: necessary things that are caused because it could be explained
[25:56] Speaker 9: by that necessary thing could be explained by necessary other
[26:01] Speaker 9: necessary thing, which which would make it necessary.
[26:04] Speaker 2: But how does that follow? How can how can multiple
[26:09] Speaker 2: necessary things exist?
[26:10] Speaker 3: It's just a transitive thing.
[26:12] Speaker 9: No contradiction. There's no contradiction in saying multiple necessary things
[26:15] Speaker 9: exist necessarily.
[26:16] Speaker 2: I think there is, because there's not. But now we
[26:21] Speaker 2: have just because unnecessary.
[26:24] Speaker 3: Hold on, hold on, I'm just giving a roadmap to
[26:26] Speaker 3: the audience. What we have now is two claims. We
[26:29] Speaker 3: have that necessary things require a set of attributes, and
[26:34] Speaker 3: then we have that there is some P and not
[26:37] Speaker 3: P implied by having multiple necessary things. So now now
[26:41] Speaker 3: we're now we're in the whole two arguments by my cam.
[26:47] Speaker 2: Yeah, so multiple necessary things, like I said to the host,
[26:51] Speaker 2: exist in the point is that a necessary thing would
[26:55] Speaker 2: possess all perfections?
[26:57] Speaker 9: And why that's what we want an argument for?
[26:59] Speaker 1: What is the argument saying that a necessary thing has
[27:03] Speaker 1: to be perfect in all attributes possible?
[27:08] Speaker 2: Yeah, because it's on cause to lack. I think we
[27:11] Speaker 2: agree that it's not contingent. It exists in all possible words,
[27:15] Speaker 2: and it has being that isn't received from another thing.
[27:18] Speaker 1: But just being non contingent doesn't mean that it possesses
[27:21] Speaker 1: all qualities.
[27:23] Speaker 2: Yeah, why not?
[27:24] Speaker 1: Why would it give me the argument for it?
[27:28] Speaker 2: You've made an argument, you've made.
[27:31] Speaker 1: I'm asking you for the argument that leads me to
[27:33] Speaker 1: your premise. So you've made You've made a premise based argument,
[27:39] Speaker 1: and I don't see founding one of your premises. And
[27:44] Speaker 1: you can burden shift all you want, but it's not
[27:46] Speaker 1: going to work here. So what I want you to
[27:49] Speaker 1: do is support your premise. Your premise was that something
[27:53] Speaker 1: that exists by necessity has to be perfect and complete
[27:57] Speaker 1: in all possible attributes. Please support that premier.
[28:01] Speaker 3: Look, and I'll sweeten the pot. Look, I'll sweeten the
[28:04] Speaker 3: deal for you. I have in my hand a set
[28:08] Speaker 3: of air pods, and in my metaphysic, in my metaphysical view,
[28:12] Speaker 3: these air pods exist in all possible worlds. They are necessary, right,
[28:16] Speaker 3: they exist in every possible world. You are now begging
[28:20] Speaker 3: the question against my view that. Okay, so I have
[28:25] Speaker 3: a metaphysical view that these air pods I have in
[28:28] Speaker 3: my hand are necessary. They actually exist in all possible worlds.
[28:32] Speaker 3: Any way that you calculate reality, we end up with
[28:35] Speaker 3: these air pods somewhere. They're necessary. So now you are
[28:38] Speaker 3: begging the question against my view that these air pods
[28:41] Speaker 3: are necessary. I want the argument that shows that it's
[28:44] Speaker 3: impossible for these air pods to be necessary while something
[28:47] Speaker 3: else is necessary.
[28:48] Speaker 2: Well, air pods have pots contingent.
[28:52] Speaker 3: Yeah, but the existence. Look, you're confused. The contingency of
[28:59] Speaker 3: the parts is irrelevant. When I say that their hold
[29:03] Speaker 3: on I don't want you to I don't want you
[29:05] Speaker 3: to get confused. In my metaphysical view, I'm calculating that
[29:09] Speaker 3: in all possible worlds, no matter how everything shakes out,
[29:13] Speaker 3: there will be air pods here. You can say that.
[29:17] Speaker 3: You can say that everything that happened before the air
[29:19] Speaker 3: pods is also necessary. You can say that there's a
[29:21] Speaker 3: brute contingency that causes these AirPods. Whatever you want. But
[29:25] Speaker 3: I just want an argument that shows that there's a
[29:27] Speaker 3: contradiction with my AirPods.
[29:30] Speaker 2: Well, your first point, I just reject it because there's
[29:34] Speaker 2: no problem of conceiving of a reality without airports. They're
[29:38] Speaker 2: clearly not necessary.
[29:40] Speaker 9: So they're not clearly not Hold on, wait, wait he
[29:44] Speaker 9: just said wait, he just used a conceivability principle. He said,
[29:47] Speaker 9: if I can conceive it not existing, then it's not necessary.
[29:51] Speaker 9: But we can conceive of God not existing.
[29:53] Speaker 2: So let me prove that.
[29:55] Speaker 9: Oh wait, go and give you argument.
[29:57] Speaker 3: You've just you can hold on, come out. This is
[30:00] Speaker 3: this is really now. This is sloppy because I just
[30:02] Speaker 3: don't stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop
[30:05] Speaker 3: stop stop. I told you that I have a metaphysical
[30:09] Speaker 3: view where these air pods talking. I want you to stop.
[30:13] Speaker 3: I'm going to show you where we are in a
[30:14] Speaker 3: dialectic and why it's sloppy. I just told you that
[30:17] Speaker 3: I can that I have a metaphysical view where my
[30:19] Speaker 3: AirPods are necessary, and you said you can conceive, and
[30:22] Speaker 3: I said, I want, I want an argument that they're
[30:24] Speaker 3: that they're not necessary. And instead of providing that argument,
[30:27] Speaker 3: you just said you can conceive of a view of
[30:30] Speaker 3: a world where there's no air pods. Great, Now Danny
[30:33] Speaker 3: provided a parody argument, like he just said, he just
[30:36] Speaker 3: used parody reasoning to do the same thing with God.
[30:38] Speaker 3: And now you while you side stop talking, stop talking
[30:44] Speaker 3: about talking, stop talking, while you side your burden of
[30:49] Speaker 3: giving an argument, you now want an argument for your God.
[30:52] Speaker 3: So you see how that's sloppy.
[30:55] Speaker 2: Yes, so the probably that's another only point I gave
[30:58] Speaker 2: because I alwayso said that airports have parts, so they
[31:02] Speaker 2: can't be necessary. That was one of the things I said.
[31:05] Speaker 9: And claim though, but that's just a claim, Okay, Yeah,
[31:11] Speaker 9: you just make claims. You don't get very good arguments
[31:13] Speaker 9: at all.
[31:14] Speaker 2: Yeah you can feel that way, but you've made a
[31:17] Speaker 2: claim that you.
[31:18] Speaker 9: Can you know the difference between a claim and an argument. Yeah, okay,
[31:23] Speaker 9: when you said that the things that have parts must
[31:26] Speaker 9: be contingent? Is that just a claim?
[31:31] Speaker 2: Well, do you want me to give that?
[31:34] Speaker 4: Do you want to argument?
[31:36] Speaker 7: You want?
[31:38] Speaker 2: So you want an argument for.
[31:40] Speaker 1: Can you actually answer this question or you're just going
[31:42] Speaker 1: to pivot burn checked all the time.
[31:44] Speaker 2: I'm trying to clarify.
[31:46] Speaker 1: So what we need for you is to actually answer
[31:48] Speaker 1: questions when they're asked, Like we're answering your questions when
[31:51] Speaker 1: you ask them. Danny asks you, like a really easy question,
[31:56] Speaker 1: are you capable of answering it?
[31:57] Speaker 2: You're not answer You're not answering my question.
[32:00] Speaker 1: You just make assessions, and then we're still waiting for
[32:03] Speaker 1: you to answer the last question that Danny just asked.
[32:06] Speaker 1: That's where we're at in the dialectic. So rather than
[32:08] Speaker 1: pivoting and moving on to something else, I'd like you
[32:11] Speaker 1: to actually answer his question. If you don't remember what
[32:13] Speaker 1: his question is because you're reapping, it's okay, we can
[32:16] Speaker 1: repeat it.
[32:17] Speaker 2: Yeah, you've made me forget it.
[32:18] Speaker 9: So question was right? So the question was when you
[32:23] Speaker 9: said that only necessary that that it's something as parts,
[32:27] Speaker 9: it has to be contingent, right, was that just a claim?
[32:31] Speaker 2: You have an argument for that if you want?
[32:34] Speaker 9: Okay, give me the argument.
[32:37] Speaker 3: Yeah, so.
[32:40] Speaker 2: What's it called? If God is If God is an
[32:42] Speaker 2: ultimate being, then God has possesses all perfections. If God
[32:49] Speaker 2: possesses all perfections, then he cannot lack of attribute. If
[32:53] Speaker 2: God cannot lack her attribute, then he cannot be made
[32:57] Speaker 2: of parts. So we can complute that.
[33:01] Speaker 1: Does your definition include them? That he has the attribute
[33:04] Speaker 1: of being evil?
[33:07] Speaker 2: Well, evil is not an attribute?
[33:10] Speaker 1: Is good an attribute?
[33:13] Speaker 2: Yeah? Goodness is an attribute, but what's the good? Well,
[33:19] Speaker 2: evil is a lack of good.
[33:21] Speaker 1: So it's an attribute, like we called, it's a description,
[33:24] Speaker 1: it's an adjective.
[33:26] Speaker 2: Now you're just picking.
[33:27] Speaker 1: You're just picking and choosing what attributes you want. Because
[33:30] Speaker 1: if God is required to have all possible attributes, then
[33:35] Speaker 1: we could literally just say that he has the attribute
[33:39] Speaker 1: of being completely evil as well as completely good. Or
[33:42] Speaker 1: we can just redefine it and say, actually, the definition
[33:45] Speaker 1: of good is the absence of evil.
[33:47] Speaker 2: No, because that assumes that evil has its own ontological nature,
[33:52] Speaker 2: which it doesn't. Evil is a lack of goodness.
[33:55] Speaker 1: Show me, show me that goodness has ontological nature.
[33:59] Speaker 2: So when I like, just so we can understand what
[34:02] Speaker 2: goodness is, and when you when I use the word goodness,
[34:05] Speaker 2: I means goodness is in reference to being, So being
[34:09] Speaker 2: is goodness.
[34:10] Speaker 1: So in your worldview, everything is being. Things are being,
[34:14] Speaker 1: Goodness are being. Do you have any definitions that aren't
[34:18] Speaker 1: just conflating the word being.
[34:21] Speaker 2: I never said that thing and being are the same
[34:24] Speaker 2: exact word, that the same exact word, like, of course,
[34:28] Speaker 2: a thing is what is recognized by a system of ontology,
[34:31] Speaker 2: and a being. When I use the word being, it's
[34:34] Speaker 2: just a thing that exists.
[34:35] Speaker 3: Right. Can I just make sure I understand what you're saying,
[34:38] Speaker 3: because I think there's a big equivocation happening. Another equivocation.
[34:42] Speaker 3: I think there's a third one. When you say so,
[34:44] Speaker 3: you're saying that in your view, good is just existence.
[34:49] Speaker 2: Yeah, goodness is being.
[34:51] Speaker 1: So you don't know what good is?
[34:53] Speaker 4: Cool?
[34:54] Speaker 3: So when we when I say good, okay, so because
[34:57] Speaker 3: because it just seems like we're gonna end up talking
[34:59] Speaker 3: about two differ and things. So when I say good,
[35:01] Speaker 3: I mean like an assessment of an action and it
[35:03] Speaker 3: matches a specific direction of a goal, like something is
[35:07] Speaker 3: good if if it matches like maybe some deontological sense
[35:12] Speaker 3: of actions or some uh, some action that moves toward
[35:17] Speaker 3: some like consequentialist notion, like that kind of good, like
[35:21] Speaker 3: it's it's it's a value judgment. You're saying that good
[35:25] Speaker 3: is just like a predicate label that you've added that
[35:27] Speaker 3: just by by virtue of me existing, I'm good.
[35:33] Speaker 2: Yeah, what's that? What's do you have a problem with
[35:35] Speaker 2: high he's good or something?
[35:37] Speaker 3: No, I don't have a problem with it. I'm just
[35:39] Speaker 3: saying like, it's it's it's different from what we would like.
[35:44] Speaker 3: Are you using this term good in a morality sense
[35:48] Speaker 3: or is this just like a niche a niche version
[35:51] Speaker 3: for your privation theory?
[35:54] Speaker 2: Sorry?
[35:56] Speaker 3: Are you used when you use the term good? Right?
[36:01] Speaker 3: Are you using it in a moral sense? I'm sort
[36:03] Speaker 3: of like, is there any normativity attached to that?
[36:07] Speaker 2: Yeah? There can, of course, Like there's things you can
[36:11] Speaker 2: use the term good in a moral sense. But when
[36:14] Speaker 2: you say, when we are talking about goodness a second ago,
[36:18] Speaker 2: we're trying to understand what it means to be good,
[36:21] Speaker 2: like what is goodness?
[36:22] Speaker 3: And so you say goodness is being?
[36:25] Speaker 2: Yeah, goodness is being because if it is to define goodness,
[36:29] Speaker 2: we could refer to it as, of course, something that's
[36:33] Speaker 2: desirable or in reference to a degree of perfection, so
[36:39] Speaker 2: goodness is being.
[36:40] Speaker 9: We can talk about this. Sorry, I want to I
[36:47] Speaker 9: want to interrupt you because we're now we're kind of
[36:49] Speaker 9: off the beaten path, right, we could talk about what's
[36:52] Speaker 9: wrong with privation theory, because privation theory doesn't make any sense,
[36:54] Speaker 9: especially if we're tracking the typical semantics of good and evil.
[36:57] Speaker 9: But going back, your argument actually didn't conclude that things
[37:01] Speaker 9: with parts are contingent, right, you didn't actually conclude that
[37:04] Speaker 9: wasn't the conclusion of your argument. So can you just
[37:06] Speaker 9: get giving an argument?
[37:08] Speaker 2: Well, the argument was that, of course and necessary being
[37:12] Speaker 2: has to be absolutely simple, so we didn't have parts.
[37:17] Speaker 2: Say just a second, so when the person was making
[37:21] Speaker 2: the point about his airpuds being necessary, along with the
[37:25] Speaker 2: fact that I couldn't conceive of them not existing, but
[37:27] Speaker 2: that wasn't even your let me just finish, please and
[37:32] Speaker 2: let me finish please, you're ramblings. Yeah, you can feel
[37:36] Speaker 2: that way, but just let me finish.
[37:38] Speaker 3: No, no, you're not going to finish. And here's why.
[37:40] Speaker 2: The conclusion of.
[37:41] Speaker 9: Your argument people, if you're not going to yeah, thank you,
[37:46] Speaker 9: the conclusion of your argument. Conclusion of your argument.
[37:50] Speaker 3: Was the conclusion he.
[37:55] Speaker 2: Finished, all right, but yeah.
[37:58] Speaker 9: I don't know why he's insists I'm talking when you're
[38:00] Speaker 9: talking about relevant stuff. The conclusion of your argument was
[38:02] Speaker 9: about God not necessary being right. Your your assumption is
[38:07] Speaker 9: that every anything that's necessary is God, and everything is
[38:10] Speaker 9: God is necessary. We're not taking that assumption.
[38:14] Speaker 2: So what done, Danny? What do you define God as?
[38:19] Speaker 4: How do I use the term God?
[38:21] Speaker 2: I asked you, what is your definition of God?
[38:25] Speaker 4: Oh?
[38:26] Speaker 9: When I use the term God, I'm talking about the
[38:28] Speaker 9: one and only little G God that has power over
[38:31] Speaker 9: our fortunes nature, something like that.
[38:34] Speaker 2: So when you talk when you say you're defining God
[38:37] Speaker 2: with God basically, no, no.
[38:39] Speaker 9: No, there's an we can trast. I can trast big
[38:42] Speaker 9: G God and little G God, and big G God
[38:45] Speaker 9: is just the one and only little G God. Right,
[38:47] Speaker 9: So if you have little G.
[38:51] Speaker 7: What is God?
[38:51] Speaker 2: I just told you what I meant definition of God? Please?
[38:56] Speaker 9: Okay, big G God is the one and only little
[38:59] Speaker 9: G God that has power over our fortunes in nature. Yeah,
[39:04] Speaker 9: that's not that's Graham Appi's definition, and I's definition Graham
[39:10] Speaker 9: Appi's definition.
[39:12] Speaker 2: He's Grampi exactly.
[39:14] Speaker 9: Well, he's just a very famous philosopher of religion.
[39:18] Speaker 2: Okay, So he just defines God as a being that
[39:21] Speaker 2: has control of our over No, no.
[39:25] Speaker 9: If you want to use my terms, right, here's here's
[39:29] Speaker 9: basically what it is. What contrasts polytheism and monotheism is
[39:33] Speaker 9: that polytheists don't think there is a big G God
[39:37] Speaker 9: according to API, right, So.
[39:41] Speaker 2: Huh, so big G goods the one being. Basically, if
[39:47] Speaker 2: you were to take something.
[39:47] Speaker 9: Like the Greek pantheon and kill all gods but Zeus,
[39:51] Speaker 9: then he would be big G God because he's the
[39:53] Speaker 9: only one. He's the only god, little G God.
[39:57] Speaker 2: Yeah, but I'm trying to understand that you said something
[40:02] Speaker 2: about you understanding God there's like a thing that has
[40:07] Speaker 2: control over our fortune or something.
[40:10] Speaker 9: Yeah, it's all over nature and our fortunes. Like he
[40:13] Speaker 9: sort of gets to decide whether you know, I live
[40:16] Speaker 9: the next day.
[40:18] Speaker 2: So would this God by your definition be created or no,
[40:22] Speaker 2: could be created? Huh?
[40:25] Speaker 4: Could be?
[40:26] Speaker 2: Could be? Did you say yes? Yes? I guess we're
[40:30] Speaker 2: not really talking about the same thing, which is.
[40:32] Speaker 9: Why I don't know why you asked from my definition
[40:34] Speaker 9: of God.
[40:35] Speaker 2: Just so I can't understand your position. So I know
[40:37] Speaker 2: that whether we're talking about the position on how I
[40:40] Speaker 2: use the term, Well, you think God can be, can
[40:44] Speaker 2: be this created person that just has power over our fortune.
[40:48] Speaker 9: That's not I don't know why you're asking me how
[40:51] Speaker 9: I use the terms, right. The point is of that,
[40:53] Speaker 9: I don't know what you think.
[40:54] Speaker 2: So like when I'm using a term God, I'm talking
[40:59] Speaker 2: about of course, an ultimate, a necessary being. It's been conceivable,
[41:06] Speaker 2: so I can give you the argument I was given
[41:09] Speaker 2: the host.
[41:10] Speaker 9: But remember you were supposed to give an argument, and
[41:12] Speaker 9: if something has parts, it's contingent. Right, your argument only concluded?
[41:17] Speaker 2: Some people go, wait, what one second? I gave you
[41:21] Speaker 2: the argument for why and necessary being can't have passed.
[41:25] Speaker 9: No, you gave an argument for why God can't have parts.
[41:28] Speaker 2: Yeah, God isn't necessary being, but.
[41:30] Speaker 1: Not unnecessary beings or God. That's the point. That's the
[41:35] Speaker 1: point I made.
[41:37] Speaker 4: But you need to stop proving something.
[41:39] Speaker 1: Being necessary doesn't mean it has to be a God.
[41:42] Speaker 2: Why not?
[41:43] Speaker 1: Why would it?
[41:45] Speaker 2: Well, you need to actually prove your points.
[41:49] Speaker 9: No contradiction. There's no contradiction in saying that the universe
[41:53] Speaker 9: is necessary it's made of parts.
[41:57] Speaker 2: Yes, there is.
[41:58] Speaker 1: Where's the contradiction, sorry, where's the contradiction?
[42:06] Speaker 2: Is that you'd be saying that a created thing is uncreated, Well.
[42:09] Speaker 1: We don't believe it was created. That's the first problem.
[42:12] Speaker 2: Yeah, you don't.
[42:13] Speaker 1: You don't have to, like you personate your conclusion. Your
[42:18] Speaker 1: premise bakes in the conclusion. Christina, thank you for the
[42:20] Speaker 1: love being. I appreciate that you're just giving circular arguments.
[42:26] Speaker 2: Yeah, the thing is is that you don't have to
[42:28] Speaker 2: believe or concede that the universe is created. But the
[42:32] Speaker 2: point is is that we like along with other factors,
[42:37] Speaker 2: we can talk about the fact that the universe changes,
[42:40] Speaker 2: and something that changes is not purely actual, so we
[42:43] Speaker 2: don't fit the definition of the God in question. So
[42:47] Speaker 2: saying that.
[42:48] Speaker 1: Why does something that is changing not purely actual?
[42:54] Speaker 2: Because it has potency. So if you conceive something injuries,
[43:00] Speaker 2: it has potency, so it has the capacity.
[43:03] Speaker 1: To God has no potency.
[43:06] Speaker 9: Let me finish, please, Actually I have an argument for
[43:09] Speaker 9: why his God changed. His God can change.
[43:12] Speaker 2: It probably does one sec So the point is is
[43:16] Speaker 2: that something that changes has of course potency, so it
[43:20] Speaker 2: has the capacity to receive some sort of perfection, which
[43:24] Speaker 2: would imply that it's not perfect and it wouldn't be
[43:27] Speaker 2: a necessary being because a necessary being would have to
[43:31] Speaker 2: be perfect.
[43:31] Speaker 1: We already covered this. Being necessary doesn't mean you're perfect.
[43:36] Speaker 2: Yeah, you need to We did.
[43:37] Speaker 1: This five times.
[43:39] Speaker 2: You never proved it once.
[43:40] Speaker 1: You just why would I have to find it's your claim,
[43:44] Speaker 1: your claim necessary beings are perfect. So we'll go back
[43:48] Speaker 1: to the beginning. I asked you five times, where's the
[43:52] Speaker 1: argument that says a necessary thing has to be perfect
[43:55] Speaker 1: in all all categories?
[43:57] Speaker 3: And just to be clear, like, we don't have to
[43:59] Speaker 3: prove that a necessary thing doesn't have to be perfect definition.
[44:03] Speaker 3: Stop stop, stop, stop talking, stop talking, stop talking. This
[44:07] Speaker 3: This is why this gets sloppy, because you don't.
[44:09] Speaker 2: Know you shouldn't make a sessions.
[44:11] Speaker 3: Stop stop stoppop stop stop. I'm going to explain it.
[44:15] Speaker 3: Shut up, stop talking clearly, look, look, look clearly. I'm
[44:20] Speaker 3: going to explain my position. This is gonna take so
[44:23] Speaker 3: much longer if you keep making sounds out of your
[44:26] Speaker 3: mouth hole. I don't know why you're crashing out. Okay,
[44:32] Speaker 3: the definition of a necessary thing does not include perfection.
[44:35] Speaker 3: So by just analytically, a necessary thing doesn't necessarily have
[44:40] Speaker 3: to be perfect unless it's something that you can give
[44:44] Speaker 3: me an argument for. Yeah, why not, because there's nothing
[44:48] Speaker 3: in the definition what is your definition of necessary?
[44:50] Speaker 1: It's just definitionly true. We've already covered this.
[44:54] Speaker 2: Of course exists in all possible words, does it? And
[44:58] Speaker 2: it's not created? Of course?
[45:00] Speaker 3: Okay, where in that definition did you include the word perfect?
[45:05] Speaker 2: Well, the point is that if it's not created, then
[45:08] Speaker 2: it would have to be the unprincipled principles, so it
[45:12] Speaker 2: doesn't receive it perfection from anywhere else.
[45:15] Speaker 1: Don't introduce new definitions that you don't know how to use.
[45:18] Speaker 1: Just stay on what we're talking about. What do you mean,
[45:23] Speaker 1: Use actual words? Listen, let's listen. You're not impressing anybody here.
[45:28] Speaker 1: We've got, we've got almost Just stop talking. There are
[45:32] Speaker 1: fifteen hundred people. There are fifteen hundred people here, and
[45:37] Speaker 1: none of them know any of your word solid definitions.
[45:40] Speaker 1: They're tired of hearing you talk in circles and not
[45:43] Speaker 1: support any of your premises. If you're going to remain
[45:46] Speaker 1: up here, at least start using, like actual people words
[45:50] Speaker 1: and not words that we have to start defining every
[45:53] Speaker 1: time you bring them up, because it turns out that
[45:55] Speaker 1: your definition of the words are different than ours. Just
[45:58] Speaker 1: use normal words.
[46:04] Speaker 2: Means in very normal words.
[46:05] Speaker 3: You're not We can see this we can see this.
[46:08] Speaker 3: What what you said that it necessary? Listen, hold on.
[46:11] Speaker 3: You said that a necessary thing is something that exists
[46:13] Speaker 3: in all possible worlds, right, and isn't created and is
[46:16] Speaker 3: not created. Fine, even though I'm dubious on the second part,
[46:20] Speaker 3: I'm willing to accept.
[46:21] Speaker 9: No one defines it that way.
[46:23] Speaker 3: He's just but look, I'm just gonna accept it to
[46:26] Speaker 3: move the conversation forward. So, now, can you conceive that
[46:30] Speaker 3: an imperfect thing that exists in all possible worlds and
[46:33] Speaker 3: is not created? No, I can, so now convince me
[46:38] Speaker 3: that I'm wrong.
[46:39] Speaker 2: Well, like, you can make the claim that you can,
[46:42] Speaker 2: but can you prove that?
[46:43] Speaker 3: Yes, I just told you I can.
[46:46] Speaker 2: You're telling me that you can do something doesn't prove
[46:49] Speaker 2: that the thing is true, because.
[46:50] Speaker 3: If I'm that same hold on, hold on again, hold on,
[46:54] Speaker 3: You're confused again, because my claim is not that it's true.
[46:57] Speaker 3: My claim is that it is conceivable. You're telling me
[47:00] Speaker 3: that it is impossible. That is your burden.
[47:04] Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm trying to say, can you explain how it's conceivable?
[47:08] Speaker 3: Danny has told you why, like like five times. The
[47:12] Speaker 3: only thing I need for go ahead.
[47:15] Speaker 9: There's no contradictions. It's very clear. There's just no contradiction.
[47:19] Speaker 2: There is because it results and you saying an uncreated thing,
[47:24] Speaker 2: a created thing was uncreated.
[47:26] Speaker 3: That's no, no, nope, I said, look, look, I said,
[47:28] Speaker 3: there is an uncreated thing that exists in all possible worlds.
[47:32] Speaker 3: It's just not perfect.
[47:35] Speaker 2: Yeah, then it wouldn't be necessary being Yeah, they give
[47:38] Speaker 2: me the contract, could receive because.
[47:40] Speaker 9: It this guy we're really not know.
[47:44] Speaker 1: This guy's brain is mush he's got marshmallow brain. As
[47:47] Speaker 1: Jeff says, that is true.
[47:52] Speaker 3: Look, I want to give you one final chance because
[47:55] Speaker 3: like I have a feeling that we're like on the precipice.
[48:00] Speaker 3: You guys do listen, listen, listen, listen. No, no, no,
[48:03] Speaker 3: because so far we have some attributes. These are predicates.
[48:06] Speaker 3: The predicates that I have to meet are just exists
[48:09] Speaker 3: in all possible worlds and is not created. That's it.
[48:14] Speaker 3: So if I pose it, if I posit anything at all,
[48:18] Speaker 3: a rock that exists in all possible worlds and was
[48:21] Speaker 3: not created, a rock is not perfect. I can conceive
[48:25] Speaker 3: of a rock that existed forever that it that it
[48:28] Speaker 3: was just not created and exists in all possible worlds.
[48:33] Speaker 3: Simplic that's it. I'm not saying that the rock exists.
[48:39] Speaker 3: I'm saying I can conceive of it. There's no there's
[48:42] Speaker 3: no logical contradiction. There's no nominal logical contradiction. There's no
[48:46] Speaker 3: metaphysical contradiction. There's no contradiction said, you're going to produce.
[48:52] Speaker 3: Hold on, hold on, You're going to produce the contradiction.
[48:55] Speaker 2: Yeah, I can expect on, hold on, hold.
[48:57] Speaker 3: On, You're you don't even know what I'm asking yet.
[49:01] Speaker 3: The contradiction that I want to see includes just those
[49:05] Speaker 3: two predicates that the thing is existing in all possible
[49:09] Speaker 3: worlds and it is not created. And if you want
[49:13] Speaker 3: to introduce perfection, you have to do so by way
[49:16] Speaker 3: of argument.
[49:22] Speaker 7: Yeah.
[49:23] Speaker 2: So, of course a perfect thing doesn't receive its being
[49:28] Speaker 2: from another. The point is it or receive anything from another.
[49:32] Speaker 2: The point is is that with something that is imperfect,
[49:35] Speaker 2: it can receive something from another, some sort of new
[49:39] Speaker 2: perfection for another, so it be contingent. So the point
[49:43] Speaker 2: is is that there's a contradiction of that point because
[49:47] Speaker 2: it results in you saying a contingent effort.
[49:49] Speaker 3: That's a confusion again, because the existence is not contingent.
[49:54] Speaker 3: You're saying that some change state is contingent. I'm happy
[49:57] Speaker 3: with that. I'm saying the existence of the RW in
[50:00] Speaker 3: all possible world is not contingent. And that's the that's
[50:03] Speaker 3: the argument that I'm looking for.
[50:06] Speaker 2: It would have to be that for the reasons we've said, can.
[50:14] Speaker 3: You restate those reasons, because I've heard zero reasons.
[50:18] Speaker 2: The fact that I can receive some new perfection from another, sir, that.
[50:22] Speaker 3: Happens after exists. That new purpose, whatever new perfection you're
[50:26] Speaker 3: you're talking about, happens after it already.
[50:29] Speaker 2: Exists, after already exists.
[50:33] Speaker 3: Yeah, you have to exist to receive something, right, I guess.
[50:40] Speaker 7: Yeah.
[50:40] Speaker 3: Yeah, So then that there's no there's still no contradiction.
[50:43] Speaker 2: There, there is.
[50:47] Speaker 3: I'm looking for it. I swear to you, I'm going
[50:50] Speaker 3: to change the prescription on my glasses and really squint.
[50:53] Speaker 2: You don't see when you're talking about a rock. A
[50:56] Speaker 2: rock is a thing that exists within time and space.
[50:59] Speaker 2: Change is can receive some sort of new perfection. So
[51:02] Speaker 2: it wouldn't fit the criteria to.
[51:04] Speaker 9: The criteria you listed. You're not thinking that you only
[51:07] Speaker 9: listened to criteria that it exists in all possible worlds, right,
[51:10] Speaker 9: and it's uncreated. Jeff gave an example of something that
[51:13] Speaker 9: satisfies those truth criteria, yet you're denying that it.
[51:15] Speaker 2: Is because of Rook. It can't be uncreated.
[51:19] Speaker 9: That's what you have to show.
[51:23] Speaker 4: Sorry, that's what you have to show.
[51:26] Speaker 2: Well, Rook is not necessary, and because it's.
[51:29] Speaker 9: You're begging the question again. You're begging the question again.
[51:36] Speaker 1: You're not really good at that.
[51:38] Speaker 4: I don't know.
[51:39] Speaker 1: I don't know if you should spend a lot of
[51:41] Speaker 1: time doing the thesis like.
[51:43] Speaker 9: Making you dumber.
[51:45] Speaker 1: Not only are you not really paying attention to the
[51:47] Speaker 1: arguments that we're giving, you're not paying attention to your
[51:49] Speaker 1: own arguments because they're sloppy and you're quite literally putting
[51:53] Speaker 1: the audience to sleep.
[51:59] Speaker 2: Yeah, what does have to do with the topic.
[52:02] Speaker 1: So I want to know why something being necessary requires
[52:06] Speaker 1: it to be God, because that's your whole argument. Your
[52:09] Speaker 1: argument is that because there is something that's necessary, it
[52:12] Speaker 1: must be a God. That's where we're at right now.
[52:14] Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, so we can talk about that, because the
[52:19] Speaker 2: point is is when we talk about God, it would
[52:22] Speaker 2: be this ultimate being by definition, which is all powerful.
[52:26] Speaker 1: We're still talking about why something being necessary requires it
[52:29] Speaker 1: to be a good point.
[52:30] Speaker 2: No, if you don't really let me finish.
[52:33] Speaker 1: I want the argument. I want the argument for the
[52:36] Speaker 1: goal that you that you're trying to get to. Your
[52:38] Speaker 1: goal is saying we have something that's necessary, therefore the
[52:42] Speaker 1: necessary thing is God. I want the argument that gets
[52:45] Speaker 1: me from something being necessary to that something being God.
[52:50] Speaker 2: Yes, so we can give points for why it's all
[52:53] Speaker 2: powerful or knowing, because those would be attributes of God.
[52:57] Speaker 1: Right, but you're just supplying those actual tributes to the
[53:00] Speaker 1: thing that you're saying is necessary. Yeah, give me the
[53:03] Speaker 1: premise based argument that would lead me to the conclusion
[53:07] Speaker 1: that something being necessary is even sentient much less is
[53:12] Speaker 1: like all good and whatever other attributes to give to it.
[53:17] Speaker 2: Yeah, because something that is necessary would be the cause
[53:21] Speaker 2: of all things?
[53:24] Speaker 1: So why is that required to be sentient? But that's
[53:28] Speaker 1: not that's not the reason that Also, I don't accept
[53:32] Speaker 1: that definition. But let it still doesn't get you in
[53:35] Speaker 1: the finish line.
[53:38] Speaker 2: Yeah, let me answer your question. So you've asked me
[53:41] Speaker 2: why necessary being creating all things would mean that it
[53:46] Speaker 2: has to be sentient. So we can talk about the
[53:50] Speaker 2: principut of proportion of cause, which is that the in
[53:55] Speaker 2: every effect, the cause exists in it. In some way,
[53:58] Speaker 2: shape or form. So we know that of course with
[54:02] Speaker 2: all material all material things were created and stuff, and
[54:06] Speaker 2: we we.
[54:07] Speaker 1: Don't know that to be the case. And we've said
[54:09] Speaker 1: this twice now, I don't believe that material things were created.
[54:14] Speaker 1: So again you're you keep pulling in parts of your
[54:17] Speaker 1: conclusion as like supporting premises for your conclusion. I don't
[54:22] Speaker 1: think there was a creator. I don't think anything was
[54:24] Speaker 1: even created much less. You're presupposing that there was a creation,
[54:28] Speaker 1: and because there was a creation, there needs to be
[54:30] Speaker 1: a creator. Those are just those are just more unsupported premises.
[54:35] Speaker 2: The problem here is that you're asking me, in reference
[54:38] Speaker 2: to a point I've made, why does a necessary being
[54:42] Speaker 2: that created everything have to.
[54:44] Speaker 1: Be Because you're smuggling in creation.
[54:47] Speaker 2: Let me let me finish, Let me your finish, let
[54:49] Speaker 2: me finish.
[54:50] Speaker 1: Your pre your presupposing creation. That's part of your argument.
[54:55] Speaker 4: What's the problem. What's the problem, Because.
[54:57] Speaker 1: You have to demonstrate that we were created first before
[55:00] Speaker 1: where you can presuppose a creator.
[55:02] Speaker 2: But you've asked in reference to the point, why in
[55:06] Speaker 2: reference to the point is consistent? It has to be
[55:08] Speaker 2: the case. I'm explaining that, and you're interrupting.
[55:11] Speaker 1: And I disagree with premise number one. Yeah, so support
[55:15] Speaker 1: the premise.
[55:16] Speaker 2: I've not even finished my whole point.
[55:18] Speaker 1: Well, you don't need to. Premise number one is already
[55:21] Speaker 1: already garbage.
[55:24] Speaker 7: Creation and I don't believe.
[55:26] Speaker 1: That we are created, So you have to support that first.
[55:30] Speaker 2: How are you gonna what's it called?
[55:32] Speaker 3: Say?
[55:33] Speaker 2: You don't want me to finish my points, Then try
[55:35] Speaker 2: and understand what I'm saying.
[55:36] Speaker 1: I want you to support your points, not gish gallop
[55:39] Speaker 1: through them. So your first thing, you're very finished, Your
[55:43] Speaker 1: very first premise requires there to be a creation. I
[55:46] Speaker 1: don't believe there was a creation.
[55:49] Speaker 2: You've asked me a question in reference to what I've said,
[55:52] Speaker 2: Why is this? Why would this be the case. I'm
[55:55] Speaker 2: explaining it.
[55:56] Speaker 1: Because the answer to your question requires another premise, which
[56:01] Speaker 1: is that creation happened. And I don't agree with me.
[56:05] Speaker 2: Why is that consistent with the point I've made? So
[56:08] Speaker 2: I'm telling you why it's consistent. Get somewhere, like you
[56:14] Speaker 2: have to let people finish a bit more.
[56:15] Speaker 1: I don't. When you, when you are laying down an
[56:18] Speaker 1: argument and I disagree with the premise, what I have
[56:21] Speaker 1: to do is stop you and say, someone disagree when
[56:25] Speaker 1: you're laying down premises for your argument, and I disagree
[56:28] Speaker 1: with the premise. I have to stop you and say, hey,
[56:32] Speaker 1: I don't agree with that. Can you support the premise?
[56:35] Speaker 1: That's how arguments work. So now you've gotten to a
[56:39] Speaker 1: point in the dialogue where you've said that there is
[56:42] Speaker 1: a creation and because of the creation, that requires you
[56:46] Speaker 1: to have a necessary creator. So now I need you
[56:49] Speaker 1: to support the premise that there was even a creation.
[56:52] Speaker 2: No, my point was a necessary being that created all
[56:55] Speaker 2: things would have to be all knowing.
[56:57] Speaker 1: You've asked me why this is, but I don't believe
[57:00] Speaker 1: there was a creation. Again, you keep smuggling in question.
[57:04] Speaker 2: Well you've you've made You're trying to inquire why, of
[57:08] Speaker 2: course it's consistent to have a all knowing being be
[57:13] Speaker 2: that is, are sorry, a necessary being that is the
[57:17] Speaker 2: career of all things, be sentient? Why is that consistent
[57:20] Speaker 2: with this idea?
[57:22] Speaker 4: Trying to explain it?
[57:24] Speaker 9: No, Asis, we're asking for why is it?
[57:27] Speaker 2: You ask?
[57:28] Speaker 9: Excuse me, You're you're just confused. We're just asking for
[57:31] Speaker 9: why question?
[57:32] Speaker 7: Why is it that?
[57:33] Speaker 4: Excuse me?
[57:34] Speaker 9: We're just asking for if it's a necessary thing, why
[57:37] Speaker 9: must it be God? And we can talk about a
[57:40] Speaker 9: world where it's just that necessary thing. We don't have
[57:42] Speaker 9: to suppose creation. So go and give the argument.
[57:50] Speaker 2: You need to listen better, Danny, because your friend here
[57:52] Speaker 2: on the screen asked, why is it the case that
[57:56] Speaker 2: a necessary being that created?
[57:58] Speaker 1: Danny and I are using the same argument.
[58:02] Speaker 2: You've not made all the same points. So I'm trying
[58:04] Speaker 2: to answer a question. But you're been.
[58:07] Speaker 9: Asking for at least twenty minutes.
[58:09] Speaker 2: If not the whole aff, it would have been the question.
[58:13] Speaker 1: Yeah, we've been live, like we've been live for like
[58:15] Speaker 1: an hour now, I'm literally the same thing we started with,
[58:19] Speaker 1: which is something being necessary doesn't necessitate that it's God right.
[58:25] Speaker 1: So we're still waiting for that argument.
[58:29] Speaker 2: You're not letting me answer your questions.
[58:31] Speaker 9: Okay, what's the first premise of the argument. Just give
[58:33] Speaker 9: it to me.
[58:35] Speaker 2: Yeah, so I'm going to answer your friend's question.
[58:37] Speaker 9: No, no, no, I don't want to waste any time.
[58:40] Speaker 2: Give us if you don't want to waste time, stop
[58:42] Speaker 2: int give.
[58:43] Speaker 1: Us premise number one. Don't say premise number two. Give
[58:47] Speaker 1: us premise number one, and then we will talk about
[58:50] Speaker 1: premise number one.
[58:53] Speaker 2: So cool. I I'm going to answer your question that
[58:57] Speaker 2: you've given me.
[59:00] Speaker 7: Is that fine?
[59:02] Speaker 3: What is premise one?
[59:03] Speaker 1: Give us premise one.
[59:05] Speaker 2: I don't have to give your.
[59:08] Speaker 3: Premise one, or I'm going to give you premise one.
[59:14] Speaker 1: I know he doesn't actually have an argument. Also, asis
[59:17] Speaker 1: are what religion are you? By the way, Christian, I
[59:23] Speaker 1: figured as much. How about rather than starting on this
[59:26] Speaker 1: tail end that has nothing to do with your God
[59:28] Speaker 1: to begin with, we start on the opposite end and
[59:31] Speaker 1: just tell you why your God is fake?
[59:35] Speaker 2: Yeah?
[59:35] Speaker 4: Go on? Cool?
[59:37] Speaker 1: Uh, doctor Joe, thank you for the recommendation. By the way,
[59:40] Speaker 1: on this uh have you read Deuteronomy?
[59:45] Speaker 5: Not of it?
[59:47] Speaker 1: Cool? Uh, there's a really interesting passage in Deuteronomy. I'll
[59:50] Speaker 1: put it on the screen for us so we can
[59:52] Speaker 1: we can all see it one second. Mm hmmmmm, well
[1:00:03] Speaker 1: maybe I'll get it. I'm gonna try to put it
[1:00:13] Speaker 1: on the screen. Give me a second. I'm sorry. I
[1:00:15] Speaker 1: don't know why my stream labs is not seeing my
[1:00:18] Speaker 1: web browser for some reason. Maybe half a second, so weird.
[1:00:23] Speaker 1: Why would it not see my web browser?
[1:00:27] Speaker 9: Justin I have to go eat dinner. Thanks for having
[1:00:29] Speaker 9: me on you, man, Hey have a great stream.
[1:00:31] Speaker 1: Danny, thank you so much for being here. Man, I
[1:00:32] Speaker 1: really appreciate it. Guys, make sure you're following Danny on
[1:00:35] Speaker 1: TikTok and on YouTube.
[1:00:36] Speaker 9: Okay, doa Jeff and aces. Stop studying philosophy. It's making
[1:00:40] Speaker 9: you dumber. It's not going, it's not working.
[1:00:42] Speaker 4: Okay, thanks, Yeah, I'll see you.
[1:00:45] Speaker 1: Philosophy is not for everyone. That's why I stay away
[1:00:47] Speaker 1: from it, all right. So it says, suppose a man
[1:00:50] Speaker 1: marries a woman, but after going into her dislikes her
[1:00:53] Speaker 1: and makes up charges against her, slandering her by saying,
[1:00:57] Speaker 1: I married this woman, but when I lay with her,
[1:00:59] Speaker 1: I did not find evidence of her virginity. The father
[1:01:02] Speaker 1: of the young woman and her mother shall then submit
[1:01:04] Speaker 1: the evidence of the young women's virginity to the elders
[1:01:07] Speaker 1: of the city at the gate. So far, are you tracking?
[1:01:10] Speaker 1: If she doesn't bleed on her wedding night, you know,
[1:01:12] Speaker 1: after they do it, then there's gonna be questions, right
[1:01:17] Speaker 1: whether or not she's a virgin. Okay, right, following so far? Okay, Now,
[1:01:24] Speaker 1: when they go to the elders, it says the father
[1:01:26] Speaker 1: of the young woman shall say to the elders, I
[1:01:28] Speaker 1: gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he
[1:01:30] Speaker 1: dislikes her. And now he's made up charges against her, saying,
[1:01:34] Speaker 1: I did not find evidence of your daughter's virginity. But
[1:01:36] Speaker 1: here is the evidence of my daughter's virginity. Then they
[1:01:40] Speaker 1: shall spread out the cloth before the elders of the town.
[1:01:43] Speaker 1: The elders of the town shall take a man and
[1:01:44] Speaker 1: punish him, obviously, because you lied. Now, if it's true,
[1:01:49] Speaker 1: says If however, the charge is true, that evidence of
[1:01:51] Speaker 1: the young women's virginity was not found, then they will
[1:01:54] Speaker 1: bring the young woman out to the entrance of her
[1:01:56] Speaker 1: father's house, and the men of the town shall stone
[1:01:58] Speaker 1: her to death because she's committed to graceful act in
[1:02:01] Speaker 1: Israel by prostituting herself in her father's house. So you
[1:02:04] Speaker 1: shall purge the evil from your midst. Okay, So, at
[1:02:07] Speaker 1: face value, the text is pretty simple. If a woman
[1:02:09] Speaker 1: bleeds on a sheet the first time she does the deed,
[1:02:12] Speaker 1: it's presumed that she is a virgin. If she doesn't
[1:02:14] Speaker 1: bleed on the sheet, it is presumed that she's not
[1:02:17] Speaker 1: a virgin.
[1:02:17] Speaker 2: Following I don't think it says, I don't think it
[1:02:20] Speaker 2: said that. It's automatically presumed.
[1:02:22] Speaker 1: But yeah, that's the evidence.
[1:02:25] Speaker 2: Yeah, those are those are some evidences.
[1:02:30] Speaker 1: It says, but here is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.
[1:02:34] Speaker 1: Then they shall spread out the cloth before the elders
[1:02:36] Speaker 1: of the town. That's the evidence.
[1:02:40] Speaker 2: Yeah, those are one of the Is.
[1:02:42] Speaker 1: There any other evidence mentioned here?
[1:02:45] Speaker 2: Yeah, that's an argument from silence.
[1:02:47] Speaker 1: It's not an argument from silence. This is the evidence
[1:02:49] Speaker 1: that God is. This is the evidence that I say
[1:02:53] Speaker 1: that because this is the evidence that God is telling
[1:02:56] Speaker 1: them to bring.
[1:02:58] Speaker 2: Those are some of them.
[1:03:00] Speaker 1: This is one of them, and it's the only one.
[1:03:02] Speaker 1: This is the only thing in the Bible that you
[1:03:04] Speaker 1: have to bring as evidence.
[1:03:05] Speaker 10: Now, if.
[1:03:08] Speaker 1: If a man sleeps with a woman and it turns
[1:03:11] Speaker 1: out that she doesn't bleed on the sheet, is she
[1:03:14] Speaker 1: justified according to the or is he justified according to
[1:03:17] Speaker 1: the biblical text to take her to the to the city,
[1:03:21] Speaker 1: to the gate and have her stoned?
[1:03:25] Speaker 2: Depends on what if she's a virgin?
[1:03:30] Speaker 1: Exactly? Yes, And how do you determine if somebody is
[1:03:33] Speaker 1: a virgin.
[1:03:35] Speaker 2: Black bye, of course investigation.
[1:03:39] Speaker 1: And that's not what the text says.
[1:03:42] Speaker 2: It does.
[1:03:42] Speaker 1: It doesn't say that it does. No, it says they
[1:03:46] Speaker 1: will spread out the cloth before the elders of the town.
[1:03:49] Speaker 1: Is there any other evidence mentioned?
[1:03:51] Speaker 3: Here.
[1:03:53] Speaker 2: Yeah, why does it have to be mentioned?
[1:03:56] Speaker 1: Because that is the criteria. The criteria is if somebody
[1:04:01] Speaker 1: is accused, if somebody is accused of not being a virgin,
[1:04:06] Speaker 1: the criteria that you measure is the bloody sheet. That's it.
[1:04:09] Speaker 1: That's the only thing given. Yes, So this is what
[1:04:14] Speaker 1: the Bible says, which means, if if I'm living in
[1:04:16] Speaker 1: the ancient times and I'm with somebody and they don't
[1:04:20] Speaker 1: bleed on, you know, the night that we consummate the marriage,
[1:04:24] Speaker 1: I have the right, according to the text, to take
[1:04:27] Speaker 1: her and get her stone? Do I have that right
[1:04:29] Speaker 1: according to what the text says?
[1:04:33] Speaker 2: Not off of that note?
[1:04:35] Speaker 1: Wrong.
[1:04:35] Speaker 3: I just want to I just want to clarify one thing.
[1:04:37] Speaker 3: Are you saying that it's possible that God failed to
[1:04:41] Speaker 3: mention it? Or are you saying that they failed to
[1:04:44] Speaker 3: write it down but God may have mentioned it.
[1:04:47] Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just a false diyleum.
[1:04:49] Speaker 3: I've not said Okay, So okay, that's fine, it's not
[1:04:53] Speaker 3: a false style. I'ld stop. Stop you're doing it again.
[1:04:59] Speaker 3: I'm just going to call it out every time you
[1:05:00] Speaker 3: do it. I'm not saying that I've exhausted the options.
[1:05:03] Speaker 3: Those are the ones that I came to based on
[1:05:07] Speaker 3: what you were saying. If I'm incorrect, just correct me,
[1:05:10] Speaker 3: Just tell me what you mean.
[1:05:15] Speaker 2: Okay, So your internality critique and what's the inconsistency here
[1:05:20] Speaker 2: of the biblical narratives.
[1:05:22] Speaker 1: Well, we haven't got that far yet. So what we're
[1:05:25] Speaker 1: trying to do is make sure that the understanding of
[1:05:28] Speaker 1: the passage is the same. Now, this passage is clearly
[1:05:32] Speaker 1: stating that if somebody suspects a woman is not a virgin,
[1:05:37] Speaker 1: he is allowed to take her to the city council
[1:05:40] Speaker 1: and have her stoned based on the fact that there
[1:05:43] Speaker 1: was no sheet.
[1:05:45] Speaker 2: Wait, do you mind going to the start of the
[1:05:47] Speaker 2: text again?
[1:05:48] Speaker 1: Please, we'll start again. I know, suppose a man marries
[1:05:51] Speaker 1: a woman, but after going into her, dislikes her. What
[1:05:54] Speaker 1: does it mean to go into somebody?
[1:05:59] Speaker 2: I think it might be referring to intercourse.
[1:06:02] Speaker 1: Obviously, it says, and he makes up charges against her
[1:06:06] Speaker 1: slandering or by saying, I married this woman, but when
[1:06:08] Speaker 1: I lay with her, I did not find evidence of
[1:06:11] Speaker 1: her virginity. What's the evidence that he's expecting when he
[1:06:14] Speaker 1: lies with her?
[1:06:19] Speaker 2: He could possibly expect that maybe she would bleed?
[1:06:23] Speaker 1: Obviously, Yes, because that's how the ancient world believed virginity works.
[1:06:28] Speaker 1: Then it says there's going to be a situation if
[1:06:32] Speaker 1: in fact, there is an accusation. It says, the father
[1:06:35] Speaker 1: of the young woman shall then submit the evidence. Sorry,
[1:06:38] Speaker 1: the father of the young woman and her mother shall
[1:06:41] Speaker 1: submit the evidence of the young woman's virginity to the
[1:06:44] Speaker 1: elders at the city gate. And what is that evidence?
[1:06:47] Speaker 1: Verse sixteen tells you the father of young woman will
[1:06:50] Speaker 1: say to the elders, I gave my daughter in marriage
[1:06:51] Speaker 1: to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he's made
[1:06:53] Speaker 1: up charges against her, saying I did not find evidence
[1:06:57] Speaker 1: of your daughter's virginity. But here is the evidence my
[1:07:00] Speaker 1: daughter's virginity. Then they shall spread out the cloth before
[1:07:03] Speaker 1: the elders of the town. That's the only evidence you need,
[1:07:07] Speaker 1: according to the Bible, to have a woman stone for
[1:07:10] Speaker 1: not being a virgin.
[1:07:11] Speaker 2: Well, why does it say that this is all you need?
[1:07:14] Speaker 1: Because that's what the text says. It says that if
[1:07:18] Speaker 1: somebody is presumed to not be a virgin, the way
[1:07:21] Speaker 1: that you solve the case is by determining if the
[1:07:25] Speaker 1: sheet with blood or you're not.
[1:07:27] Speaker 2: Can you highlight the part where it says this is
[1:07:30] Speaker 2: all of the evidence you neque or something that paraphrases
[1:07:32] Speaker 2: to at least.
[1:07:33] Speaker 1: So that's why legal texts exist. Right, So if a
[1:07:37] Speaker 1: legal text exists and it says, if you want to
[1:07:40] Speaker 1: stone a woman for not being a virgin, here's the criteria.
[1:07:45] Speaker 1: That's it. That's the only criteria you need. Now you
[1:07:47] Speaker 1: want to add additional criteria to it that's not in
[1:07:50] Speaker 1: the text, because you're starting to see how silly this is. No,
[1:07:54] Speaker 1: So according to what the Bible actually says, do I
[1:07:58] Speaker 1: have permissions? According to what the Bible says, do I
[1:08:02] Speaker 1: have permission to have a woman stoned if she doesn't
[1:08:04] Speaker 1: bleed on that sheet?
[1:08:07] Speaker 2: Depends?
[1:08:08] Speaker 1: What could I appeal to? What legal code could I
[1:08:10] Speaker 1: possibly appeal to? If the Bible is the authority.
[1:08:15] Speaker 2: Well, the point is that there would be an investigation done.
[1:08:18] Speaker 2: This is in reference to legality. So the text is
[1:08:21] Speaker 2: referencing something some things you could do to find whether
[1:08:27] Speaker 2: she is a virgin.
[1:08:28] Speaker 1: What's the thing that's listened?
[1:08:30] Speaker 2: Look, I can I finish what's.
[1:08:33] Speaker 1: The one thing that was listed?
[1:08:36] Speaker 2: You've already read it, Okay, So.
[1:08:38] Speaker 1: According to the text, there's only one criteria. There's only
[1:08:40] Speaker 1: one test point for whether or not she the virgin,
[1:08:44] Speaker 1: and according to your text, if she fails that text,
[1:08:47] Speaker 1: then she's dead. No, arguments from silence don't work. Don't
[1:08:51] Speaker 1: work for legal argument for silence don't work for legal codes. Huh,
[1:08:57] Speaker 1: argument from silence doesn't work for legal code. We're talking
[1:09:00] Speaker 1: about law codes. What you do with a law code
[1:09:03] Speaker 1: is you follow it?
[1:09:06] Speaker 2: Yeah? The law doesn't say.
[1:09:07] Speaker 3: Okay.
[1:09:09] Speaker 1: So if you're at the city gate and you're in
[1:09:12] Speaker 1: ancient Israel and you're trying a case, what are you
[1:09:15] Speaker 1: going to appeal to.
[1:09:18] Speaker 2: An investigation?
[1:09:19] Speaker 3: Wrong?
[1:09:20] Speaker 1: You're going to appeal to the legal text. That's what
[1:09:22] Speaker 1: you appeal to in court. You apply the law to
[1:09:25] Speaker 1: the case. Now, what law can you apply to this case?
[1:09:33] Speaker 3: Can I try something real quick?
[1:09:35] Speaker 1: I kind of want to hear an answer. I don't
[1:09:36] Speaker 1: think he actually has an answer.
[1:09:39] Speaker 2: Have literally answered this?
[1:09:41] Speaker 1: You didn't?
[1:09:42] Speaker 5: What legal.
[1:09:46] Speaker 1: Try this again? What legal code can you appeal to
[1:09:50] Speaker 1: an ancient Israel? If you're a young woman and you
[1:09:53] Speaker 1: find yourself at the gate with the elders being tried
[1:09:56] Speaker 1: for not being a virgin? What legal code can you
[1:09:58] Speaker 1: appeal to? God's law which is found where in the
[1:10:07] Speaker 1: book in the fucking Bible and in the Bible, there's
[1:10:09] Speaker 1: only one thing that you have to determine. If somebody
[1:10:13] Speaker 1: the virgin and what's the one thing. There's not only
[1:10:17] Speaker 1: one thing, then find me the other test.
[1:10:21] Speaker 2: Yeah, you're arguing from siluce again.
[1:10:23] Speaker 1: And I'm not arguing from silence. You said there's more
[1:10:25] Speaker 1: than one thing. Find me the one thing.
[1:10:28] Speaker 2: Yes, So it clearly said that there would be evidence gathered.
[1:10:31] Speaker 2: In the text of it, it.
[1:10:32] Speaker 1: Doesn't say there's evidence that's gathered. Yeah, so it says
[1:10:37] Speaker 1: the evidence is the sheet. They will spread out the
[1:10:39] Speaker 1: cloth before the elders of the town. That's the evidence.
[1:10:43] Speaker 2: Go back to the top end. You can highlight.
[1:10:47] Speaker 3: The part. It's on the screen.
[1:10:49] Speaker 1: It's on the screen. We've read it three times, at
[1:10:51] Speaker 1: least twice.
[1:10:53] Speaker 2: You've read it twice.
[1:10:54] Speaker 1: But can you go up here is the evidence of
[1:10:57] Speaker 1: my daughter's virginity. Then they will out the cloth before
[1:11:01] Speaker 1: the elders of the town. The bloody sheet is the evidence.
[1:11:08] Speaker 2: Yes, it's not the only form of evidence.
[1:11:10] Speaker 1: It's the only evidence that's mentioned in the text.
[1:11:14] Speaker 2: Yeah, why does it have to be mentioned?
[1:11:16] Speaker 1: Okay, then give me one other form of evidence.
[1:11:19] Speaker 2: Yeah, you can go to a discussion like witness testimony,
[1:11:23] Speaker 2: et cetera.
[1:11:24] Speaker 1: How could somebody possibly witness whether or not she a virgin.
[1:11:29] Speaker 2: Well, people tell their friends what they do. So if
[1:11:33] Speaker 2: someone's sorry, so you can't witness.
[1:11:38] Speaker 1: You can't witness somebody not doing something. Well, the act being,
[1:11:46] Speaker 1: the act of being a virgin means that you never
[1:11:48] Speaker 1: lay with somebody. You can't have a witness for that.
[1:11:51] Speaker 1: There's no witness that said I was with this person
[1:11:54] Speaker 1: every moment of their entire life, and I know that
[1:11:57] Speaker 1: they never lied with a man. There's no witness for that.
[1:12:00] Speaker 1: So witnesses don't help you here. Just be honest. Liars
[1:12:04] Speaker 1: go to Lake of Fire Revelation twenty one eight.
[1:12:07] Speaker 2: Yeah, that's time. So the point is that people would
[1:12:11] Speaker 2: tell their friends what they do.
[1:12:12] Speaker 1: If it doesn't matter, that would only impute her. It
[1:12:16] Speaker 1: would never, it would never.
[1:12:20] Speaker 3: Let's pretend that I've just converted on hold on, hold on,
[1:12:24] Speaker 3: hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, I've just converted,
[1:12:28] Speaker 3: and I am I just got married, and I see
[1:12:34] Speaker 3: nothing on the sheet. So I want to follow the Bible,
[1:12:37] Speaker 3: and the Bible says, hey, bring the evidence to the elders.
[1:12:41] Speaker 3: So I'm bringing them the sheet and they go, oh,
[1:12:43] Speaker 3: there's nothing on the sheet. So now I as a man,
[1:12:46] Speaker 3: I'm saying, well, this woman lied to me. Let's stone her.
[1:12:50] Speaker 3: What do you say to me to tell me I'm wrong?
[1:12:57] Speaker 1: Yeah?
[1:12:58] Speaker 6: What like?
[1:12:59] Speaker 2: Are you we doing?
[1:13:01] Speaker 4: So?
[1:13:02] Speaker 1: We literally I already asked you one. So Jeff is
[1:13:05] Speaker 1: asking you a second time. In the ancient world, if
[1:13:08] Speaker 1: I bring a woman, or Jeff or anyone else brings
[1:13:11] Speaker 1: a woman to the elders and says, this woman is
[1:13:15] Speaker 1: not a virgin. She did not bleed. Is what is
[1:13:18] Speaker 1: the evidence that she could bring? According to the text,
[1:13:23] Speaker 1: depends on the investigation done. Based on the text. If
[1:13:27] Speaker 1: there's no bloody sheet, can I have her stoned?
[1:13:32] Speaker 2: Yeah?
[1:13:33] Speaker 1: Okay, so fantastic based on the test given in the Bible.
[1:13:40] Speaker 1: Based on the biblical text. I don't know why it
[1:13:44] Speaker 1: took you twenty minutes just to say the word yes.
[1:13:46] Speaker 1: Based on the Biblical text, the way it's laid out,
[1:13:50] Speaker 1: a woman can be stoned for not being a virgin
[1:13:54] Speaker 1: if there's no bloody sheet.
[1:13:55] Speaker 2: Correct, it's a factor.
[1:13:59] Speaker 1: It's not just a factor. It's either yes or no.
[1:14:02] Speaker 1: If there's no bloody sheet, is she going to be stoned?
[1:14:07] Speaker 2: Depends on what the investigation and.
[1:14:12] Speaker 1: The investigation is not going to turn anything up. There's
[1:14:14] Speaker 1: no other evidence.
[1:14:17] Speaker 2: Well, in law, you do an investigation.
[1:14:19] Speaker 1: There's no evidence. There is no evidence you can provide
[1:14:23] Speaker 1: that somebody's a virgin other than the bloody sheet.
[1:14:27] Speaker 2: Yeah, that's not true.
[1:14:28] Speaker 1: Give me the evidence then, yeah.
[1:14:31] Speaker 2: Like I said, like, confession.
[1:14:34] Speaker 1: Confessions aren't evidence, Yes they are, No, they're not. In law,
[1:14:40] Speaker 1: confessions are not evidence of the absence of something. Virginity
[1:14:44] Speaker 1: is the absence of not having lied with a man.
[1:14:47] Speaker 1: You cannot confess to that. That's not evidence of anything.
[1:14:50] Speaker 1: There's no such thing as evidence for somebody not laying
[1:14:53] Speaker 1: with somebody else.
[1:14:56] Speaker 2: You can know from confession.
[1:14:57] Speaker 1: If no, you fucking can't.
[1:15:01] Speaker 2: Yes you can.
[1:15:01] Speaker 1: No, you can't from confession. So we'll try this again.
[1:15:06] Speaker 1: Confession only makes her guilty. It will never exonerate her.
[1:15:11] Speaker 1: You can confess to a crime, but you cannot confess
[1:15:14] Speaker 1: to not doing a crime. We're talking about what is
[1:15:17] Speaker 1: the evidence that would exonerate her, not the evidence that
[1:15:21] Speaker 1: would make her guilty. What is the evidence that would
[1:15:24] Speaker 1: exonerate her?
[1:15:26] Speaker 2: I just said to what you just said and done
[1:15:28] Speaker 2: this in property.
[1:15:29] Speaker 3: It is heresy.
[1:15:30] Speaker 1: This is crazy. I cannot believe somebody is dumb. It's
[1:15:33] Speaker 1: wild to me. It's hard for me to believe that
[1:15:35] Speaker 1: somebody is this ubtuse. So a confession of not being
[1:15:40] Speaker 1: a virgin would make you fucking guilty, not innocent. I'm
[1:15:44] Speaker 1: asking for the evidence. I'm asking for the evidence that
[1:15:47] Speaker 1: would make her innocent.
[1:15:51] Speaker 2: Depends on the investigation.
[1:15:54] Speaker 1: Name one piece of fucking evidence.
[1:15:58] Speaker 2: You need to try, as incluss.
[1:16:01] Speaker 1: Piece of evidence.
[1:16:04] Speaker 3: What does deuteronomy for?
[1:16:05] Speaker 2: To say, guest, it says you need to show how
[1:16:10] Speaker 2: it's inconsistent with says.
[1:16:12] Speaker 3: Not to add or remove anything from the law that
[1:16:15] Speaker 3: I'm giving you, which is Deuteronomy, right, the Deuteronomy law,
[1:16:18] Speaker 3: And you're attempting to add and remove crapit.
[1:16:22] Speaker 1: No, so you're you've already admitted it. Based on the
[1:16:26] Speaker 1: law given in the text. You are allowed to have
[1:16:29] Speaker 1: a woman stoned if there is no bloody sheet. That
[1:16:32] Speaker 1: is just a stone cold fact. Are you aware that
[1:16:35] Speaker 1: only half of women, slightly less than half of women
[1:16:40] Speaker 1: actually bleed the first time?
[1:16:43] Speaker 2: What's the point.
[1:16:45] Speaker 1: The point is the bloody sheet test is not just
[1:16:48] Speaker 1: a bad test, it's hilariously bad test. Only about forty
[1:16:51] Speaker 1: five percent of women would have actually been guilty upon tried.
[1:16:56] Speaker 2: Yeah, no one said that. This is like the only yes.
[1:17:00] Speaker 1: The Bible says that the only variable you need, the
[1:17:05] Speaker 1: only variable that you need to determine a woman's guilt
[1:17:08] Speaker 1: is whether or not she bled on that sheet. That's
[1:17:10] Speaker 1: the only evidence.
[1:17:11] Speaker 2: That's why I'm asking you. Show me where says you
[1:17:13] Speaker 2: only need this.
[1:17:14] Speaker 1: They give me another form of fucking evidence that they
[1:17:18] Speaker 1: could use.
[1:17:18] Speaker 2: You need says you only need this.
[1:17:21] Speaker 1: I don't show me any possible show me any possible
[1:17:27] Speaker 1: other evidence that they could bring. Name one thing that
[1:17:30] Speaker 1: would exonerate hers.
[1:17:32] Speaker 2: If you're not going to prove them.
[1:17:33] Speaker 1: Name one thing that could exonerate her.
[1:17:36] Speaker 2: Prove what you just said.
[1:17:38] Speaker 1: Name one thing that exonerates her what you said. Listen,
[1:17:42] Speaker 1: I'm going to keep cooking you until you name it.
[1:17:44] Speaker 1: I know you can't do it. That's why you keep
[1:17:46] Speaker 1: shifting the burden. Name one thing that you could exonerate her.
[1:17:51] Speaker 2: Yeah, approve what you just said.
[1:17:53] Speaker 1: Name one thing that can exonerate her. The book only
[1:17:56] Speaker 1: lists one piece of evidence.
[1:18:00] Speaker 2: Prove what you just said.
[1:18:02] Speaker 1: The book only lists one piece of evidence. If there
[1:18:05] Speaker 1: was other pieces of evidence, If there's other pieces of evidence,
[1:18:11] Speaker 1: it would have listed other pieces of evidence. It didn't
[1:18:14] Speaker 1: fucking do that. If you think that there are other evidences,
[1:18:17] Speaker 1: then please, by all means list what a possible other
[1:18:20] Speaker 1: evidence could be.
[1:18:22] Speaker 4: The text does not say this is all you need.
[1:18:24] Speaker 1: I never said I never said that. I'm asking you
[1:18:27] Speaker 1: if there's another piece of evidence, what could it be?
[1:18:32] Speaker 2: Well, it could be seen from the investigation.
[1:18:36] Speaker 3: What is it?
[1:18:36] Speaker 1: What is the other evidence? It's me, it's not on
[1:18:41] Speaker 1: me to prove your argument. You're saying that there are
[1:18:45] Speaker 1: other evidence that can exonerate her. I'm asking you to
[1:18:48] Speaker 1: provide what is the other evidence?
[1:18:54] Speaker 2: Like alibi, etc.
[1:18:57] Speaker 1: We've already covered this. You can't alibi some body's entire
[1:19:00] Speaker 1: life and whether or not they ever slept with somebody.
[1:19:03] Speaker 1: That's impossible.
[1:19:04] Speaker 2: An ai can prove your innocence.
[1:19:07] Speaker 1: No, it can't, Yes it can. It would require someone
[1:19:10] Speaker 1: to be with her at all points in time. Do
[1:19:14] Speaker 1: you think that there was a Do you think there
[1:19:16] Speaker 1: was a Siamese twin that was with her at all
[1:19:17] Speaker 1: points in her life that could vouch.
[1:19:20] Speaker 2: An alibi doesn't mean I have to be at all
[1:19:23] Speaker 2: points in time.
[1:19:23] Speaker 1: Yes, because that's what it means to be a virgin.
[1:19:26] Speaker 1: It means at all points in your life. You have
[1:19:28] Speaker 1: never been with a man. Nobody has ever entered you.
[1:19:32] Speaker 1: That's what it means, which means in order to use
[1:19:34] Speaker 1: an alibi, you would have to somehow say that you
[1:19:37] Speaker 1: were locked up all your life, or that there was
[1:19:39] Speaker 1: somebody with you that witnessed every moment of your life.
[1:19:44] Speaker 2: No, so doesn't have to be around.
[1:19:48] Speaker 1: An alibi is an excuse for why you couldn't have
[1:19:52] Speaker 1: possibly done the crime. Meaning I didn't commit the crime
[1:19:55] Speaker 1: at the seven to eleven because at the same time
[1:19:57] Speaker 1: I was at the walmart. You would have to provide
[1:19:59] Speaker 1: an alibi for every moment of the woman's life. Not
[1:20:04] Speaker 1: every moment, Yes, you would, because at every moment in
[1:20:06] Speaker 1: that woman's life she could have been penetrated.
[1:20:12] Speaker 3: So I could just make a clean inference that the
[1:20:14] Speaker 3: Deuteronomy for two text that I said before says not
[1:20:18] Speaker 3: to add anything or remove anything, which means that it's
[1:20:20] Speaker 3: implying that the texts as written is sound, that there's
[1:20:25] Speaker 3: nothing extra. And then by listing one piece of evidence,
[1:20:29] Speaker 3: the implication is that that's it. That's the only evidence
[1:20:32] Speaker 3: needed because Deuteronomy four to two forbids you from adding
[1:20:35] Speaker 3: any any extra thing. So even if I were inclined
[1:20:39] Speaker 3: to add an alibi. The text doesn't have an alibi
[1:20:43] Speaker 3: or any other piece of evidence. So I'm not allowed
[1:20:45] Speaker 3: to because Deuteronomy forbids me to do it.
[1:20:48] Speaker 2: When did I add a new law?
[1:20:51] Speaker 6: No.
[1:20:51] Speaker 3: Deuteronomy four to two doesn't say don't add new laws.
[1:20:54] Speaker 3: It says, do not add anything at all, or do
[1:20:57] Speaker 3: not remove anything at all to what the law to
[1:21:01] Speaker 3: the law.
[1:21:02] Speaker 2: Okay, so I have not added any laws.
[1:21:04] Speaker 3: So no, no, no, no, no, no, no no no, no, no,
[1:21:07] Speaker 3: no no no. It doesn't do not add laws. It says,
[1:21:10] Speaker 3: do not add anything to the law.
[1:21:13] Speaker 2: So don't add any laws.
[1:21:14] Speaker 3: No, it's not do not add any law. It do
[1:21:17] Speaker 3: not add anything to the law. Yeah, but adding anything
[1:21:21] Speaker 3: to the law does not mean you're adding laws. It
[1:21:23] Speaker 3: says you must not there is you must neither add
[1:21:27] Speaker 3: anything to what I command you, nor take any away
[1:21:30] Speaker 3: anything from it.
[1:21:31] Speaker 2: Yes, so I have not added any laws.
[1:21:33] Speaker 3: It's not any laws.
[1:21:34] Speaker 2: It's anything to the commandments.
[1:21:37] Speaker 3: Listen, hold on.
[1:21:39] Speaker 2: It says, do not add anything to the commandments. No,
[1:21:43] Speaker 2: no any laws.
[1:21:44] Speaker 3: Are you saying you have not added any laws? But
[1:21:46] Speaker 3: you have added something?
[1:21:49] Speaker 2: No, I haven't.
[1:21:53] Speaker 1: No, last I checked. Those are different words.
[1:21:57] Speaker 2: Yeah, they're different words.
[1:21:58] Speaker 1: All right, well listen to I don't think you're like
[1:22:00] Speaker 1: mentally competent for this conversation. Uh, maybe we can look
[1:22:04] Speaker 1: at like one more passage that doesn't require as much
[1:22:07] Speaker 1: brain power. You want to read the gospel with me?
[1:22:10] Speaker 3: I have a competing hypothesis.
[1:22:12] Speaker 2: Yeah, it's inconsistent with the biblical narrative.
[1:22:16] Speaker 1: Go ahead, I only you know what the biblical narrative is.
[1:22:20] Speaker 1: You didn't even know what Deuteronomy twenty two said. Okay,
[1:22:26] Speaker 1: when is the second Coming?
[1:22:30] Speaker 2: I'm not like what exact day or of or something.
[1:22:34] Speaker 4: Yeah.
[1:22:36] Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm probably not the most versed on the argument
[1:22:38] Speaker 2: you might show, but you can show.
[1:22:39] Speaker 1: It what's going to happen when Jesus comes back.
[1:22:44] Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not one hundred percent show on every specific thing,
[1:22:47] Speaker 2: but I believe.
[1:22:48] Speaker 1: You don't know what's going to happen when Jesus comes back.
[1:22:52] Speaker 2: I'm not sure on every specific thing.
[1:22:54] Speaker 1: Can you name one thing that's going to happen when
[1:22:56] Speaker 1: Jesus comes back?
[1:22:58] Speaker 2: It's going to fight that and to Christ.
[1:23:03] Speaker 3: Okay, fair enough, I'm gonna make a joke. The second
[1:23:06] Speaker 3: coming is either the birthday or the anniversary, depending on
[1:23:09] Speaker 3: where they fall on the calendar.
[1:23:15] Speaker 4: Oh boy.
[1:23:16] Speaker 1: Okay, So what's supposed to happen in the second second
[1:23:20] Speaker 1: Coming is Jesus is gonna come back and he's gonna
[1:23:22] Speaker 1: judge the world. He's gonna punish the people. All the
[1:23:25] Speaker 1: angels are gonna come with him. There's gonna be a
[1:23:27] Speaker 1: loud trumpet call. He's gonna gather all of the elect
[1:23:31] Speaker 1: and then the New Jerusalem is gonna happen. And then
[1:23:35] Speaker 1: you know, all of the wicked people are gonna be punished,
[1:23:38] Speaker 1: all the good people are gonna be rewarded. Agree so far?
[1:23:44] Speaker 2: Yeah, carry on with your point.
[1:23:47] Speaker 1: Okay, cool. So my point is that Jesus actually gave
[1:23:52] Speaker 1: a timeline for when this is gonna happen. You want
[1:23:56] Speaker 1: to hear about it? Yeah, go ahead, awesome. Matthew sixteen says,
[1:24:02] Speaker 1: for the Son of Man will come in the glory
[1:24:04] Speaker 1: of his Father with his angels, and he will reward
[1:24:07] Speaker 1: each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you,
[1:24:10] Speaker 1: there are some standing here who shall not taste death
[1:24:13] Speaker 1: until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.
[1:24:17] Speaker 1: Are those disciples alive or dead?
[1:24:18] Speaker 2: Right now? So repeat that's what read it again? Sorry?
[1:24:23] Speaker 1: Yep, for the Son of Man will come in the
[1:24:26] Speaker 1: glory of his father with his angels, and he will
[1:24:29] Speaker 1: reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you,
[1:24:33] Speaker 1: there are some standing here who will not taste death
[1:24:36] Speaker 1: before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. Okay,
[1:24:43] Speaker 1: are they dead or alive?
[1:24:47] Speaker 2: So I'd say the disciples are in heaven, so they're alive.
[1:24:52] Speaker 1: So none of them died.
[1:24:56] Speaker 2: If they have ever lost in life.
[1:24:58] Speaker 1: Okay, So then Jesus was wrong on some of them dying,
[1:25:01] Speaker 1: because surely I tell you there are some standing here
[1:25:03] Speaker 1: who will not taste death, which means some of them
[1:25:05] Speaker 1: will die. So which ones didn't make it to heaven
[1:25:10] Speaker 1: because it needs to be at least two of them.
[1:25:12] Speaker 1: Some is always more than one.
[1:25:16] Speaker 2: So in this verse, is Jesus only with his disciples?
[1:25:20] Speaker 2: Are you saying yep? Yeah, I'm not one hundred percent
[1:25:25] Speaker 2: sure of us, so I'd have to do research.
[1:25:27] Speaker 1: But yeah, So being in heaven is not happening right now.
[1:25:33] Speaker 1: You're not in heaven until Jesus comes back. That's when
[1:25:36] Speaker 1: all the dead are raised. According to First Thessalonians, Chapter four,
[1:25:41] Speaker 1: people are not in heaven right now. I want me
[1:25:46] Speaker 1: to read that one for you. Yes, you like, yeah,
[1:25:50] Speaker 1: Paul says. It says when Jesus comes back, because they're asking,
[1:25:55] Speaker 1: what's going to happen to those of us that have
[1:25:58] Speaker 1: already died? I mean, are they what are they going
[1:26:01] Speaker 1: to be with us in heaven? Right says, I do
[1:26:03] Speaker 1: not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who
[1:26:06] Speaker 1: have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have
[1:26:09] Speaker 1: no hope. Then he describes what's gonna happen for the
[1:26:12] Speaker 1: say this by the word of the Lord, that we
[1:26:14] Speaker 1: who are alive. I'm sorry, let me read fourteen for context.
[1:26:18] Speaker 1: For we believe that Jesus died and rose again. Even
[1:26:21] Speaker 1: so God will bring with him those who sleep in Jesus.
[1:26:24] Speaker 1: For we say this to you by the word of
[1:26:26] Speaker 1: the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until
[1:26:29] Speaker 1: the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede
[1:26:31] Speaker 1: those who are asleep. For the Lord whohimself would descend
[1:26:34] Speaker 1: from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel,
[1:26:37] Speaker 1: with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ
[1:26:40] Speaker 1: will rise first. Where are they rising from?
[1:26:45] Speaker 2: I think, does she?
[1:26:45] Speaker 5: Oh?
[1:26:46] Speaker 2: Would it be a shioh?
[1:26:47] Speaker 1: Well, they're rising from the ground. They're not rising from heaven. Okay,
[1:26:53] Speaker 1: so the dead or not in heaven with Jesus right now,
[1:26:57] Speaker 1: they're not coming back with them. So Jesus made a
[1:27:02] Speaker 1: prediction for a second coming and he failed.
[1:27:07] Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, i'ven't already heard this one, so I'd have
[1:27:10] Speaker 2: to do research on that.
[1:27:12] Speaker 1: All right, fair enough, all right, we listen. You've been
[1:27:15] Speaker 1: here for like an hour and a half now, so
[1:27:17] Speaker 1: we got to move on to our next guest. But
[1:27:20] Speaker 1: thanks for talking with us. Cool cheers. Yeah, imagine having
[1:27:27] Speaker 1: to engage in that level of dishonesty with every dialogue
[1:27:31] Speaker 1: you have just to maintain your faith.
[1:27:34] Speaker 3: If nothing, I put this in the chat, but I
[1:27:36] Speaker 3: think you've proved at least.
[1:27:37] Speaker 1: The copiums Yeah, the copium for sure. Very thick haze
[1:27:43] Speaker 1: of copium in whatever room he's residing in right now.
[1:27:48] Speaker 1: All right, guys, love me grabbing some super chats here
[1:27:50] Speaker 1: and we'll get through it. Chris says, is it true
[1:27:54] Speaker 1: that Doug is Oh, sorry, we got that one. Let's see,
[1:27:57] Speaker 1: we've got that one. Dexter's thank you so for the
[1:28:00] Speaker 1: supertest says when you cook these guests to a crisp,
[1:28:03] Speaker 1: is this considered a burnt sacrifice to Doug and Sharonstone.
[1:28:06] Speaker 1: It absolutely is. It is a pleasing aroma to Doug,
[1:28:09] Speaker 1: Sharon Stone and Rocky and Cranky. Thank you so much
[1:28:12] Speaker 1: for being here tonight. Thank you for the superchat too,
[1:28:14] Speaker 1: he says. Yay DZ stream night, ave Doug our solid
[1:28:18] Speaker 1: basis and foundation. Justin, did you accidentally turn off subgifting?
[1:28:23] Speaker 1: I did not. We've got a couple of people that
[1:28:24] Speaker 1: subbed gift subbed tonight, so it should be working unless
[1:28:28] Speaker 1: something broke that I am una aware of. Thank you
[1:28:31] Speaker 1: for the super chat, though, Rory says, don't panic. The
[1:28:33] Speaker 1: Doug abides and stays rock solid all the time. Doug
[1:28:36] Speaker 1: is always rock solid. Absolutely, and Abraham with the super Chat.
[1:28:41] Speaker 1: Abraham the Chowden is a dope name, by the way,
[1:28:44] Speaker 1: says I must. I'm sorry. I just conceived of a
[1:28:47] Speaker 1: being that immediately eats whatever being caller conceives of.
[1:28:50] Speaker 4: Oops.
[1:28:51] Speaker 1: Also his name is Doug. Praise Doug, hell yeah, praise
[1:28:55] Speaker 1: Doug the god eating being. Actually, I think somebody there
[1:28:58] Speaker 1: was somebody popular who made a similar argument that had
[1:29:03] Speaker 1: a necessary being that was a god killing being or
[1:29:06] Speaker 1: god eating being. I have to think on that one,
[1:29:10] Speaker 1: But there's lots of different conceptual necessary beings. This guy
[1:29:15] Speaker 1: was reaching pretty hard. Can Best. Thank you so much
[1:29:19] Speaker 1: for the twenty seven ninety nine big W on the
[1:29:22] Speaker 1: super Chat. I appreciate that it says, give the caller
[1:29:24] Speaker 1: credit to be able to call after a massive, boring,
[1:29:28] Speaker 1: massive bong rip. Yeah, you're right, listen that. I hope
[1:29:32] Speaker 1: he's not like that in real life. Could you imagine,
[1:29:34] Speaker 1: like if you work a real job with somebody like that,
[1:29:38] Speaker 1: Like I'm an engineer, I couldn't possibly imagine walking in
[1:29:41] Speaker 1: and I've got like a coworker and I've got like
[1:29:44] Speaker 1: a million dollar project that I'm working on, and my
[1:29:47] Speaker 1: co worker is talking at that particular pace with that,
[1:29:51] Speaker 1: with that level of cognition, I don't I don't know
[1:29:54] Speaker 1: if I want him touching my machine. I'm just saying
[1:29:57] Speaker 1: it seems like a bad combination. An absurdist. Thank you
[1:30:02] Speaker 1: for the supertest says words ouad there for God. That's
[1:30:04] Speaker 1: basically what's happened. Yeah, hyper Lab, thank you so much
[1:30:07] Speaker 1: for the ten dollars super thanks and big W to
[1:30:10] Speaker 1: Silver Surfer. Thank you so much, Silver Surfer for the
[1:30:13] Speaker 1: ninety to nine super thanks. Good to see you tonight,
[1:30:16] Speaker 1: and Small Johnson, good to see you as well tonight.
[1:30:18] Speaker 1: You're completely right, So this being is unnecessarily being annoying.
[1:30:23] Speaker 1: Af He really was. He really was. But you know what,
[1:30:26] Speaker 1: sometimes when you get someone that's really annoying, you just
[1:30:28] Speaker 1: have to cook them good enough before you let them go. Oh, Discordia,
[1:30:32] Speaker 1: thank you for this ten dollars supertest says, what do
[1:30:35] Speaker 1: you think phil bros Are trying to accomplish? Is it
[1:30:38] Speaker 1: just win in an argument or are they really trying
[1:30:40] Speaker 1: to convince you? Because it fails on both accounts and
[1:30:43] Speaker 1: it's boring. I agree. Here's my thought on the theistic
[1:30:47] Speaker 1: phil bros. My thought is they have a religion that
[1:30:51] Speaker 1: they can't justify, and they know they can't justify it
[1:30:54] Speaker 1: it's nonsense, so they turn to the only thing that
[1:30:57] Speaker 1: they can turn to, which is philosophy, because if there's
[1:31:00] Speaker 1: no material evidence for your faith, maybe you can come
[1:31:03] Speaker 1: up with some logical evidences. But it also fails. The
[1:31:08] Speaker 1: reality is there's never been a single atheist that converted
[1:31:11] Speaker 1: to Christianity or Hinduism or Islam on some sort of
[1:31:16] Speaker 1: dumb like prime mover necessary being argument never happened. Wilma
[1:31:21] Speaker 1: Dick Lift. Big W on the name, thank you so
[1:31:24] Speaker 1: much for the superchest says, is Ski a necessary thing?
[1:31:27] Speaker 1: Praise Doug well for reproduction.
[1:31:30] Speaker 8: It is so.
[1:31:32] Speaker 1: Eric, thank you for the superchat. Big W on the
[1:31:34] Speaker 1: nineteen ninety ninety super chat. I really appreciate that, says
[1:31:37] Speaker 1: Doug is the God of all things, all glories to
[1:31:42] Speaker 1: the holiest of holies. Big W for that, and all
[1:31:45] Speaker 1: hail Doug, the most necessary being there is. And in defense,
[1:31:50] Speaker 1: thank you for the sixtixty six says Guess is defining
[1:31:52] Speaker 1: God as necessary in saying, because he defines God as necessary,
[1:31:56] Speaker 1: God must exist, therefore no link between his definition and reality.
[1:32:00] Speaker 1: That was the point that I've tried to elucidate early on,
[1:32:03] Speaker 1: which is like he's just making a mental definition that
[1:32:09] Speaker 1: God is the necessary thing, and he couldn't get me
[1:32:12] Speaker 1: to necessary to God, Like that was the link I
[1:32:15] Speaker 1: wanted him to make, and he couldn't make it. And Chris,
[1:32:18] Speaker 1: thank you so much for the supertest, says why do
[1:32:19] Speaker 1: circular arguments always get so much attention? They should be
[1:32:22] Speaker 1: dismissed if they can't prove their premises. You know what,
[1:32:26] Speaker 1: Sometimes I'll do that where I'll just say, you know,
[1:32:29] Speaker 1: you know, arguments without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
[1:32:32] Speaker 1: But I was, you know, hoping not to go that route.
[1:32:36] Speaker 1: But what are you gonna do? Sometimes you have to Falcon,
[1:32:39] Speaker 1: thank you so much for the supertest, says perfect to
[1:32:41] Speaker 1: who That's a really good question because, like I don't know,
[1:32:46] Speaker 1: the guy was just conflating definitions the whole time. So, Jennifer,
[1:32:51] Speaker 1: thank you for the ten dollars. Super thanks. I really
[1:32:53] Speaker 1: appreciate it. And Texas panhandler big W says, all this
[1:32:57] Speaker 1: talk about Rocks is making Doug artist stone. Absolutely, Doug
[1:33:01] Speaker 1: is always rock hard. Doug has never flasted for you guys.
[1:33:04] Speaker 1: And last one, Mike says, this guy sounds like he
[1:33:07] Speaker 1: thinks Nigel Toughnell is spine. I'm sorry. In spinal tap,
[1:33:13] Speaker 1: his logic goes to eleven when everyone else's goes to ten. Yeah,
[1:33:17] Speaker 1: you're here about right. It's been a long time since
[1:33:20] Speaker 1: I heard a spinal tap reference. You don't get that
[1:33:22] Speaker 1: too often. But big W, let's get our next guest
[1:33:25] Speaker 1: pulled up in here. I think Tim and David have
[1:33:28] Speaker 1: been waiting the longest, so let me grab Tim. I
[1:33:32] Speaker 1: apologize if I didn't see what order everyone came in
[1:33:35] Speaker 1: at it's hard to keep track of all the all
[1:33:39] Speaker 1: the happenings on the screen. Welcome in, Tim, How you doing.
[1:33:46] Speaker 2: Tim?
[1:33:46] Speaker 1: Do we fall asleep? And Tim was waiting too long?
[1:33:50] Speaker 1: He was in the guest box for a while. Sorry Tim,
[1:33:54] Speaker 1: coming back when you wake up? Buddy and Ken I agree?
[1:33:57] Speaker 1: He said, what does all possible worlds mean? This is
[1:34:00] Speaker 1: actually a really good question, Jeff. Can you elucidate a
[1:34:03] Speaker 1: little bit. When philosophers say all possible worlds, what are
[1:34:06] Speaker 1: they referring to?
[1:34:08] Speaker 3: So all possible worlds doesn't mean like different planets. It's like,
[1:34:14] Speaker 3: I guess the best way to conceive of it is
[1:34:16] Speaker 3: if you were to rewind the last five minutes, and
[1:34:19] Speaker 3: then there's another possible world that happens. And then you
[1:34:23] Speaker 3: consider an event. So like I picked up my phone
[1:34:27] Speaker 3: and I started talking to you, right, if we rewind
[1:34:30] Speaker 3: five minutes, could that have happened another way? That's another
[1:34:32] Speaker 3: possible world. So if in all possible worlds, me picking
[1:34:35] Speaker 3: up the phone and talking to you was going to happen,
[1:34:38] Speaker 3: then that's a necessary thing. Otherwise it's not right, right.
[1:34:43] Speaker 1: I like that one. Brandon says. I find it funny
[1:34:46] Speaker 1: when people compare Christian God to the Muslim God number
[1:34:49] Speaker 1: thirty one and Mary impregnated at twelve highlights how wicked
[1:34:53] Speaker 1: these deities are. Yeah, the funny thing is like people
[1:34:56] Speaker 1: will rightly point out that the Bible doesn't give her age,
[1:34:58] Speaker 1: but the Early Christian Church does give her age, which
[1:35:01] Speaker 1: means the Christians of the Early Church were okay with
[1:35:05] Speaker 1: her being twelve, even if it's not in the Bible,
[1:35:08] Speaker 1: which is crazy. You can find that in the proto
[1:35:11] Speaker 1: evangelism of James and last one Noah Lions. Oh there's
[1:35:16] Speaker 1: a long name, Noah Lions. Eight dead babies on the arc. Wow,
[1:35:22] Speaker 1: you're probably right. Thank you for the supertet, says nurse
[1:35:25] Speaker 1: practitioner here. There is no way to ensure if someone
[1:35:28] Speaker 1: was a virgin before getting laid even now, so it
[1:35:31] Speaker 1: doesn't matter if criteria wasn't written. That's actually a really
[1:35:34] Speaker 1: good point. There is no actual way to ensure or
[1:35:38] Speaker 1: to know if somebody was a virgin. It's an unfalsifiable claim.
[1:35:43] Speaker 1: That's I'm gonna bring that up next time this conversation happens.
[1:35:46] Speaker 1: Thank you for that. We're gonna get David in the box.
[1:35:49] Speaker 1: See if David's with us, how you doing David.
[1:35:52] Speaker 7: I'm good. Justin how are you doing good.
[1:35:55] Speaker 1: David, recognize your voice. You got a new profile picture.
[1:35:59] Speaker 7: Yeah, that's my daughter and my daughter.
[1:36:02] Speaker 1: Oh good, I hope you're doing well. It's been a
[1:36:03] Speaker 1: while since we talked, so I already know you're at
[1:36:06] Speaker 1: least eighteen, and I already know that you're you're a
[1:36:09] Speaker 1: believer in the Christian faith. So what would be your
[1:36:13] Speaker 1: best argument for the existence of the Christian God?
[1:36:18] Speaker 7: The Bible codes?
[1:36:20] Speaker 1: Oh, boy, tell me about the bibble codes.
[1:36:24] Speaker 7: Well, Genesis chapter five gives the first five first ten
[1:36:28] Speaker 7: names of the Bible in the genealogy, and if you
[1:36:31] Speaker 7: spell that, spell those names out in the Senate, it
[1:36:34] Speaker 7: gives the Christian Gospel.
[1:36:36] Speaker 1: I'm so they don't. Oh just I feel like just
[1:36:41] Speaker 1: got something to say about this though.
[1:36:42] Speaker 4: I'm so happy right now.
[1:36:44] Speaker 1: Go ahead.
[1:36:46] Speaker 3: So let's say I was to say that that was true. Right,
[1:36:49] Speaker 3: it does spell out the Gospel. Could I do that
[1:36:51] Speaker 3: with any other genealogy in the book.
[1:36:57] Speaker 7: Well, there are very specific genealogies given in the book
[1:37:00] Speaker 7: that the landeage of Jesus Christ to Adam and Eve.
[1:37:06] Speaker 3: Yeah, but you're you're picking an arbitrary one because this
[1:37:08] Speaker 3: the the one that you're giving is not like doesn't
[1:37:12] Speaker 3: have anything with Jesus. It's just the first few people
[1:37:16] Speaker 3: through No, I believe, right, Uh I don't.
[1:37:21] Speaker 7: I think no is the end of the genealogy in Genesis.
[1:37:26] Speaker 3: And and there's some message there about the man appointed suffering.
[1:37:30] Speaker 7: Or some some such man is appointed mortal sorrow.
[1:37:33] Speaker 3: All right, cool, great God.
[1:37:35] Speaker 7: Shall come down teaching his desk. I'll bring hope.
[1:37:37] Speaker 3: Got it, got it. That's that's wonderful, that's great work.
[1:37:40] Speaker 3: So here, just so you know, I'm going to I'm
[1:37:44] Speaker 3: going to say a thing, and I don't want anybody
[1:37:47] Speaker 3: in the audience to say a pause. I don't want
[1:37:52] Speaker 3: anybody to say no, diddy. But here, So if we
[1:37:56] Speaker 3: were to go to uh really, first first Corinthians eight.
[1:38:01] Speaker 3: I did this the other day because somebody was saying that,
[1:38:03] Speaker 3: like you can just take like a genealogy in the
[1:38:05] Speaker 3: book and make a name. If we take first oh no,
[1:38:10] Speaker 3: not first Corinthian, sorry, first first Chronicles eight one through five.
[1:38:14] Speaker 3: We've got Benjamin, Bella, ash bell Ahara, Noha and Rafa
[1:38:20] Speaker 3: and so those names. If we take this, dude, I'm
[1:38:24] Speaker 3: just gonna do the same thing you did it says,
[1:38:26] Speaker 3: the son of the right hand swallows a man of
[1:38:28] Speaker 3: ball backwards and then rests like a giant. That's crazy
[1:38:33] Speaker 3: work to me that the Bible would have such filth
[1:38:36] Speaker 3: about swallowing a man of ball backwards? Do you accept
[1:38:41] Speaker 3: that as a prophecy or a message? AYO is right,
[1:38:55] Speaker 3: doctor sprinkles.
[1:38:57] Speaker 1: No, pause, I think we lost David.
[1:39:00] Speaker 7: Sorry, I didn't know I had my mock mueded.
[1:39:02] Speaker 3: That sounds like, well, no, look like if you say
[1:39:06] Speaker 3: the son of the right hand, who's the right hand,
[1:39:12] Speaker 3: the right hand of the father, well, the right hand
[1:39:14] Speaker 3: at all in the Bible, the son of the right hand,
[1:39:18] Speaker 3: the right hand would be Jesus, right. So so the
[1:39:24] Speaker 3: son of Jesus swallows a man of ball, that that
[1:39:29] Speaker 3: implies some sort of weird like homosexual action. But and
[1:39:35] Speaker 3: then it says backwards, which is diabolical, Like I don't
[1:39:40] Speaker 3: even know how you do that backwards. But hey, he
[1:39:43] Speaker 3: gets the people in the Bible are talented.
[1:39:47] Speaker 7: You know what.
[1:39:48] Speaker 3: One of my friends was like, does that mean gargling?
[1:39:50] Speaker 3: And I almost blocked her and then rests like a giant.
[1:39:55] Speaker 3: And so that's what it says. Right now, I'm going
[1:39:58] Speaker 3: to tell you that in your genie. You're playing fast
[1:40:01] Speaker 3: and loose with some of the translations, but I'm willing
[1:40:03] Speaker 3: to accept them because these are direct and that sentence
[1:40:08] Speaker 3: is pretty damning, like it's it's some David and Jonathan
[1:40:12] Speaker 3: Lovell stuff.
[1:40:14] Speaker 7: So you don't give any credence at all to that
[1:40:21] Speaker 7: genealogy of the genesis file.
[1:40:23] Speaker 1: Well, no, because we can just go to any genealogy
[1:40:28] Speaker 1: and like pick some a section of it and say, well,
[1:40:31] Speaker 1: these names kind of have meetings. Let's build a story
[1:40:34] Speaker 1: out of it. It's meaningless. And also from my point
[1:40:37] Speaker 1: of view, I'm not as graceful as Jeff. I'm actually
[1:40:40] Speaker 1: not going to grant you that all those name meanings
[1:40:42] Speaker 1: actually mean everything that you're saying that they mean. Yeah,
[1:40:49] Speaker 1: I get that, because seth is is if you use
[1:40:52] Speaker 1: the words seth as an appointment or appointment or appoint
[1:40:59] Speaker 1: appointing something that's actually an idiomatic usage of the word,
[1:41:03] Speaker 1: Like the basic usage of the word just means to
[1:41:06] Speaker 1: put something, like to set.
[1:41:07] Speaker 3: It down.
[1:41:11] Speaker 7: Or or to set apart.
[1:41:14] Speaker 1: Yeah, to to set to to put something, to put
[1:41:17] Speaker 1: something into place. Yeah, yeah right. But if you if
[1:41:23] Speaker 1: you want to use it to mean a point like appointing,
[1:41:26] Speaker 1: something that's an idiomatic usage of the word.
[1:41:32] Speaker 7: Right, Well, I mean you can't. You can't change the
[1:41:37] Speaker 7: definitions of words though, you know what I'm saying. I
[1:41:39] Speaker 7: mean what I mean, But that's what you've done. If
[1:41:41] Speaker 7: you have names that mean certain things, then you put
[1:41:44] Speaker 7: it in a sentence, it means what it means.
[1:41:46] Speaker 1: That's right. And that's how we know what idiomatic usages are.
[1:41:49] Speaker 1: When you use them in a particular way, we know
[1:41:51] Speaker 1: that they mean something that is different from how they
[1:41:54] Speaker 1: are normally used. Right, right, that's like you.
[1:42:00] Speaker 7: Think, that's awful, big coincidence that in Genesis five the
[1:42:03] Speaker 7: Christian Gospel would be spelled out, But.
[1:42:05] Speaker 1: It's not, That's what I'm saying. Even if you if
[1:42:09] Speaker 1: you accept like that there's hidden messages in the Bible,
[1:42:14] Speaker 1: the hidden message in Genesis five doesn't actually say what
[1:42:16] Speaker 1: you said. Only if you're like really loose with some
[1:42:19] Speaker 1: of the definitions of some of the names.
[1:42:24] Speaker 7: Maybe generous would be the more correct word.
[1:42:29] Speaker 3: I would go with inaccurate.
[1:42:30] Speaker 7: But but it is possible to use those words in
[1:42:34] Speaker 7: that way, right, I mean, how hard would it be
[1:42:37] Speaker 7: to get ten names the line up in such a
[1:42:39] Speaker 7: way and only wanted.
[1:42:41] Speaker 1: To wouldn't wouldn't be hard, wouldn't be hard at all?
[1:42:44] Speaker 1: If if, if some of these names have multiple meanings,
[1:42:47] Speaker 1: some of those names are idiomatic. Yeah, I mean we can.
[1:42:51] Speaker 1: We can do this all day long with different names,
[1:42:53] Speaker 1: as long as we are like willing to go to
[1:42:55] Speaker 1: the dictionary and say, you know, how far can we
[1:42:57] Speaker 1: stretch the meaning of a word?
[1:43:01] Speaker 7: Right? But I mean, how hard would it be to
[1:43:03] Speaker 7: get keen names line up in such a way right
[1:43:06] Speaker 7: from the beginning.
[1:43:07] Speaker 1: Wouldn't be so You've got so, David, I want to
[1:43:13] Speaker 1: make sure you understand this. We've got hundreds and hundreds
[1:43:17] Speaker 1: of lists names in the Bible. Somebody went to a
[1:43:20] Speaker 1: list in the Bible and said, oh, isn't it really
[1:43:22] Speaker 1: interesting in this one particular list, if you stretch the
[1:43:25] Speaker 1: meanings of the names quite right, it'll it'll have some
[1:43:29] Speaker 1: sort of significance to it. But there are hundreds of
[1:43:33] Speaker 1: genealogies in the Bible.
[1:43:35] Speaker 7: Well, it just so happens that this message is the
[1:43:38] Speaker 7: most significant message to humanity.
[1:43:40] Speaker 4: But it's not.
[1:43:43] Speaker 7: Great God came down. The Great God came down teaching
[1:43:47] Speaker 7: his death has brought hope to humanity.
[1:43:50] Speaker 2: But there's not in the text.
[1:43:53] Speaker 3: But there's an even more significant message, my friend, that
[1:43:57] Speaker 3: that is in.
[1:43:59] Speaker 1: That, but it's not in Gens five.
[1:44:02] Speaker 7: Well you might disagree that it's not there. I believe
[1:44:05] Speaker 7: it is there, but you can't argue that that is
[1:44:09] Speaker 7: the message of the Christian faith.
[1:44:11] Speaker 3: Yeah you can't put it.
[1:44:12] Speaker 1: Look, yeah you can, by the way, but go ahead, jee.
[1:44:15] Speaker 3: The Book of Judges, if you go from chapter thirteen
[1:44:17] Speaker 3: through sixteen, you get the genealogy of Samson.
[1:44:20] Speaker 4: And this is this.
[1:44:21] Speaker 3: When I found this, like it was like I felt
[1:44:24] Speaker 3: like a boxer hit me in the chest. If you
[1:44:26] Speaker 3: rest and face the shade, you will bring forth the sun.
[1:44:30] Speaker 3: That's what the sentence is. And you know, justin that,
[1:44:32] Speaker 3: I've been trying for quite some time to get all
[1:44:34] Speaker 3: the hydrogen out of the sun. So the secret to
[1:44:37] Speaker 3: do this may actually be in the genealogy of Samson,
[1:44:41] Speaker 3: and so like that is a significant accomplishment because I've
[1:44:44] Speaker 3: been like commissioning research to try to get the hydrogen
[1:44:48] Speaker 3: out of the sun so we can get rid of
[1:44:50] Speaker 3: all of this, Like let's let's be done with it.
[1:44:53] Speaker 3: And it looks like there's a message right in Judges
[1:44:55] Speaker 3: about bringing forth the sun. Isn't that wild?
[1:45:01] Speaker 4: Oh?
[1:45:02] Speaker 7: I didn't you guys? Are you guys are comedians?
[1:45:05] Speaker 2: You know this?
[1:45:06] Speaker 3: I'm not even joking, how I am. I've been talking
[1:45:09] Speaker 3: about this for ages, Like if you saw my notebook
[1:45:13] Speaker 3: that has like physics and a math, like how much
[1:45:17] Speaker 3: like I have it down to like the Jewel, how
[1:45:20] Speaker 3: much would be required to pull all the hydrogen out justin?
[1:45:25] Speaker 7: Can I ask you a question? Are you your your
[1:45:28] Speaker 7: schooled in Greek in Hebrew?
[1:45:32] Speaker 8: Yeah?
[1:45:32] Speaker 1: I learned Greek and Hebrew and a little bit of
[1:45:35] Speaker 1: a Kadian when I was in school. Now I've actually
[1:45:37] Speaker 1: gone through Justis chapter five, and I've done the breakdown
[1:45:40] Speaker 1: on the names before. I did a video of it,
[1:45:42] Speaker 1: probably I don't know, over a year ago now. But
[1:45:47] Speaker 1: when you actually break down all the names, they don't
[1:45:49] Speaker 1: like normally mean what you think they mean. And some
[1:45:53] Speaker 1: of the names are actually a little bit ambiguous, Like
[1:45:57] Speaker 1: the name is yeah, the name well, Chuck Mush is
[1:46:02] Speaker 1: not even a Bible scholar. No he's not. He's an engineer.
[1:46:07] Speaker 1: He's got he's got a degree in engineering.
[1:46:11] Speaker 7: Well, he's a scholar.
[1:46:12] Speaker 1: By my standard, a scholar is someone who has formal
[1:46:16] Speaker 1: training in the field.
[1:46:18] Speaker 7: If you've heard his teaching twenty four hours through the
[1:46:20] Speaker 7: whole Bible, one hour teaching on h book, or all
[1:46:24] Speaker 7: the way through the whole text. You would know that
[1:46:27] Speaker 7: he's a biblical I would know that he's not.
[1:46:29] Speaker 1: He has a degree in engineering, he has no background
[1:46:32] Speaker 1: in the Biblical text.
[1:46:34] Speaker 7: Well, don't you think an engineer would know better than
[1:46:37] Speaker 7: anyone whether or not the scripture was true?
[1:46:39] Speaker 1: No, they wouldn't. I'm an engineer too. I have an
[1:46:41] Speaker 1: electrical engineering degree, and my education in engineering has nothing
[1:46:46] Speaker 1: to do with what I learned in Bible college or
[1:46:48] Speaker 1: a seminary.
[1:46:51] Speaker 7: Well, I think you should, I think you should reconsider.
[1:46:54] Speaker 1: I certainly wouldn't.
[1:46:57] Speaker 3: This is this is fun first Chronicle seven twenty through
[1:47:00] Speaker 3: twenty seven, A treasure of God's testimony and trouble brings
[1:47:04] Speaker 3: healing a flame and a young lamb in camp with
[1:47:07] Speaker 3: a judge, My glorious kinsman, here's my God. A fish
[1:47:12] Speaker 3: brings the Lord's salvation. That seems like another message from something.
[1:47:16] Speaker 3: It seems like gibberish to me. But that's twelve names.
[1:47:20] Speaker 3: We can keep going, right, This is like that.
[1:47:25] Speaker 7: I didn't realize that you were translating names. Could you
[1:47:28] Speaker 7: read that again?
[1:47:30] Speaker 3: Yeah? So this is a first Chronicle seven twenty through
[1:47:34] Speaker 3: twenty seven, and the sentence goes, a treasure of God's testimony,
[1:47:38] Speaker 3: and trouble brings healing a flame, and a young lamb
[1:47:42] Speaker 3: in camp with a judge, my glorious kinsman, here's my God.
[1:47:47] Speaker 3: A fish brings the Lord salvation.
[1:47:51] Speaker 7: A fish brings the Lord salvage.
[1:47:53] Speaker 3: That's all you got from that.
[1:47:54] Speaker 7: I mean, that's that's that's pretty wild, man, That's.
[1:47:57] Speaker 3: Just none in Joshua, those two names fish, the Lord
[1:48:01] Speaker 3: is salvation.
[1:48:02] Speaker 7: So I want I wanted to ask you something justin
[1:48:05] Speaker 7: are you aware that in Genesis, Genesis, the first five
[1:48:10] Speaker 7: books of the Bible, if you skip forty nine letter
[1:48:14] Speaker 7: increments in the first two books and in the last
[1:48:19] Speaker 7: two books you get the word torah.
[1:48:22] Speaker 10: Yeah, and then in the in the middle book, are
[1:48:24] Speaker 10: you which manuscript, well, in the Hebrew in which he is,
[1:48:32] Speaker 10: but in which Hebrew manuscript.
[1:48:35] Speaker 7: Every seven letter?
[1:48:36] Speaker 1: But which Hebrew manuscript?
[1:48:41] Speaker 7: Well, I mean you choose, I mean, look at look
[1:48:44] Speaker 7: at all of them.
[1:48:45] Speaker 1: That's the problem is when you look at all of them,
[1:48:48] Speaker 1: they don't actually agree with each other. So that that
[1:48:51] Speaker 1: is the problem. That's why I asked you which manuscript?
[1:48:55] Speaker 7: Well, I haven't studied it myself, but I would encourage
[1:48:58] Speaker 7: you to.
[1:48:58] Speaker 1: But I have, I've already studied this why Bible codes
[1:49:02] Speaker 1: are nonsense. So the problem with Bible codes is they
[1:49:06] Speaker 1: rely on the idea that there's like one Hebrew text.
[1:49:10] Speaker 1: But there are hundreds of Hebrew texts, and almost none
[1:49:13] Speaker 1: of them actually agree with each other.
[1:49:16] Speaker 7: There are hundreds of textual variants for every text in
[1:49:20] Speaker 7: the Hebrew Bible. Are there any of those texts that
[1:49:25] Speaker 7: follows that number sequencing?
[1:49:27] Speaker 1: Which I'm sure there is, But we have no idea
[1:49:31] Speaker 1: what the actual original Hebrew text was. Now, what we
[1:49:34] Speaker 1: do know is that during the period of the Massarets
[1:49:37] Speaker 1: they did actually rearrange some words to form some codes.
[1:49:40] Speaker 1: There actually have been medieval writings about this, like this
[1:49:45] Speaker 1: is a known phenomenon that the Massoretic scribes tinkered a
[1:49:48] Speaker 1: little bit with the arrangement of some of the words
[1:49:51] Speaker 1: to have some of these significances. But we don't actually
[1:49:54] Speaker 1: find them in all of the texts. We only find
[1:49:57] Speaker 1: them in like certain strains of texts.
[1:50:01] Speaker 7: Do you know which strains?
[1:50:04] Speaker 1: I mean, I could go back to the Bible code nonsense,
[1:50:07] Speaker 1: and I can show you which ones have them and
[1:50:08] Speaker 1: which ones don't. But that's why Bible codes fail, because
[1:50:13] Speaker 1: it relies on the idea that there's only one text,
[1:50:16] Speaker 1: and there's not one text. For every Hebrew text we have,
[1:50:20] Speaker 1: we've got many variants of that text.
[1:50:29] Speaker 7: So what is the most accepted among conservative what's the
[1:50:35] Speaker 7: most accepted text among conservative Christians.
[1:50:38] Speaker 1: There's no such thing as a text, That's what I'm saying.
[1:50:41] Speaker 1: There's no such thing as the Hebrew text. It doesn't exist.
[1:50:45] Speaker 7: What I'm saying is there's the Masoretic text. There's the
[1:50:48] Speaker 7: text this receptist, so forth.
[1:50:49] Speaker 3: And so well.
[1:50:50] Speaker 1: The text of receptives is not Hebrew. That's for the
[1:50:53] Speaker 1: New Testament. But the Masoretic Text is a collection of texts,
[1:50:58] Speaker 1: it's not one text.
[1:51:01] Speaker 7: So do you agree that the Hebrews when they received,
[1:51:05] Speaker 7: when they supposedly received the text from God, from Moses
[1:51:09] Speaker 7: or the scribes who transcribed the writings, do you agree
[1:51:14] Speaker 7: that they were meticulous in copying those no getting copies.
[1:51:19] Speaker 1: Not only were they not meticulous, we know they weren't
[1:51:22] Speaker 1: meticulous because we've got hundreds of pieces of evidence showing
[1:51:25] Speaker 1: that they were quite literally changing texts, rearranging texts, inventing texts,
[1:51:31] Speaker 1: taking verses out they didn't like. In fact, Kip Davis
[1:51:36] Speaker 1: wrote about this for his PhD dissertation. He talks about
[1:51:39] Speaker 1: some of the redactional history on the Book of Jeremiah.
[1:51:42] Speaker 1: In fact, I've got a book by Eugene Ulrich on
[1:51:45] Speaker 1: my shelf over here. I think, let me see if
[1:51:49] Speaker 1: I have it, it might be a good starting point
[1:51:50] Speaker 1: for someone like you. You don't have to know Hebrew
[1:51:53] Speaker 1: to read it. Give me a second. So this book
[1:52:02] Speaker 1: has a lot of examples and pictures of the actual
[1:52:05] Speaker 1: Hebrew manuscripts, but most of it's in English. You don't
[1:52:09] Speaker 1: have to read Hebrew too see what's happening. But the
[1:52:11] Speaker 1: book is called the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental
[1:52:14] Speaker 1: Composition of the Bible. So this is a good starting
[1:52:18] Speaker 1: point for understanding some of the ways that we can
[1:52:22] Speaker 1: tell that the texts have been changed, modified and redacted
[1:52:27] Speaker 1: throughout history. And he'll show you a lot of the
[1:52:30] Speaker 1: textual variants that are in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Where's
[1:52:34] Speaker 1: my camera, there we go, and what's been added, what's
[1:52:37] Speaker 1: been subtracted, so on and so forth. Right, So that's
[1:52:48] Speaker 1: why Bible codes is always a losing argument, because there's
[1:52:51] Speaker 1: no such thing as like one Hebrew text that we
[1:52:54] Speaker 1: can go to. We have no idea what was in
[1:52:55] Speaker 1: any of the original Hebrew texts. It's also true that
[1:52:59] Speaker 1: originally the book would have been written in Egyptian. If
[1:53:02] Speaker 1: Moses wrote any of it, it would have been an
[1:53:05] Speaker 1: Egyptian because Hebrew didn't exist yet. Hebrew didn't exist until
[1:53:07] Speaker 1: the ninth century.
[1:53:12] Speaker 7: Well, I took I took a course one time from
[1:53:14] Speaker 7: Moody Bible Institute. If I remember correctly, there was some
[1:53:19] Speaker 7: kind of Sumerian writing. There was two names that were
[1:53:23] Speaker 7: with it. It was Sumerian something well, and actually the
[1:53:28] Speaker 7: first five books of the Bible are written in a
[1:53:31] Speaker 7: legal form document.
[1:53:34] Speaker 1: Yeah, I think the word you're probably referring to is
[1:53:37] Speaker 1: a cuserain vassal treaty. The Book of Deuteronomy follows the
[1:53:41] Speaker 1: format of a susserin treaty between a suserain and a vassal.
[1:53:47] Speaker 1: But that's not Sumerian. That's just ancient Near East.
[1:53:50] Speaker 6: You know.
[1:53:52] Speaker 7: I'm not very well scold than that, but I do
[1:53:55] Speaker 7: remember that detail, right.
[1:53:57] Speaker 1: So if Moses was right, he would have been writing
[1:54:01] Speaker 1: in either Egyptian or Akkadian, one of the two languages.
[1:54:04] Speaker 1: Those were the dominant languages of that time period, and
[1:54:08] Speaker 1: we wouldn't expect that he wrote in Acadian since he
[1:54:11] Speaker 1: was trained as an Egyptian. But we have no reason
[1:54:15] Speaker 1: to believe that these texts were written in Egyptian. And
[1:54:17] Speaker 1: if they were written in Egyptian, they would have had
[1:54:20] Speaker 1: to been translated from Egyptian into Biblical Hebrew, probably during
[1:54:25] Speaker 1: the United Monarchy, which means any arrangement of words would
[1:54:31] Speaker 1: have been translated out. Like if God was involved in
[1:54:37] Speaker 1: Moses's writing of the text, we would have lost all
[1:54:40] Speaker 1: those Bible codes when it got translated into Hebrew.
[1:54:45] Speaker 7: Well, you do understand that Moses' mother was the one
[1:54:48] Speaker 7: that raised him.
[1:54:51] Speaker 1: She didn't know Hebrew.
[1:54:55] Speaker 7: She was a Hebrew, No, she did.
[1:54:57] Speaker 1: The Hebrew language didn't exist yet. The Hebrew language didn't
[1:55:03] Speaker 1: exist until the ninth century.
[1:55:05] Speaker 7: There was a very clear distinction between the Egyptians and
[1:55:10] Speaker 7: the Hebrews.
[1:55:11] Speaker 1: I'm aware of. I'm saying the Hebrew language, the language
[1:55:14] Speaker 1: of the Bible, didn't exist yet.
[1:55:19] Speaker 2: I don't agree with that it's this true.
[1:55:21] Speaker 7: I believe that Hebrew was probably the original language.
[1:55:24] Speaker 1: No, Hebrew wasn't around until the ninth century. It came
[1:55:28] Speaker 1: as a dialect of the Proto Synatic script or one
[1:55:33] Speaker 1: of the Proto Phoenician scripts.
[1:55:37] Speaker 7: Now, when you say not century, are you talking about
[1:55:39] Speaker 7: nine thousand years ago?
[1:55:42] Speaker 1: No, I'm talking about nine hundred BCE. It's invented between
[1:55:48] Speaker 1: nine hundred and one thousand by most scholars.
[1:55:55] Speaker 7: Okay, I got you. I was thinking in thousands of.
[1:55:59] Speaker 2: You, right.
[1:56:01] Speaker 1: And what's wild is even after they would have translated
[1:56:05] Speaker 1: it into Paleo Hebrew, it still would have had to
[1:56:08] Speaker 1: be translated out of Paleo Hebrew into Biblical Hebrew, which
[1:56:12] Speaker 1: is what we have. Biblical Hebrew is written using Arabic
[1:56:15] Speaker 1: alphabetic letters. In Paleo Hebrew, they actually had a whole
[1:56:19] Speaker 1: different set of a whole different set of letters, and
[1:56:23] Speaker 1: some of the grammar functions slightly differently as well. The
[1:56:26] Speaker 1: grammar isn't always the same, right, So like Bible codes,
[1:56:35] Speaker 1: this is not a good argument. I understand why they're alluring.
[1:56:38] Speaker 1: I get it because it sounds really cool, like there's
[1:56:40] Speaker 1: a hidden message in the text. You can't explain it
[1:56:44] Speaker 1: less by God. But actually there's a lot of good
[1:56:46] Speaker 1: explanations for it.
[1:56:48] Speaker 7: Well, not at specific numbers, like if you skip certain
[1:56:53] Speaker 7: numbers of letters, and every time it lands on a
[1:56:56] Speaker 7: certain letter, that's a message. I mean, that's not by win.
[1:57:00] Speaker 1: Yeah, I know, and we know that the Master describes
[1:57:02] Speaker 1: were rearranging words to put some of those messages in there.
[1:57:06] Speaker 7: I don't think they knew that those messages were in there.
[1:57:10] Speaker 1: They created them.
[1:57:12] Speaker 7: I don't. I don't.
[1:57:13] Speaker 1: And ask you a question, what do you mean they
[1:57:17] Speaker 1: couldn't have done it? They can't rearrange words in a sentence.
[1:57:22] Speaker 1: What was preventing them from doing it?
[1:57:25] Speaker 7: Can? I just it wouldn't with the flow of the text.
[1:57:31] Speaker 4: That would.
[1:57:33] Speaker 3: Just just a question really quickly, Like Justin has already
[1:57:37] Speaker 3: said that, like some of these manuscripts vary in word
[1:57:40] Speaker 3: count and word usage. Have you ever done the thing
[1:57:46] Speaker 3: that this is purported to do, Like, have you ever
[1:57:48] Speaker 3: sat down and tried, like learning some of the Hebrew
[1:57:51] Speaker 3: and then going through the process yourself.
[1:57:55] Speaker 7: No, I haven't went in that grade.
[1:57:57] Speaker 3: All right? Did you know that four one nine scams
[1:58:05] Speaker 3: to this day are close to one billion dollar industry?
[1:58:10] Speaker 7: That doesn't surprise me.
[1:58:12] Speaker 3: Do you know what a four to one nine scam is.
[1:58:15] Speaker 7: You talking about? Where people call your phone number?
[1:58:18] Speaker 6: No?
[1:58:18] Speaker 7: No, this is the money is so much cleaner.
[1:58:21] Speaker 3: This is for one nine scams are Nigerian prints email scams.
[1:58:26] Speaker 7: Oh yeah, I've been hearing about that since Donahure.
[1:58:29] Speaker 3: Yeah. So so there's still a damn near billion dollar industry.
[1:58:33] Speaker 3: And the reason is because somebody says a thing and
[1:58:36] Speaker 3: the other person doesn't check it. So they'll send an
[1:58:43] Speaker 3: email that says, hey, I have a trunk box full
[1:58:45] Speaker 3: of cash if you send me two hundred fifty dollars
[1:58:47] Speaker 3: to Western Union, and and then the other person doesn't check,
[1:58:51] Speaker 3: and then they just go to Western Union and they
[1:58:54] Speaker 3: get scammed. Like, I don't know if I understand if
[1:58:59] Speaker 3: like life, it's away from you, you don't have time
[1:59:01] Speaker 3: to like sit down and learn all the Hebrew. But
[1:59:04] Speaker 3: I think, especially for something as important as this, right,
[1:59:07] Speaker 3: like you're you're talking about eternal soul and judgment and
[1:59:11] Speaker 3: gods and like crucifixions and prophets and all that stuff,
[1:59:16] Speaker 3: if you're going to accept something like like hey there's
[1:59:20] Speaker 3: this code, I think it would be beneficial to you
[1:59:25] Speaker 3: to like double check that that code is accurate before
[1:59:28] Speaker 3: you just say, hey, there's a code in there, right,
[1:59:33] Speaker 3: yeah obviously, So that's what I like, if if it
[1:59:37] Speaker 3: was me, that's what I would do first like find
[1:59:40] Speaker 3: the da Vinci code in there and then see if
[1:59:42] Speaker 3: it's actually up to snuff. Compare it to like prints
[1:59:46] Speaker 3: like they have like uh, photo replications of manuscript pieces,
[1:59:53] Speaker 3: the ones that they put together to say, hey, this
[1:59:57] Speaker 3: is this is how we put this, Like you'd be
[2:00:01] Speaker 3: surprised if, like if you look at the little pieces
[2:00:03] Speaker 3: they took put together to get Deuteronomy. It's like little
[2:00:07] Speaker 3: scraps of paper that they were like, I think this
[2:00:09] Speaker 3: one goes. It's like a jigsaw puzzle from Hell, pun
[2:00:14] Speaker 3: intended and and so to say, hey, every seven letters
[2:00:19] Speaker 3: of like any book that was put together like that,
[2:00:23] Speaker 3: I would recommend just going through it yourself.
[2:00:26] Speaker 7: Look look it up and let it Leviticus and see
[2:00:29] Speaker 7: if it's not true.
[2:00:30] Speaker 1: I have and I've already provided you a perfectly adequate explanation.
[2:00:35] Speaker 1: And you know, one of the other problems with Bible
[2:00:37] Speaker 1: codes is like we can do this with anything, Like
[2:00:40] Speaker 1: we have a book full of many thousands and pon
[2:00:43] Speaker 1: thousands of words and sentences. It's not hard to find
[2:00:48] Speaker 1: like some sort of a meaningful sequence somewhere in it.
[2:00:51] Speaker 1: Like that's all you're doing is just like playing bananagrams.
[2:00:54] Speaker 7: Yeah, but in Leviticus. If Yahweh is every spell every
[2:00:59] Speaker 7: seven letters in.
[2:01:00] Speaker 1: The book of Levinkas, it's not.
[2:01:03] Speaker 7: There's a whole book. It's not. It doesn't.
[2:01:06] Speaker 1: It doesn't happen.
[2:01:07] Speaker 7: I'm telling you, well, I'm going to research it more,
[2:01:12] Speaker 7: more in depth.
[2:01:13] Speaker 11: I mean, we can just we can just look it
[2:01:16] Speaker 11: up in Hebrew and show you. Yeah, please, Okay, I
[2:01:19] Speaker 11: put it on the screen. On the first y'all or
[2:01:23] Speaker 11: whatever it's called.
[2:01:24] Speaker 1: Okay. So the very first letter that we have is evove,
[2:01:28] Speaker 1: so strike number one. We need a yode.
[2:01:33] Speaker 7: Okay, we'll find the first jode.
[2:01:35] Speaker 1: First, well, the first shoad. It starts in letter number two,
[2:01:38] Speaker 1: which is actually the name of Yahweh, which is where
[2:01:39] Speaker 1: we would expect to find it.
[2:01:42] Speaker 2: Okay, okay.
[2:01:43] Speaker 1: And then the next letter after that is an oliff.
[2:01:46] Speaker 1: So we we lost the second letter. Oh, every seven okay,
[2:01:51] Speaker 1: So we got to start randomly here. So it'll go
[2:01:53] Speaker 1: seven words, okay. So I'll go one, two, three, four, five,
[2:01:58] Speaker 1: six seven. The seventh word starts with an oliph as.
[2:02:02] Speaker 7: Well, okay, skip seven. Say what it does.
[2:02:07] Speaker 1: Well, we already broke the code. We'll do seven more.
[2:02:09] Speaker 1: We say one, two, three, four, five six. The next
[2:02:14] Speaker 1: letter is olif.
[2:02:17] Speaker 7: What is that?
[2:02:19] Speaker 1: There's nothing, It's just a letter oliph. It's not even
[2:02:21] Speaker 1: a word olif oliff is not a word.
[2:02:27] Speaker 7: Well, I might I might not be telling you the
[2:02:29] Speaker 7: exact way to find it. Okay, So I don't know
[2:02:33] Speaker 7: the specifics of the sequence.
[2:02:35] Speaker 1: Okay, all right, Well listen, David. You're always kind in
[2:02:40] Speaker 1: played when you come come up and talk to me.
[2:02:42] Speaker 1: So I appreciate that. It's good to hear them from you.
[2:02:44] Speaker 7: Yeah, you took justin all right.
[2:02:46] Speaker 1: Take care of yourself.
[2:02:47] Speaker 2: Okay, you too.
[2:02:51] Speaker 1: David's always nice when he's up here.
[2:02:52] Speaker 3: By the way, he's pleasant. Did you know that they
[2:02:56] Speaker 3: found similar pathetic messages in Warren Peace Moby Dick. I
[2:03:02] Speaker 3: believe that, like if you do it's called equidistant letter
[2:03:07] Speaker 3: h letter or something. And if you do the same
[2:03:10] Speaker 3: thing in Warren Peace and and Mobi Dick, some people
[2:03:13] Speaker 3: say like, hey, look at these mess like you know,
[2:03:15] Speaker 3: it's like playing a record backwards and suddenly you hear
[2:03:20] Speaker 3: Satan or something.
[2:03:21] Speaker 1: I have listened to some of those, like led Zeppelin
[2:03:25] Speaker 1: backward plays. But let me grab a couple of super
[2:03:28] Speaker 1: chests and we'll get our next guests in here space.
[2:03:30] Speaker 1: Lord thank you so much for the supertest, says justin
[2:03:32] Speaker 1: conjoined twins would be witnesses. Check me, I said that earlier.
[2:03:36] Speaker 1: I said conjoint twins good, but you have no way
[2:03:39] Speaker 1: of demonstrating that the witness was true. And in order
[2:03:42] Speaker 1: to stone somebody, you need two to three witnesses at least,
[2:03:46] Speaker 1: so you need you would need conjoined triplets. I would imagine,
[2:03:50] Speaker 1: uh terk. Thank you for the six nine nine super chest,
[2:03:53] Speaker 1: says IP. But all inspiring philosophy said all cultures owned slaves,
[2:03:58] Speaker 1: not just Christians, is a two quo cou fallacy. Seventeenth
[2:04:02] Speaker 1: century Christian abologists are seventeen hundred years too late for
[2:04:06] Speaker 1: the slaves.
[2:04:06] Speaker 4: I know.
[2:04:07] Speaker 1: Listen, he wanted to make crazy claims during that Timpoole
[2:04:10] Speaker 1: session about slavery, and he just couldn't. Also, I didn't
[2:04:14] Speaker 1: have time because I got interrupted. But it doesn't matter
[2:04:17] Speaker 1: even if he was right. Let's imagine Christians abolished slavery.
[2:04:21] Speaker 1: God shouldn't have allowed it in the first place. Why
[2:04:24] Speaker 1: would it take Christianity, you know, two thousand years almost
[2:04:28] Speaker 1: to abolish it. That's madness. It just happens to be
[2:04:31] Speaker 1: that the abolishment of slavery happened at the same time
[2:04:35] Speaker 1: that everybody else was starting to abolish it. Kay, thank
[2:04:40] Speaker 1: you for the supertestis just didn't just ask him what
[2:04:42] Speaker 1: the minimum amount of evidence required to convict her of
[2:04:46] Speaker 1: having her virginity taken away? Simple? It ends You're right,
[2:04:51] Speaker 1: the minimal amount of evidence would have been the bloody sheet.
[2:04:54] Speaker 1: I was trying to get to that point, but I
[2:04:56] Speaker 1: wasn't saying it quite right. So I should have used
[2:04:58] Speaker 1: your phrasing. That would have been a really good way
[2:05:00] Speaker 1: to phrase it. And Alan think you for the super
[2:05:03] Speaker 1: chest says for oh shit. Okay, first, so you made
[2:05:06] Speaker 1: a mathematical formula now for the conversation we were dialoguing with,
[2:05:15] Speaker 1: uh for it looks like Deuteronomy chapter four two size T.
[2:05:20] Speaker 1: I assume that's a variable uh for you know I
[2:05:23] Speaker 1: equals you know, an index is equal to zero. So
[2:05:27] Speaker 1: you're doing an iteration. So this is just a four
[2:05:31] Speaker 1: statement written in in c uh until until you equal
[2:05:38] Speaker 1: size of t. Apparently, so add to God's word until
[2:05:43] Speaker 1: God's word equals show me where it doesn't say that,
[2:05:47] Speaker 1: and then pivot.
[2:05:48] Speaker 3: Yeah.
[2:05:48] Speaker 1: I think you're about right. I appreciate a good code joke. Alan,
[2:05:53] Speaker 1: thank you for the time that I was super jest. Sorry,
[2:05:55] Speaker 1: he says, my proofreading skills are crap. Oh you got
[2:05:57] Speaker 1: a new one. Holy shit. Okay, so something is true, okay.
[2:06:03] Speaker 1: Add to God's word is a function followed by another
[2:06:08] Speaker 1: function of show me where it doesn't say that, followed
[2:06:11] Speaker 1: by pivot yes, and then complete sequence yes, one hundred percent.
[2:06:17] Speaker 1: Big love de Z Well, big love to you, William.
[2:06:20] Speaker 1: I appreciate the super things and thank you so much.
[2:06:25] Speaker 1: A girl reading for the ten dour super chest says,
[2:06:27] Speaker 1: take my money for your patience. Listen. I really appreciate
[2:06:30] Speaker 1: that girl reading. I'm here doing this service so you
[2:06:33] Speaker 1: don't have to you.
[2:06:34] Speaker 2: Know what I mean.
[2:06:35] Speaker 1: And Jeff too. Jeff is up here dealing with these
[2:06:38] Speaker 1: marshmallow heads. Tally Beck, thank you so much for the
[2:06:41] Speaker 1: nineteen dollars superchat, it says. Happy Sunday, Justin and everyone, Well,
[2:06:44] Speaker 1: Happy Sunday to you, tally Beck, and really appreciate you
[2:06:49] Speaker 1: supporting the channel. And Jen so true, thank you for
[2:06:53] Speaker 1: the supertest says. Virginity culture needs to fade away and
[2:06:56] Speaker 1: never come back. I agree. Virginity culture is like the
[2:06:59] Speaker 1: most disgusting form of patriarchy alive and doctor Joe, thank
[2:07:04] Speaker 1: you for the face pain. Good to see your friend,
[2:07:07] Speaker 1: Rev says, look up and share Eric, the God eating penguin.
[2:07:10] Speaker 1: That's the one I was looking for. Thank you. I
[2:07:13] Speaker 1: knew there was a god eating something or another that
[2:07:16] Speaker 1: I couldn't recall. Let me type it in my browser before.
[2:07:18] Speaker 1: I don't forget God eating penguin. All right, guys, look
[2:07:23] Speaker 1: up the God eating penguin. It's delightful. Was that Eric
[2:07:27] Speaker 1: Murphy who came up with that? O'h double check on that.
[2:07:30] Speaker 1: Just Kay, thank you for the supertest, says Hey Justin.
[2:07:32] Speaker 1: Good to see you again tonight. Much love, well, much
[2:07:34] Speaker 1: love to you.
[2:07:35] Speaker 4: Kay.
[2:07:35] Speaker 1: Thank you so much for the five dollars super chat
[2:07:38] Speaker 1: and for supporting the channel. I really appreciate that. And
[2:07:41] Speaker 1: Rory in here tonight. Good to see your Rory says,
[2:07:44] Speaker 1: Had you the chance to read Sacred Mushrooms and Cross
[2:07:47] Speaker 1: I have not. I've not read that. I'm sure it's
[2:07:51] Speaker 1: still a delightful read, but I haven't got to it yet.
[2:07:54] Speaker 1: And Noah lyons again, thank you for the supertest, says
[2:07:57] Speaker 1: it never occurred read to me before that Jesus is
[2:08:01] Speaker 1: God's right hand doing things that men do with their
[2:08:05] Speaker 1: right hands. Of course, of course the nurse would say something.
[2:08:11] Speaker 1: Then listen, I know nurses. I've known a lot of nurses.
[2:08:14] Speaker 1: Y'all are just as as dirty as anybody else.
[2:08:18] Speaker 3: Go ahead, is that's just bonkers.
[2:08:23] Speaker 1: We appreciate that, but listen, you can't hide from us.
[2:08:26] Speaker 1: We know the science scals always got their mind in
[2:08:29] Speaker 1: the gutter and Cranky thank you for the supertest, says
[2:08:32] Speaker 1: it's always just an attempt to turn possible into necessary
[2:08:35] Speaker 1: with these folks. You're right, yeah, referring to you know,
[2:08:38] Speaker 1: Situs Cletus Tucson. Thank you for sending out five Deconstruction
[2:08:42] Speaker 1: Zone memberships, big w for being so generous. And last one, Zach,
[2:08:46] Speaker 1: thank you so much for the nineteen ninety nine supertest, says,
[2:08:49] Speaker 1: great work on IP. What are your thoughts about it? Well,
[2:08:53] Speaker 1: my only regret with the timpoole IP discussion is that
[2:08:56] Speaker 1: I really wanted to play a trick on them that
[2:08:58] Speaker 1: I forgot to do. I was gonna read them Deuteronomy
[2:09:00] Speaker 1: twenty two and say that it came from the Qoran
[2:09:03] Speaker 1: and watch them spaz out and then tell them it
[2:09:07] Speaker 1: was actually from the Bible. But I just kind of
[2:09:09] Speaker 1: ran out of time because it wasn't really my live stream,
[2:09:11] Speaker 1: Like I couldn't I couldn't force the dialogue. I had
[2:09:14] Speaker 1: to stick with their talking points. But I really wish
[2:09:17] Speaker 1: I would have been able to squeak that in. That
[2:09:19] Speaker 1: would have been a lot of fun. But the only
[2:09:21] Speaker 1: argument that they really came down to was the birth
[2:09:24] Speaker 1: rates are so low we have to institute Christianity, except
[2:09:30] Speaker 1: the birth rates in Christianity are still lower than Islam.
[2:09:34] Speaker 1: So even if we were more Christian, the birth rates
[2:09:36] Speaker 1: wouldn't be enough to stop the invasion of Islam, which
[2:09:40] Speaker 1: was their argument. The other argument was that secularism leads
[2:09:46] Speaker 1: to a collapse of morality, which explains the like the
[2:09:52] Speaker 1: trans issues. Like so there was a somebody that was
[2:09:56] Speaker 1: assaulted a child was assaulted in a bathroom because a
[2:09:59] Speaker 1: trans kid was in there. But just prior to that,
[2:10:02] Speaker 1: I made the argument that Christianity is dangerous because many
[2:10:05] Speaker 1: thousands of children every year are molested in the church.
[2:10:10] Speaker 1: And they dismissed it. Oh, that's not important, we don't care.
[2:10:12] Speaker 1: If you know, bad things happen and so on and
[2:10:14] Speaker 1: so forth. You know, the hand waved it away. And
[2:10:18] Speaker 1: then but they want to say that we need to
[2:10:20] Speaker 1: get rid of secularism because one child got assaulted. Crazy,
[2:10:25] Speaker 1: Like the way you have to do a turnabout on
[2:10:27] Speaker 1: that is, is children being assaulted a problem or not?
[2:10:30] Speaker 1: Because if it's a problem, the church is your greatest
[2:10:33] Speaker 1: indicator of being assaulted. It is the highest rate of
[2:10:37] Speaker 1: assaults in any place in the USA. Is at a church?
[2:10:41] Speaker 1: Your children are not safe there? All right, let me
[2:10:44] Speaker 1: grab our next guest. Sorry, Maxwell is going to come
[2:10:50] Speaker 1: in next. Sorry, Maxwell, I know you've been waiting for
[2:10:52] Speaker 1: a little while. I clicked on the wrong one. Pat
[2:10:55] Speaker 1: a Pat, welcome in, look in there, got it?
[2:11:01] Speaker 4: Pat?
[2:11:01] Speaker 1: Are you at least eighteen?
[2:11:02] Speaker 6: Then?
[2:11:03] Speaker 4: Are you a believer? Yes?
[2:11:05] Speaker 2: And yes?
[2:11:06] Speaker 1: Okay? And which god do you believe in? Or multiple gods?
[2:11:10] Speaker 4: I'm I'm Catholic? Okay?
[2:11:13] Speaker 7: Cool?
[2:11:13] Speaker 1: And would be the best argument that would lead one
[2:11:16] Speaker 1: to believe that the Catholic.
[2:11:17] Speaker 8: God is real?
[2:11:19] Speaker 4: Well, I mean I would start with the I would
[2:11:24] Speaker 4: start with like the fact that there should be a
[2:11:29] Speaker 4: creator of the universe, like like someone or something would
[2:11:33] Speaker 4: like like there's evidence that the universe is created by something, right, So,
[2:11:43] Speaker 4: I mean it involves a lot. It's not scientific evidence,
[2:11:47] Speaker 4: it's it's logical.
[2:11:49] Speaker 2: So what's the argument.
[2:11:52] Speaker 4: The what's the what? Like everything that is has a
[2:11:56] Speaker 4: cause and you just can't keep going on an infinite
[2:12:00] Speaker 4: Luke I came.
[2:12:00] Speaker 3: Back to.
[2:12:03] Speaker 4: Because the intelligence, like the intelligence that's reflected in the
[2:12:11] Speaker 4: very specific balance of our universe is one that like
[2:12:18] Speaker 4: indicates a intelligent creator.
[2:12:21] Speaker 1: How how does our universe require the creator?
[2:12:24] Speaker 4: Because if you were to iterate our like expansion and
[2:12:29] Speaker 4: uh like the way that the universe developed, uh billions
[2:12:34] Speaker 4: and trillions and tillions of times, it wouldn't come out
[2:12:40] Speaker 4: this way.
[2:12:40] Speaker 1: Why wouldn't it?
[2:12:41] Speaker 4: So it's I mean, ask a physicist on that.
[2:12:45] Speaker 3: That that's that's I do.
[2:12:46] Speaker 1: I live stream with a physicist almost every Sunday morning,
[2:12:49] Speaker 1: and he disagrees, which which guy, Uh.
[2:12:54] Speaker 4: What's his name, doctor Bloch? Yeah, yeah, I've been on
[2:12:58] Speaker 4: his life.
[2:12:58] Speaker 1: And also he talked a like William Kinney or Sean
[2:13:01] Speaker 1: Carroll or there's a lot of modern physicists. I don't
[2:13:04] Speaker 1: believe that the universe came into being out of nothing.
[2:13:08] Speaker 3: So my head is spinning a little bit because it
[2:13:10] Speaker 3: seems like we seamlessly went from the colomb to like,
[2:13:16] Speaker 3: uh some other notion.
[2:13:20] Speaker 1: Yeah, we started on the klomb.
[2:13:22] Speaker 4: I think, Okay, I don't know what the column is.
[2:13:28] Speaker 4: I'm not that educated. I'm just an so.
[2:13:31] Speaker 3: So we started with everything that begins to exist has
[2:13:34] Speaker 3: a cause, which I'm I'm happy to or actually, no,
[2:13:38] Speaker 3: you actually said everything that is that exists has a cause,
[2:13:41] Speaker 3: which is a different notion altogether. That's even stronger. Uh so,
[2:13:47] Speaker 3: And then you said that there's some reason that that
[2:13:49] Speaker 3: we couldn't have an infinite regress, and then you moved
[2:13:52] Speaker 3: into the fine tuning. Got it?
[2:13:53] Speaker 4: Okay, let me let me, let me care, let me
[2:13:56] Speaker 4: uh get more specific on that.
[2:13:59] Speaker 1: I think three arguments in one I think is what
[2:14:01] Speaker 1: I heard.
[2:14:03] Speaker 4: Yeah, my bad, my bad. So let's look at like
[2:14:07] Speaker 4: just the Big Bang, the big the evidence for the
[2:14:09] Speaker 4: Big Bang would indicate that the un and the second
[2:14:12] Speaker 4: law thermodynamics would indicate that the universe is finite. Do
[2:14:17] Speaker 4: you do you agree with that?
[2:14:18] Speaker 6: No?
[2:14:19] Speaker 4: Okay, that's that's contrary to the like academic and uh like,
[2:14:27] Speaker 4: use your.
[2:14:27] Speaker 3: Understanding of what big Bang says about the beginning of
[2:14:30] Speaker 3: the universe.
[2:14:32] Speaker 6: That it.
[2:14:34] Speaker 4: Like basically something akin to a singularity at the you know,
[2:14:39] Speaker 4: obviously the smallest we can go is the plank length.
[2:14:41] Speaker 1: What is the singularity.
[2:14:44] Speaker 4: An infinitesimally small point. Nope, but I know that it
[2:14:49] Speaker 4: at the the models of like relativity and everything like
[2:14:53] Speaker 4: that breakdown.
[2:14:53] Speaker 1: But that's not what singularity means.
[2:14:57] Speaker 4: Okay, what does it? What does it mean?
[2:14:58] Speaker 1: Singularity is the point at which the mathematics breakdown, which
[2:15:01] Speaker 1: is what you said. It's not that everything was in
[2:15:04] Speaker 1: a single point. But I understand why you would want
[2:15:07] Speaker 1: to think that those are the same thing.
[2:15:09] Speaker 4: Okay, got it. So but but and my my understanding
[2:15:13] Speaker 4: is that it wasn't actually infinitesimally small, like like, uh,
[2:15:18] Speaker 4: infinitely small, but rather just really really.
[2:15:21] Speaker 1: Small, smaller than what it is now obviously, right, and
[2:15:26] Speaker 1: then a process.
[2:15:29] Speaker 4: It is enacted, is in place, essentially, I don't want
[2:15:34] Speaker 4: to say began, because that usually like indicates to someone
[2:15:39] Speaker 4: in this type of argument that man voys cracked there
[2:15:43] Speaker 4: in this type of argument, that that would imply that
[2:15:47] Speaker 4: there's something before. But like we're saying there's nothing before, right.
[2:15:52] Speaker 1: Well, why would we think that there was nothing before
[2:15:54] Speaker 1: the expansion of the universe.
[2:15:58] Speaker 4: Because of the models of the like, like, there's there's
[2:16:04] Speaker 4: a lot of evidence for the fact that we're headed
[2:16:05] Speaker 4: towards a heat death and there's only small evidence and
[2:16:11] Speaker 4: unverified evidence that we're not going to continue to expand
[2:16:15] Speaker 4: at the rate we are.
[2:16:16] Speaker 1: Well, I don't think we are. Can I expand forever.
[2:16:20] Speaker 4: At the rate we're at?
[2:16:21] Speaker 3: Right?
[2:16:22] Speaker 1: Yeah, because the rate of acceleration is actually slowing.
[2:16:26] Speaker 4: No, it's not. They haven't verified that yet. There's another
[2:16:30] Speaker 4: there's another experiment that they're going to do to verify that.
[2:16:34] Speaker 4: So I get it that you want to jump to
[2:16:38] Speaker 4: that because it supports your you know, viewpoint. But if
[2:16:41] Speaker 4: we look at the evidence, the mass body of evidence
[2:16:43] Speaker 4: that there is welling at a constant rate, no, I have.
[2:16:48] Speaker 1: I'm saying that the acceleration, the acceleration rate of the universe,
[2:16:53] Speaker 1: given our our latest information is that it's it's the
[2:16:56] Speaker 1: acceleration rate is decreasing, right, So it's still accelerating, it's
[2:17:02] Speaker 1: still accelerating, but the rate of acceleration is getting less.
[2:17:08] Speaker 4: Again, where are you are you talking about? Like the
[2:17:12] Speaker 4: new data that shows that the the essentially I can't
[2:17:17] Speaker 4: remember the name of it, but like the force that's
[2:17:19] Speaker 4: pressing out word to cause this to accelerate is like changing.
[2:17:22] Speaker 4: Is that what you're you're referring to?
[2:17:24] Speaker 1: No, I'm not suggesting that the force is changing. I'm
[2:17:26] Speaker 1: saying that the measured acceleration of the expansion that is
[2:17:31] Speaker 1: not a constant, that the acceleration rate is lessening.
[2:17:40] Speaker 4: The acceleration rate of the What I don't I'm not
[2:17:45] Speaker 4: even sure I can comprehend.
[2:17:47] Speaker 2: What that means.
[2:17:48] Speaker 1: Sorry, let me be more clear. Okay, So imagine something
[2:17:52] Speaker 1: that's not a universe. Let's imagine a car, right, So
[2:17:56] Speaker 1: an acceleration rate might be like a feet per second
[2:18:00] Speaker 1: squared right, So every second you're moving twice the amount
[2:18:04] Speaker 1: of feet per second then you were moving the prior second.
[2:18:08] Speaker 4: Oh yeah, No, I know about like what acceleration means
[2:18:11] Speaker 4: and what the changing acceleration means, right, I get that.
[2:18:15] Speaker 4: I guess what I'm saying is, what what is the
[2:18:19] Speaker 4: evidence that it's not expanding at a constant like with
[2:18:23] Speaker 4: a constant like force that like, for example, the force
[2:18:30] Speaker 4: that's imparted by dark energy and dark man. You know again,
[2:18:33] Speaker 4: I'm just dancing around all the terms here, but in
[2:18:36] Speaker 4: general that my understanding is that the universe has been
[2:18:39] Speaker 4: expanding at a constant rate of acceleration for ever since
[2:18:44] Speaker 4: that like initial stage of the Big Bang where it
[2:18:48] Speaker 4: like had a like sort of popped into that sort
[2:18:50] Speaker 4: of bubble looking thing and then start went from there.
[2:18:54] Speaker 1: Yeah. So the latest measurements from DESI, the Dark Energy
[2:18:58] Speaker 1: Spectroscopic instrument that's been kind of doing the mapping, is
[2:19:02] Speaker 1: suggesting that the rate of acceleration is slowing down, which
[2:19:07] Speaker 1: means if that's the case, it will continue to slow down.
[2:19:11] Speaker 4: Right, But it needs to be verified, right because there's
[2:19:13] Speaker 4: so many things that can introduce error into that measurement,
[2:19:16] Speaker 4: and so they're doing another experiment to validate that. So
[2:19:21] Speaker 4: it's not validated.
[2:19:23] Speaker 1: Okay, So they did an experiment well mapping, and they
[2:19:27] Speaker 1: discovered that the results of the mapping suggests that it's
[2:19:31] Speaker 1: the rate of acceleration is slowing down.
[2:19:35] Speaker 4: Okay, I mean, so, do you think that the Big
[2:19:37] Speaker 4: Bang is just like nonsense or what do you think
[2:19:41] Speaker 4: about it?
[2:19:42] Speaker 6: No?
[2:19:42] Speaker 1: I think the expansion of the universe is true. But
[2:19:44] Speaker 1: I also think that eventually it's going to get pulled
[2:19:47] Speaker 1: back in on itself because it's a cyclical universe. And
[2:19:50] Speaker 1: I think that's my That's the issue that I have
[2:19:55] Speaker 1: is like.
[2:19:58] Speaker 4: That's one of very of there's no evidence that that's
[2:20:02] Speaker 4: the case, that that's a huge leapfrog from one experiment.
[2:20:06] Speaker 1: Why is there no evidence, like all the building blocks
[2:20:09] Speaker 1: are there, if their expansion rate of the universe is
[2:20:12] Speaker 1: eventually going to slow down, and if gravity is real,
[2:20:16] Speaker 1: then eventually, when the expansion slows down enough, gravity will
[2:20:20] Speaker 1: pull it back.
[2:20:25] Speaker 4: If we're if we have an external force accelerated or sorry,
[2:20:30] Speaker 4: imparted on essentially like let's just say the balance of
[2:20:33] Speaker 4: the universe, just for simplicity's sake, and that's a constant
[2:20:38] Speaker 4: applied force, which is what the evidence suggests now and
[2:20:42] Speaker 4: there's an experiment that says that maybe that's changing. But
[2:20:46] Speaker 4: the uh, then you would continue to accelerate outward until
[2:20:50] Speaker 4: gravity time space None of those have meaning.
[2:20:56] Speaker 1: Why wouldn't they have meaning?
[2:20:57] Speaker 4: Because if there's no motion, there's no time, and if
[2:21:00] Speaker 4: there's no time, there's no space time.
[2:21:02] Speaker 1: I don't think that's the way time works. Time doesn't
[2:21:07] Speaker 1: need things to be in motion for time to exist.
[2:21:12] Speaker 4: It need it it uh, Time doesn't need no that
[2:21:17] Speaker 4: it's irrelevant if nothing is moving, if there's every particle
[2:21:20] Speaker 4: is I mean, it's it's kind of like what we say.
[2:21:23] Speaker 4: At the beginning, nothing was moving. There, there was no
[2:21:26] Speaker 4: concept of time. Time, There was no like like the
[2:21:29] Speaker 4: Hartlehawking model, where what's south of the south pole?
[2:21:34] Speaker 2: Right?
[2:21:34] Speaker 4: It's like I've heard it yet, it's like what's north
[2:21:37] Speaker 4: of the north pole?
[2:21:38] Speaker 8: Right?
[2:21:38] Speaker 4: Like time's not going to like matter at the end
[2:21:42] Speaker 4: of it.
[2:21:43] Speaker 1: But that's not based on a movement, Okay, I mean that.
[2:21:50] Speaker 4: That's just how I conceive of it. Maybe yeah, technically
[2:21:53] Speaker 4: you're probably right, but in any case, I think we're
[2:21:57] Speaker 4: aligned on that. But but my question I get is, like,
[2:22:02] Speaker 4: why there's more evidence for that than there is for this,
[2:22:06] Speaker 4: for what collapse, for a heat death of the universe,
[2:22:10] Speaker 4: according to everything that we observe and the observable laws
[2:22:14] Speaker 4: of entropy and and like all of those things.
[2:22:18] Speaker 1: So what's the evidence of the heat death?
[2:22:23] Speaker 4: The continuation of the laws of thermodynamics as we understand them.
[2:22:29] Speaker 1: But the law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to what you're
[2:22:34] Speaker 1: referring to, like to the universe, Like the universe is
[2:22:40] Speaker 1: eventually going to be so cold that nothing can live
[2:22:43] Speaker 1: on it. I agree, But like, I don't see how
[2:22:46] Speaker 1: thermodynamics has anything to do with with what you're referring to.
[2:22:53] Speaker 4: I mean, we're talking about heat death, right, it is
[2:22:55] Speaker 4: a thermodynamic principle that governs the or we model it
[2:23:00] Speaker 4: with thermoonmics, I guess. But the laws of thermodynamics. The
[2:23:03] Speaker 4: second law of thermodynamics says matter cannot be created or destroyed.
[2:23:07] Speaker 4: Which the direct corollary to that is that there's a
[2:23:10] Speaker 4: finite amount of matter and energy.
[2:23:11] Speaker 1: But that's not You didn't state that correctly, and that's
[2:23:14] Speaker 1: not the second law of thermodynamics.
[2:23:18] Speaker 4: What what's the second law?
[2:23:19] Speaker 1: The second law is about the transfer of entropy or
[2:23:23] Speaker 1: or how heat.
[2:23:24] Speaker 4: Works, right, I don't think so, I mean, I'm okay.
[2:23:32] Speaker 1: So the second law thermodonaics is based on the universal
[2:23:35] Speaker 1: empirical and blah blah blah. Just give me the text
[2:23:39] Speaker 1: one second.
[2:23:40] Speaker 4: It's like the entropy of the universe is always increasing, right.
[2:23:45] Speaker 8: All right?
[2:23:45] Speaker 1: Second law thermodonics states that the entropy of the entire
[2:23:49] Speaker 1: universe as an isolated system will always increase over time.
[2:23:54] Speaker 1: The second law also states that the changes in entropy
[2:23:58] Speaker 1: in the universe can never be negative.
[2:24:02] Speaker 4: Okay, And thus, if you extrapolate from the second law
[2:24:07] Speaker 4: of thermodynamics, maybe maybe the finite matter and energy that's
[2:24:11] Speaker 4: the first law. Sorry, but yeah, the second law. If
[2:24:14] Speaker 4: you extrapolate that, like, how are you arriving at the
[2:24:19] Speaker 4: notion that we would have a more a lower entropics
[2:24:23] Speaker 4: final state.
[2:24:24] Speaker 1: Well, I don't think we would have a lower entropic
[2:24:27] Speaker 1: final state. And I don't think that we're in an
[2:24:28] Speaker 1: isolated system.
[2:24:32] Speaker 4: You don't think that the universe is an isolated system.
[2:24:35] Speaker 4: It has bounds to it.
[2:24:36] Speaker 8: How do you know that?
[2:24:39] Speaker 5: What?
[2:24:39] Speaker 1: How do you know there's a boundary to.
[2:24:42] Speaker 4: If you believe in the Big Bang theory, there's an
[2:24:45] Speaker 4: inside and an outside of the universe. Why there's something
[2:24:48] Speaker 4: beyond which we don't we don't know even what it
[2:24:51] Speaker 4: could be. There's an edge to space time that's accelerating.
[2:24:55] Speaker 1: Well, I think there's an edge to where we can measure.
[2:24:58] Speaker 1: We have no idea where the edge of the universes.
[2:25:01] Speaker 4: Okay, Einstein's theory of relativity would indicate that there is
[2:25:05] Speaker 4: and that there's multiple there's like.
[2:25:10] Speaker 6: That.
[2:25:11] Speaker 4: The theories say that that that they are the highest
[2:25:14] Speaker 4: level of scientific I.
[2:25:16] Speaker 1: Don't know how relativity has anything to do with the
[2:25:19] Speaker 1: boundary of the universe.
[2:25:23] Speaker 4: Okay, it's conversation too.
[2:25:26] Speaker 1: Because you like you don't believe in science, right, So
[2:25:29] Speaker 1: what this what are you talking about? So this is
[2:25:31] Speaker 1: kind of the thing that a Catholic.
[2:25:34] Speaker 4: So this the Western scientific thought.
[2:25:38] Speaker 7: No they didn't.
[2:25:40] Speaker 1: They were already doing it in the Greek Empire. So
[2:25:42] Speaker 1: here's what tickles me about religious people trying to appeal
[2:25:46] Speaker 1: to scientists. You don't believe in the stuff. The scientists
[2:25:50] Speaker 1: don't believe that there's God. The scientists believe in evolution,
[2:25:53] Speaker 1: they don't believe that God created anything. So like you're
[2:25:56] Speaker 1: you're appealing to.
[2:25:57] Speaker 4: People don't believe in evolution because I'm Catholic.
[2:25:59] Speaker 1: You're appealing to people that disagree with your actual position.
[2:26:03] Speaker 1: The Bible says that things were created. The Bible says
[2:26:07] Speaker 1: that roughly six thousand years ago God created the earth.
[2:26:11] Speaker 4: Oh, I see, so you're reading it with a modernist
[2:26:13] Speaker 4: view an ancient that's just what the word mean. Yeah, no,
[2:26:19] Speaker 4: that's not how that works, man, Yeah it does. I
[2:26:22] Speaker 4: don't think we can have this conversation. Is Jesus a Catholic?
[2:26:26] Speaker 1: Jesus's genealogy in the Book of Luke accurate?
[2:26:31] Speaker 4: Is Jesus's genealogy in the Book of Luke accurate?
[2:26:35] Speaker 3: Yeah?
[2:26:37] Speaker 4: I would. I would believe so, or as accurate as
[2:26:40] Speaker 4: Luke thought it was.
[2:26:42] Speaker 1: Well, I'm asking you, is it accurate? Is this the
[2:26:44] Speaker 1: word of God? Because according to the Church, there's there's
[2:26:47] Speaker 1: no untrue things in the Word.
[2:26:48] Speaker 4: Of God, right and truth is so. So if things
[2:26:52] Speaker 4: are okay, I think you have a misconception of what
[2:26:58] Speaker 4: it means to be like a belief, like a Catholic belief.
[2:27:03] Speaker 4: Catholic belief.
[2:27:04] Speaker 1: I know what the Catholics believe. I went to twelve
[2:27:06] Speaker 1: years of Catholic.
[2:27:07] Speaker 4: So why would you think that. I think there's a
[2:27:09] Speaker 4: creation that is not a position.
[2:27:11] Speaker 1: Of the Church, because the Church believes that the Biblical
[2:27:15] Speaker 1: texts in all that it teaches.
[2:27:19] Speaker 4: Yeah, but that so it's true. But truth is one
[2:27:23] Speaker 4: and things that are scientifically true can also be true
[2:27:27] Speaker 4: in another sense the way the corom the Bible. What
[2:27:31] Speaker 4: what contradiction are you talking about?
[2:27:34] Speaker 6: This?
[2:27:34] Speaker 4: The the story of Genesis, which was written to an ancient.
[2:27:38] Speaker 1: People, about Luke chapter three. We talk about Luke chapter
[2:27:43] Speaker 1: three and Luke chapter three makes a definitive statement showing
[2:27:47] Speaker 1: Jesus' genealogy going back to the first human being.
[2:27:53] Speaker 4: Okay, okay, what what's wrong with we? I mean, science
[2:27:58] Speaker 4: indicates that there's a first human?
[2:27:59] Speaker 1: Where do we Where do we learn about a first.
[2:28:02] Speaker 4: Human all related to a single set of parents?
[2:28:05] Speaker 1: Where do we learn in the Bible that there's a
[2:28:08] Speaker 1: first human being. I'm sorry, where in the Bible do
[2:28:14] Speaker 1: we learn about these first human beings in Genesis? Great? Fantastic?
[2:28:19] Speaker 1: And are they the first humans?
[2:28:23] Speaker 4: They're the first like humans with rational souls? Okay that God?
[2:28:28] Speaker 1: Like, did God create any humans before them? What did
[2:28:33] Speaker 1: you say, did God create any humans before them?
[2:28:37] Speaker 7: Uh?
[2:28:38] Speaker 4: Evolution happened.
[2:28:39] Speaker 1: I'm saying, did God create any humans in the text
[2:28:42] Speaker 1: before them?
[2:28:45] Speaker 6: No?
[2:28:45] Speaker 1: Okay? And how many days preceded the creation of Adam
[2:28:48] Speaker 1: and Eve?
[2:28:50] Speaker 12: Oh?
[2:28:50] Speaker 4: So you think a day means it has to just
[2:28:52] Speaker 4: be a day, or it can't be. It can't be.
[2:28:54] Speaker 4: It can't be a what's the word allegory? It can't
[2:28:57] Speaker 4: be allegorical. No, you can't have that type of truth.
[2:29:00] Speaker 4: It has to have the scientific type of truth.
[2:29:02] Speaker 1: Yep, because the Hebrew word yome just means day, which
[2:29:05] Speaker 1: is why in the text at the end of each.
[2:29:07] Speaker 4: Day would have interpreted that, right, I do. So it
[2:29:10] Speaker 4: says so there was he and ancient Hebrew You know
[2:29:13] Speaker 4: that the mind of the I.
[2:29:15] Speaker 1: Do because they wrote on it. So it says God
[2:29:18] Speaker 1: called the light day and the darkness he called night.
[2:29:21] Speaker 1: So there was evening and morning the first day, and
[2:29:24] Speaker 1: then after day number two it says, so there was
[2:29:26] Speaker 1: evening and there was morning, second day, day number three,
[2:29:29] Speaker 1: there is evening and there was morning third day. That's
[2:29:33] Speaker 1: that's what it means. The Hebrew word yome just means day.
[2:29:49] Speaker 1: I don't know if he's muted.
[2:29:50] Speaker 6: But.
[2:29:54] Speaker 4: Yeah, I was muted.
[2:29:56] Speaker 3: I don't know why.
[2:29:57] Speaker 4: But so basically, I mean the Catholic stance on this
[2:30:02] Speaker 4: is the truth that it imparts and like read up
[2:30:05] Speaker 4: on Pope Benedict and like the things he said that
[2:30:08] Speaker 4: the truth is one, there's one truth, and things that
[2:30:12] Speaker 4: are scientific which we believe to be true, are in
[2:30:17] Speaker 4: not in like contradiction to the other things that are true.
[2:30:21] Speaker 4: And so what's the no if so, if you were
[2:30:24] Speaker 4: to make that claim, then what would be the the
[2:30:28] Speaker 4: only logical explanation the meaning that they're that the like
[2:30:32] Speaker 4: the author's intent is not the extrapolation you're making from it.
[2:30:36] Speaker 1: Oh, so it doesn't actually matter what the words mean.
[2:30:41] Speaker 4: Okay, so you think that if an author's intent is
[2:30:44] Speaker 4: different than what the words mean, that it can't that
[2:30:47] Speaker 4: that author's intent is invalid somehow.
[2:30:49] Speaker 1: The question is do the words have meanings?
[2:30:52] Speaker 4: Like you ever read hug Finn, Is that a racist book?
[2:30:54] Speaker 1: I have read, Hudgy like you're just.
[2:30:56] Speaker 4: You're just jumping all over the place.
[2:30:58] Speaker 1: I have read. Try to try to follow along here.
[2:31:02] Speaker 1: So do words have meanings? What's what's up, Jeff?
[2:31:07] Speaker 3: Just in the interest of answering that huck Finn question. Yes,
[2:31:11] Speaker 3: very much so.
[2:31:12] Speaker 1: Yes, Yeah, he's about to say that the meanings of
[2:31:20] Speaker 1: the words mean whatever you need them to mean in
[2:31:23] Speaker 1: order to preserve your faith. That's that's where he's going.
[2:31:27] Speaker 4: No, okay, so you're saying that, you're saying that, huck Finn.
[2:31:30] Speaker 1: Do words have meanings?
[2:31:34] Speaker 8: Uh?
[2:31:34] Speaker 4: They have many meanings and the many ways you can
[2:31:37] Speaker 4: interpret them.
[2:31:38] Speaker 1: Okay, And how do we know what a word means?
[2:31:43] Speaker 4: How do we know what a word means? There's an
[2:31:45] Speaker 4: entire there's an entire like branch of study called linguistics
[2:31:52] Speaker 4: that two to kind of trace the meaning of words.
[2:31:57] Speaker 4: But they're very that words are are a fun anything.
[2:32:00] Speaker 4: They're not one thing. In modern English after Shakespeare, we
[2:32:05] Speaker 4: we think that they are. But that's not how it
[2:32:08] Speaker 4: has been and not how it will be as words
[2:32:10] Speaker 4: continue to do.
[2:32:11] Speaker 1: You didn't answer the question how do we know what
[2:32:12] Speaker 1: words mean?
[2:32:14] Speaker 4: I don't know.
[2:32:15] Speaker 2: That's That's what I'm saying.
[2:32:15] Speaker 1: You don't know. So you're telling me that the words
[2:32:18] Speaker 1: of Genesis chapter one, you know that they mean something,
[2:32:22] Speaker 1: but you don't know how words have meanings?
[2:32:27] Speaker 4: What I don't know?
[2:32:30] Speaker 1: I don't know how crazy that somebody would get up
[2:32:33] Speaker 1: and say, we don't know how words have meanings. I
[2:32:35] Speaker 1: think the meaning supplied the cultures.
[2:32:38] Speaker 4: You didn't realize that the church isn't a creationist church.
[2:32:41] Speaker 4: It is.
[2:32:42] Speaker 1: I went to twelve years of Catholic school, twelve years.
[2:32:46] Speaker 1: I know what the church means.
[2:32:47] Speaker 4: That means you know everything about the faith.
[2:32:49] Speaker 1: I can actually I can actually just show you. I
[2:32:51] Speaker 1: going to show you in the Catechism. I've got it
[2:32:54] Speaker 1: on my shelf. The Catechism never says evolution is true.
[2:32:58] Speaker 4: No, but the Pope in like encyclicals, has said that
[2:33:02] Speaker 4: evolution is an enrichment of the faith and that it
[2:33:07] Speaker 4: is not contradictory.
[2:33:08] Speaker 1: It is contradictory.
[2:33:10] Speaker 4: Okay, well you know better than people who study this
[2:33:13] Speaker 4: their whole lives. Then, man, I guess because you're on
[2:33:15] Speaker 4: TikTok and you have six hundred people following you, like,
[2:33:18] Speaker 4: what do you mean?
[2:33:19] Speaker 1: Sixty eight thousand and then like another twenty seven or
[2:33:23] Speaker 1: twenty eight thousand YouTube.
[2:33:25] Speaker 4: Okay, so sorry how many.
[2:33:27] Speaker 1: I know counting is really difficult for believers. But so,
[2:33:31] Speaker 1: as it turns out, just saying that it's true because
[2:33:33] Speaker 1: the Catholic Church has it true is in a good
[2:33:35] Speaker 1: argument because like the rest of Christianity would disagree with you.
[2:33:39] Speaker 1: So just appealing to the Catholic Church, appealing to the
[2:33:43] Speaker 1: Catholic Church isn't the win that you think it is.
[2:33:46] Speaker 1: The big question is what is the text actually saying.
[2:33:49] Speaker 1: And according to the text, there's a finite number of
[2:33:52] Speaker 1: people going all the way back to Adam, and Adam
[2:33:54] Speaker 1: was created during a series of six days of creation,
[2:33:58] Speaker 1: marked off by day and night. And this was what
[2:34:01] Speaker 1: the actual hebrew people understood it to mean. If you
[2:34:04] Speaker 1: just read the writings of the Hebrews, they'll tell you that.
[2:34:07] Speaker 1: In fact, in the writings of the Talamd they'll say
[2:34:09] Speaker 1: that Genesis one one this day night cycle, it actually
[2:34:13] Speaker 1: starts with the night. That's where they get this idea
[2:34:16] Speaker 1: that the beginning of the day is at sunset, not
[2:34:19] Speaker 1: not at sunrise. Right, Okay, So the the originators of
[2:34:25] Speaker 1: the text, the people who wrote the text and was
[2:34:27] Speaker 1: in their original language, agree with me.
[2:34:31] Speaker 4: No, that's not true. Man, Like they'd had no idea
[2:34:34] Speaker 4: of what we know about the earth and the universe
[2:34:37] Speaker 4: and and like like that. That's not the types of
[2:34:39] Speaker 4: things they were thinking about. Yeah, well they were thinking about. Okay,
[2:34:44] Speaker 4: I mean, I guess if you unequivocally say that, then
[2:34:48] Speaker 4: I don't know how to argue with that.
[2:34:49] Speaker 1: I know, I know you don't, because it literally says, sorry,
[2:34:52] Speaker 1: I can't make this text any bigger.
[2:34:54] Speaker 4: Let me see, how do you think the pope would
[2:34:56] Speaker 4: say the things.
[2:34:57] Speaker 1: That nobody gives a fuck about your pope? Okay. So
[2:35:00] Speaker 1: in the Talmud, if we're go to better coat, it
[2:35:02] Speaker 1: says according to this verse where it says there was
[2:35:05] Speaker 1: evening and there was morning, day number one. According to
[2:35:08] Speaker 1: the commentary and better coat, it says, according to this verse,
[2:35:12] Speaker 1: day begins with the evening and not the morning. So
[2:35:16] Speaker 1: they understood these to be literal days, they're not metaphorical days.
[2:35:22] Speaker 4: Okay, but that's like you're saying, Okay, I see what
[2:35:30] Speaker 4: you're saying. So you're saying, because in a certain part
[2:35:34] Speaker 4: they explain the nature of day and night, that that
[2:35:36] Speaker 4: means that the word days.
[2:35:39] Speaker 1: Day, okay, but what is a day of creation? Is
[2:35:45] Speaker 1: a period of time that corresponds to a day the same,
[2:35:50] Speaker 1: it's the explanation for why days are days.
[2:35:53] Speaker 4: Okay, So like if you were going to go to
[2:35:56] Speaker 4: an ancient people and said, hey, there's this thing called evolution,
[2:35:59] Speaker 4: and but like all these things where they have no
[2:36:02] Speaker 4: concept of like what is a gene? What is this?
[2:36:04] Speaker 4: What is that? Like you're thinking that, like, how do
[2:36:11] Speaker 4: you explain something like do they know what days? In
[2:36:14] Speaker 4: a very simplified manner?
[2:36:15] Speaker 1: Which I knew what days before I was five?
[2:36:20] Speaker 4: Okay?
[2:36:20] Speaker 1: But okay, so they do they know what days are?
[2:36:24] Speaker 6: Do you know?
[2:36:24] Speaker 4: The first one is a poem?
[2:36:26] Speaker 6: Right?
[2:36:26] Speaker 1: Un chapter, do you know the meaning of the word day?
[2:36:30] Speaker 1: Because like a first grader could tell you what the
[2:36:31] Speaker 1: word day meant, and a and an.
[2:36:34] Speaker 4: Eighth grader could tell you about multiple meanings in language.
[2:36:37] Speaker 1: Sure, so show me the Bible and you're you're saying
[2:36:41] Speaker 1: no that, Sure, show me in the Bible where a
[2:36:43] Speaker 1: day referring to the morning and the evening is not
[2:36:46] Speaker 1: a twenty four hour period.
[2:36:48] Speaker 4: Revelation all the symbolic language using day and night.
[2:36:52] Speaker 1: I'm sorry, was that written in Hebrew or Greek.
[2:36:55] Speaker 4: You said in the in the Bible, obviously the Hebrew
[2:36:59] Speaker 4: text we're talking about your question, obviously, Okay, we're talking
[2:37:02] Speaker 4: about Hebrew words.
[2:37:05] Speaker 1: Okay, So show me in the Hebrew text where a day,
[2:37:11] Speaker 1: an evening and a morning is not twenty four hours.
[2:37:17] Speaker 4: Like in Genesis.
[2:37:18] Speaker 1: Anywhere in the Hebrew text, find find me any I
[2:37:23] Speaker 1: don't know.
[2:37:23] Speaker 4: I don't know how to help you, like if you look,
[2:37:28] Speaker 4: just understand that your view of what the Church teaches
[2:37:31] Speaker 4: about science is completely skewed by miss like okay, Like.
[2:37:36] Speaker 1: The churches, the Church has issued multiple rulings on a
[2:37:40] Speaker 1: lot of these topics. There's no official, like uh, unequivocal
[2:37:45] Speaker 1: church ruling on the age of the universe, just like
[2:37:48] Speaker 1: there's not an unequivocal church ruling on slavery. There were
[2:37:51] Speaker 1: popes that endorse slavery, and then there are popes that
[2:37:53] Speaker 1: condemned it. So the church, if the popes are contradicting
[2:37:57] Speaker 1: themselves on slavery, then I could care us if the
[2:38:00] Speaker 1: pope said something about evolution. That's not helping your point.
[2:38:05] Speaker 4: Okay, But you're what you're saying is what they're teaching
[2:38:08] Speaker 4: is something that it's not like it's just not. I mean,
[2:38:12] Speaker 4: you've like Young Earth's creationism as a concept is very novel.
[2:38:18] Speaker 4: It's a it's a concept.
[2:38:20] Speaker 1: Okay, literally, that's what almost everyone believed until the modern
[2:38:24] Speaker 1: time period.
[2:38:26] Speaker 4: Yeah, no, the.
[2:38:29] Speaker 1: What almost all of Christianity believed in younger Earth creationism
[2:38:34] Speaker 1: because that's what the Bible says.
[2:38:36] Speaker 4: And then the Church carried out Western scientific thought and
[2:38:41] Speaker 4: discovered the church. Uh yeah, the concept.
[2:38:46] Speaker 1: The Church was quite really suppressing all of these scientists.
[2:38:52] Speaker 4: Okay, So the prohibitorum, So you're just going to ignore
[2:39:01] Speaker 4: this la major thing.
[2:39:02] Speaker 1: Yeah, I am, because it's irrelevant. Do you know what
[2:39:05] Speaker 1: the liberalum the.
[2:39:06] Speaker 4: Catholic Church came up with the Big Bang theory. Catholic
[2:39:09] Speaker 4: Church did not yep, le maitre who is a Catholic priest.
[2:39:12] Speaker 1: But just saying that a Catholic person.
[2:39:14] Speaker 4: Is equal to the Catholic They didn't. So, okay, you're
[2:39:19] Speaker 4: just loving.
[2:39:20] Speaker 1: For VERI listen for five seconds. Just because a Catholic
[2:39:24] Speaker 1: person did a thing doesn't mean that it came from
[2:39:28] Speaker 1: the Catholic Church. For the same reason that you wouldn't
[2:39:30] Speaker 1: credit Islam with any of the mathematics that they came
[2:39:33] Speaker 1: up with. It wasn't because of Islam. It just happened
[2:39:36] Speaker 1: to be that a guy who was Islamic was really
[2:39:38] Speaker 1: good at math, Like, that's not really.
[2:39:41] Speaker 4: Her culture came up with algebra.
[2:39:43] Speaker 3: So, as it turns out, I've never been excommunicated, so
[2:39:46] Speaker 3: technically I'm still a Catholic person and I've contributed to atheism,
[2:39:50] Speaker 3: so it would be weird for me to just be
[2:39:52] Speaker 3: like the Catholic Church has contributed to atheism. But justin
[2:39:54] Speaker 3: I thank you because I didn't even think to go
[2:39:56] Speaker 3: look at the Catechism and paragraph one fifty nine. It's
[2:39:59] Speaker 3: very vague, very very faithous.
[2:40:02] Speaker 4: On purpose, on purpose, Yeah, go ahead.
[2:40:08] Speaker 3: There can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason,
[2:40:11] Speaker 3: since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith
[2:40:14] Speaker 3: has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind.
[2:40:18] Speaker 3: God cannot deny himself, nor can tute.
[2:40:21] Speaker 7: Some contradict truth.
[2:40:22] Speaker 3: Consequently, methodical research and all branches of knowledge, provided it
[2:40:28] Speaker 3: is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does
[2:40:30] Speaker 3: not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith
[2:40:36] Speaker 3: because the things of the world and the things of
[2:40:38] Speaker 3: faith derive from the same God, the humble and persevering
[2:40:41] Speaker 3: investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as
[2:40:44] Speaker 3: it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself,
[2:40:46] Speaker 3: For it is God, the conserver of all things, who
[2:40:50] Speaker 3: made them what they are. That's so vague.
[2:40:53] Speaker 4: Yeah, So what that means is you're either interpreting it
[2:40:56] Speaker 4: wrong or they truly contradict.
[2:40:59] Speaker 1: It just means you're wrong if you disagree.
[2:41:02] Speaker 4: In the contra Know logically, either it means the science
[2:41:06] Speaker 4: and faith contradict, or you're interpreting the way that we
[2:41:10] Speaker 4: believe it wrong.
[2:41:11] Speaker 3: Heads, I win, tails you booze.
[2:41:14] Speaker 1: That's basically what he said.
[2:41:15] Speaker 4: Okay, so if the faith and science contradict you, you win.
[2:41:21] Speaker 8: Right.
[2:41:21] Speaker 4: I'm saying, it's either that or you're interpreting it wrong.
[2:41:24] Speaker 1: But your your faith, your face is a moving goal post.
[2:41:28] Speaker 1: That's the problem.
[2:41:30] Speaker 4: My faith is a moving goal posts.
[2:41:32] Speaker 1: You're saying, if if science and faith contradict, then it's
[2:41:35] Speaker 1: a problem. But your your faith is a posts because
[2:41:38] Speaker 1: for the majority of history, your faith taught that the
[2:41:42] Speaker 1: beginning of all things was a six day creation period,
[2:41:45] Speaker 1: that the creation of mankind.
[2:41:48] Speaker 4: So is science a moving goal post? Because they used
[2:41:50] Speaker 4: to believe in fleogistics.
[2:41:51] Speaker 1: Science is a moving goal post.
[2:41:53] Speaker 2: Yeah.
[2:41:53] Speaker 4: Yeah, And guess what, because the knowledge moving goal post.
[2:41:59] Speaker 1: But the knowledge of the Bible shouldn't be a moving goal.
[2:42:01] Speaker 4: Post arbitrarily arbitrarily. Okay, all right, well I gotta go, man,
[2:42:07] Speaker 4: this has not been productive.
[2:42:09] Speaker 8: Yeah, tell me that.
[2:42:10] Speaker 2: All right.
[2:42:14] Speaker 1: We didn't even get to talk about the laborum prohibitorum.
[2:42:20] Speaker 1: There's actually a long running list that started in the
[2:42:24] Speaker 1: sixteen hundreds by the Catholic Church banning books. They weren't
[2:42:28] Speaker 1: just burning heretics. They weren't just executing people doing science.
[2:42:33] Speaker 1: They were banning all of their books as well. Dogad,
[2:42:36] Speaker 1: thank you so much for all the love, pain I
[2:42:38] Speaker 1: really appreciate that. Let me read you some of the
[2:42:42] Speaker 1: names on the list of banned books. I think you'll
[2:42:45] Speaker 1: find some of them quite interesting. There's Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler,
[2:42:50] Speaker 1: Renee Descartes, Lefonte, Montesquie Voltaire, Jeane Jacques Rousseau, Victor Hughes h.
[2:43:01] Speaker 1: Even philosophers like Sean piass sartare desit. Darius Erasmus is
[2:43:07] Speaker 1: on there as well. I can't believe they even got
[2:43:10] Speaker 1: John Calvin, the writings of John Calvin, but he was
[2:43:13] Speaker 1: a Protestant. I get that, and they've got even like
[2:43:16] Speaker 1: fictional writers like John Milton, brookspin Sonosa, John Locke is
[2:43:22] Speaker 1: on there. Francis Bacon, Yeah, yeah, the church gave us
[2:43:27] Speaker 1: science as they were banning all their fucking books. Give
[2:43:31] Speaker 1: me a break the lies you have to tell yourself
[2:43:34] Speaker 1: to stay in this faith.
[2:43:35] Speaker 4: It's wild to me.
[2:43:38] Speaker 1: Uh, Optimus Ryan says, David is hanging on for dear life. Yeah,
[2:43:42] Speaker 1: David was hanging on, but you know he's a good guy.
[2:43:44] Speaker 4: He really is.
[2:43:45] Speaker 1: Evan thank you for becoming a twelve month subscriber. I
[2:43:48] Speaker 1: appreciate that. And Arcadia Jade, thank you for subscribing, and
[2:43:52] Speaker 1: Savage also, thank you for subscribing on TikTok guys, I
[2:43:55] Speaker 1: really appreciate that. And just a Ranter, thank you for
[2:43:58] Speaker 1: the supertest says Wow, who would have thought that the
[2:44:01] Speaker 1: not a god of confusion would encode random secret messages
[2:44:05] Speaker 1: throughout his book to confirm our bias. It is also
[2:44:10] Speaker 1: true if God is not an author of confusion, how
[2:44:12] Speaker 1: come you can't open up the book and know what
[2:44:15] Speaker 1: it means. You have to have a constantly moving target
[2:44:18] Speaker 1: that seems to always have to match what science says,
[2:44:21] Speaker 1: so whenever science changes, we had to go in and
[2:44:23] Speaker 1: change the meaning of the words so it doesn't contradict
[2:44:25] Speaker 1: to science. Maximilian, thank you for the ten dollars super Chat.
[2:44:29] Speaker 1: I appreciate that, friend says, remember my recent foreskin or forsaken.
[2:44:33] Speaker 1: I did it again, God damn it. I can't read
[2:44:39] Speaker 1: the word forsaken without thinking foreskin. Please stop putting that
[2:44:42] Speaker 1: word in super chat. It's never going to go away.
[2:44:45] Speaker 1: It's here forever. I'm never going to be able to
[2:44:47] Speaker 1: read that word. Remember my recent forsaken comment, foreskin may
[2:44:53] Speaker 1: be fresher in your mind. You're making it up for
[2:44:56] Speaker 1: us tonight and with angelic patience. Hi, David and Jeff Well,
[2:45:00] Speaker 1: thank you so much, Maximilian. I really appreciate you being here.
[2:45:03] Speaker 1: And you got me twice now twice twice using the
[2:45:06] Speaker 1: same damn word. You said, forsaken, and my brain went
[2:45:10] Speaker 1: to foreskin. Listen, it's impossible to read the Bible and
[2:45:14] Speaker 1: not think about foreskins because it's on God's mind. I
[2:45:17] Speaker 1: guess that means I've got the mind of God, because
[2:45:19] Speaker 1: God's always worried about people's foreskins. So and I am
[2:45:23] Speaker 1: the Messiah, so we'll see. I mean, maybe I'm God
[2:45:27] Speaker 1: maybe that's why Foreskins on my mind all the time.
[2:45:31] Speaker 1: Lee here, thank you for the super test, says, Please
[2:45:33] Speaker 1: ask one of them if they would still worship if
[2:45:35] Speaker 1: there was no reward in heaven. That's actually a really
[2:45:38] Speaker 1: good question. I have asked that to quite a few people,
[2:45:41] Speaker 1: especially when they're arguing for nonsense. God's like, what's the benefit?
[2:45:45] Speaker 1: Like is there a benefit to the God? And if
[2:45:46] Speaker 1: there's no benefit, why are you up here fighting for
[2:45:49] Speaker 1: your life on this God claim? Chip says, sorry, justin,
[2:45:52] Speaker 1: but the universe expansion is accelerating, not detilerting. I know
[2:45:55] Speaker 1: it's accelerating. I am aware. I appreciate the super chat.
[2:45:58] Speaker 1: But Chip, this is where listen is very important. And
[2:46:01] Speaker 1: that's why when I talk to Christians about this, I
[2:46:04] Speaker 1: have to say it five times. The rate of acceleration
[2:46:08] Speaker 1: is slowing. I'm not saying that the expansion is decelerating.
[2:46:12] Speaker 1: I'm saying the acceleration rate at which it is accelerating
[2:46:17] Speaker 1: is accelerating less and less. Now, eventually, when something stops accelerating,
[2:46:22] Speaker 1: that just means it's not accelerating anymore. Right, It doesn't
[2:46:26] Speaker 1: mean it's not expanding. It can still be expanding even
[2:46:29] Speaker 1: if the rate of acceleration is no longer there, it
[2:46:32] Speaker 1: could just be expanding at a constant rate. You see
[2:46:35] Speaker 1: what I'm saying. But what I'm saying is, if we're moving,
[2:46:39] Speaker 1: if the pattern is that the rate of acceleration is decreasing,
[2:46:43] Speaker 1: eventually it'll get to a point in which it's no
[2:46:46] Speaker 1: longer accelerating. It's just moving at a constant. If that
[2:46:51] Speaker 1: keeps happening, then it'll go from a constant to a deceleration. Right.
[2:46:56] Speaker 1: So the question is if that will actually happen, And
[2:46:59] Speaker 1: I think it actually it will happen. That's the point
[2:47:01] Speaker 1: that I'm making. But I appreciate the super chatty the
[2:47:04] Speaker 1: way our Lord said, it's easy to know everything about
[2:47:07] Speaker 1: faith just read the Bible with a shred of honesty
[2:47:10] Speaker 1: and bravery. I don't know who you're talking to, but
[2:47:14] Speaker 1: I do know everything about what the you know, the
[2:47:17] Speaker 1: Bible teaches. Now, everyone's interpretations about the Bible are obviously different.
[2:47:22] Speaker 1: You know, there's no one way to read and interpret
[2:47:24] Speaker 1: the Bible. And that guest, you know, is clinging on
[2:47:29] Speaker 1: to the Catholic Church teaching. But the Catholic Church teaching
[2:47:33] Speaker 1: basically is a moving target, always has been. Chandler says,
[2:47:38] Speaker 1: have you seen Dear Kelly yet? Look up the trailer.
[2:47:41] Speaker 1: I've not seen Dear Kelly, but I'm definitely gonna have
[2:47:44] Speaker 1: to look up Dear Kelly.
[2:47:46] Speaker 2: Now.
[2:47:46] Speaker 1: I want to know what Dear Kelly is. Is it
[2:47:48] Speaker 1: a movie? Let me see Dear Kelly is a sophomore?
[2:47:55] Speaker 1: Is a short film? Okay, I'll look it up. I'll
[2:47:57] Speaker 1: check it out. Thanks for the recommendation. And Optimist Rhymes
[2:48:01] Speaker 1: thinking for the supertest says, Jeff has the Wait what
[2:48:05] Speaker 1: Jeff has the worst copium addiction I have ever seen?
[2:48:09] Speaker 1: Everyone liked the stream and donate to deconstruction this. Dude,
[2:48:13] Speaker 1: I think you know Jeff wasn't the one talking prior.
[2:48:16] Speaker 1: I think you're referring to the Jeff that was or
[2:48:18] Speaker 1: the person that was up here while Jeff was up
[2:48:20] Speaker 1: here with me. Jeff is not having copium. Jeff is
[2:48:24] Speaker 1: with me.
[2:48:24] Speaker 3: Optimist rhymes, However, I have entered a twelve step program
[2:48:28] Speaker 3: just in case.
[2:48:32] Speaker 1: And Dosiah says, when is a day, not a day,
[2:48:35] Speaker 1: a week, not a week, a year, not a year
[2:48:38] Speaker 1: when a theist needs to twist their narrative, that's a
[2:48:40] Speaker 1: hundred percent, that's one hundred percent. Whenever the text disagrees
[2:48:45] Speaker 1: with reality, just go to words don't mean words, you know.
[2:48:50] Speaker 1: So we got Max with us, Now how do it?
[2:48:52] Speaker 2: Max?
[2:48:55] Speaker 8: First time taking in your life? And I liked the vibe.
[2:48:58] Speaker 8: I wanted to I'll come up and speak. But then
[2:49:04] Speaker 8: as I was listening, and I realized, maybe I don't
[2:49:07] Speaker 8: qualify technically, okay, because I'm like, I was raised Christian.
[2:49:16] Speaker 8: I'm over eighteen, but at this point I wouldn't consider
[2:49:21] Speaker 8: myself a quote unquote Christian. But I do not feel
[2:49:26] Speaker 8: that God is fictional.
[2:49:28] Speaker 1: Sure, Okay, I don't.
[2:49:29] Speaker 8: I don't. I don't ascribe. Okay, Sorry, you're asking to
[2:49:32] Speaker 8: ask me.
[2:49:33] Speaker 1: So I think there's a delay between our audio. Okay.
[2:49:36] Speaker 1: So it sounds like you've kind of deconstructed from Christianity,
[2:49:40] Speaker 1: but you still are kind of agnostic.
[2:49:43] Speaker 8: Yeah, because especially with like the new advance, with the
[2:49:47] Speaker 8: whole conversation of consciousness and the idea of what that
[2:49:53] Speaker 8: means if we were to flip the equation and think
[2:49:56] Speaker 8: about consciousness being the original state and from their matter
[2:50:01] Speaker 8: and time and space and everything evolves from that.
[2:50:04] Speaker 5: So I've been thinking about that, and I'm like, if
[2:50:07] Speaker 5: there's really scholars in the space speaking that way, maybe
[2:50:11] Speaker 5: not the abrahammock God or whatever the case may be,
[2:50:14] Speaker 5: is the is the answer, which in a sense, like
[2:50:17] Speaker 5: I said, maybe I'm not qualified to beyond the life
[2:50:20] Speaker 5: because I'm not necessarily running with that dogma, but I
[2:50:25] Speaker 5: still believe that there would have to be some kind
[2:50:28] Speaker 5: of I don't know if you would call it a
[2:50:31] Speaker 5: being or energy or state of intelligence that fermiates at
[2:50:37] Speaker 5: this point for all of us to have this thing
[2:50:40] Speaker 5: called consciousness.
[2:50:41] Speaker 1: Well, let's talk about that a little bit.
[2:50:43] Speaker 8: Okay, cool, So.
[2:50:45] Speaker 1: Like you're you're not crazy. Other people have had the
[2:50:47] Speaker 1: same thought, so like, like we've heard this before, don't worry.
[2:50:51] Speaker 1: So I guess what I would ask is, you know,
[2:50:54] Speaker 1: where where would do we find the connection between us
[2:50:59] Speaker 1: existing and like an eternal conscious mind.
[2:51:07] Speaker 12: That's an interesting question.
[2:51:10] Speaker 3: The way.
[2:51:11] Speaker 5: Let me just be sure that I understand you're talking
[2:51:14] Speaker 5: about the fact that we that I'm saying there's an
[2:51:17] Speaker 5: everlasting consciousness outside of our individual experiences.
[2:51:21] Speaker 1: Right, That's why I'm asking. Yeah, I want to know
[2:51:23] Speaker 1: the process.
[2:51:24] Speaker 5: Yeah, okay, fair enough, Okay, So now I understand that's
[2:51:27] Speaker 5: your your the question. It's interesting to me how life
[2:51:32] Speaker 5: regenerates itself that it's two individuals or whatever, even if
[2:51:36] Speaker 5: it's a single cell organism that replicates itself. But in
[2:51:41] Speaker 5: our situation as humans, when we replicate that being has
[2:51:46] Speaker 5: a consciousness too, right, we don't know in a sense
[2:51:51] Speaker 5: how that begins outside of the fact that it was
[2:51:53] Speaker 5: two parents ahead of time that created that energy for
[2:51:57] Speaker 5: it to start. So when I kind of extrapolate and say, well,
[2:52:03] Speaker 5: consciousness is emitting consciousness, right, like two beings that are
[2:52:08] Speaker 5: coming together, right, and and and in ancient scripts they
[2:52:13] Speaker 5: look at the women and the and the man as
[2:52:15] Speaker 5: opposing energies negative positive, right, So there's different ways where
[2:52:19] Speaker 5: there's science at this point is saying negative, right, like
[2:52:24] Speaker 5: not negative as in how we look at it connotation,
[2:52:28] Speaker 5: but negative as an opposing polar polar like a binary,
[2:52:33] Speaker 5: so that when they when they come together, that's how
[2:52:37] Speaker 5: consciousness is reproducing itself. So when I look at that,
[2:52:41] Speaker 5: and because I just exist, there's no way for me
[2:52:43] Speaker 5: to really test my consciousness to say, like, what does
[2:52:45] Speaker 5: that mean if it's not based on it existing first,
[2:52:49] Speaker 5: because I don't understand myself having a mechanical existence without
[2:52:54] Speaker 5: the conscious existence.
[2:52:55] Speaker 3: To partner with it.
[2:52:56] Speaker 5: So it almost makes me think that there would have
[2:52:59] Speaker 5: to be something that was already conscious before me to
[2:53:02] Speaker 5: emit me, or before the beginning of humanity.
[2:53:05] Speaker 1: If you were to say, yeah, I get why you
[2:53:07] Speaker 1: would think that. I think here's kind of where the
[2:53:11] Speaker 1: hang up I have is is I'm not sure that
[2:53:14] Speaker 1: consciousness is a thing that exists on its own. I
[2:53:16] Speaker 1: think it's like a derivative of the brain. And I
[2:53:20] Speaker 1: think some of the best examples for this are have
[2:53:23] Speaker 1: you ever read the split brain experiments.
[2:53:28] Speaker 8: About how they're still able to get motor function would
[2:53:32] Speaker 8: have the brain.
[2:53:34] Speaker 1: Well, they did get motor function when they So what
[2:53:38] Speaker 1: happened was there was some experimental procedures that they enacted
[2:53:43] Speaker 1: for people who had like seizures, and there was this
[2:53:46] Speaker 1: idea that if you bisect and split the two different
[2:53:50] Speaker 1: hemispheres of the brain, that they can reduce some of
[2:53:54] Speaker 1: the unwanted seizures. And so they did. They bisected some
[2:53:58] Speaker 1: of the connecting bits between the two different hemispheres, and
[2:54:02] Speaker 1: what they found is it does actually reduce the seizures,
[2:54:06] Speaker 1: but also ended up producing what we're going to call
[2:54:09] Speaker 1: dual consciousnesses. For example, you might have heard that like
[2:54:13] Speaker 1: you know the left side of your body or the
[2:54:16] Speaker 1: right side of your brain and the left side of
[2:54:18] Speaker 1: your brain process things differently. Like one might process things auditorily,
[2:54:22] Speaker 1: one might process things visually. And like one will operate
[2:54:27] Speaker 1: the left side of the body, one will operate the
[2:54:28] Speaker 1: right side of the body. And so what happened was
[2:54:31] Speaker 1: they discovered that when they were doing these brain splittings
[2:54:36] Speaker 1: and the Roger Sperry split brain experiments is what you
[2:54:39] Speaker 1: want to look up for this it went on for
[2:54:41] Speaker 1: about ten different years. Is that people actually took on
[2:54:45] Speaker 1: competing consciousnesses. Meaning there was one guy and I'll never
[2:54:51] Speaker 1: forget the explanation because I think it's the best way
[2:54:53] Speaker 1: to explain it. They would give them tasks to do,
[2:54:57] Speaker 1: like complete this task with your left side of your body,
[2:55:00] Speaker 1: complete it with the right side of your body. Now
[2:55:02] Speaker 1: complete the task using both hands. And so one of
[2:55:04] Speaker 1: the tasks was buttoning up the shirt because it requires
[2:55:07] Speaker 1: both hands typically right. And what he found was, you know,
[2:55:11] Speaker 1: they couldn't button the shirt with both hands. He buttoned
[2:55:14] Speaker 1: it with one hand, and as he was buttoning it
[2:55:17] Speaker 1: with one hand, his other hand was coming behind him
[2:55:19] Speaker 1: and unbuttoning the shirt. He couldn't actually control his motor
[2:55:22] Speaker 1: skills with both hands involved, and so it's really interesting
[2:55:27] Speaker 1: that like consciousness seems to be a derivative of the
[2:55:31] Speaker 1: brain and we can actually manipulate it and change it.
[2:55:34] Speaker 1: We can even change people desire.
[2:55:36] Speaker 5: So I understand that experiment explaining that motor function and
[2:55:42] Speaker 5: the idea of brain sending signal is completely linked and
[2:55:47] Speaker 5: that we can we can definitely control that. So for instance,
[2:55:52] Speaker 5: your heart beats, but you could also be from your
[2:55:57] Speaker 5: heart beating, you breathe, but you could also breath, right,
[2:56:01] Speaker 5: you can go into focusing on your breath, whether you're
[2:56:05] Speaker 5: meditating or you're just running or whatever, and you're thinking
[2:56:07] Speaker 5: about breathing, you.
[2:56:08] Speaker 12: Could actually consciously breathe. So there is an idea.
[2:56:14] Speaker 5: That consciousness is self evident because these actions are moving
[2:56:19] Speaker 5: in our body. But at the same time, we look
[2:56:23] Speaker 5: at other things that aren't that don't have a brain,
[2:56:26] Speaker 5: have their emotions, have their ways of interacting with the environment,
[2:56:31] Speaker 5: and folks are arguing whether these things are also conscious too,
[2:56:34] Speaker 5: and what that actually means. What does consciousness mean? Is
[2:56:37] Speaker 5: it a construct of the human mind or is it
[2:56:40] Speaker 5: an idea that permeates all things and that gives us
[2:56:43] Speaker 5: the way to interact with our environment. So it's kind
[2:56:47] Speaker 5: of now how we're defining consciousness, and I'm not saying
[2:56:49] Speaker 5: I'm going to define it today, but it's an interesting
[2:56:52] Speaker 5: thought which makes me them not want to just so
[2:56:55] Speaker 5: quickly say, oh, God has to be fictional. No, maybe Christianity,
[2:57:00] Speaker 5: you know what I mean. I listen, I don't think
[2:57:02] Speaker 5: the question about something you said earlier. I wanted to
[2:57:05] Speaker 5: search about it, but I didn't know the right spelling
[2:57:08] Speaker 5: which you were speaking about the sousceerrain vassal theory. But
[2:57:11] Speaker 5: I can't spell that.
[2:57:12] Speaker 1: Yeah, that's actually a tough one. I can actually, Uh,
[2:57:16] Speaker 1: there's a book you want to get that's got some
[2:57:18] Speaker 1: examples of it too. You can get a free PDF copy.
[2:57:22] Speaker 1: This is the There we Go, ancient Near Eastern text
[2:57:26] Speaker 1: relating to the Old Testament. Now there are better volumes
[2:57:29] Speaker 1: you can buy from the ancient Near East, but this
[2:57:31] Speaker 1: one you can get for free if you know how
[2:57:33] Speaker 1: to google properly. But a sou seraine vassal tree.
[2:57:37] Speaker 12: Ancients right missed the lots of it. Oh the stream
[2:57:45] Speaker 12: went by fast.
[2:57:46] Speaker 3: Yeah.
[2:57:46] Speaker 1: Yeah, it's an ancient Near Eastern texts relating to the
[2:57:51] Speaker 1: Old Testament by James Pritchard.
[2:57:55] Speaker 12: Yeah, because at the end of the day, I would
[2:57:57] Speaker 12: say I'm more like a Rice Christian at this point.
[2:57:59] Speaker 6: M hm.
[2:58:00] Speaker 5: So understanding how culturally that permeates, Like I've been using
[2:58:05] Speaker 5: the word premiates so much. I don't know why, And
[2:58:07] Speaker 5: that's on my mind order why that culture is so
[2:58:11] Speaker 5: entrenched in like the religiosity is so entrenched in my culture,
[2:58:16] Speaker 5: and how that affects economics, so many different things. Being
[2:58:21] Speaker 5: a law biding citizen in certain ways, not even researching
[2:58:25] Speaker 5: laws because you're not even maybe the person to research
[2:58:28] Speaker 5: your Bible. So I see, and that's why I value
[2:58:32] Speaker 5: these streams. And I actually wanted to come up to
[2:58:34] Speaker 5: kind of catch your vibe because I do appreciate individuals
[2:58:37] Speaker 5: who want to have these discussions and not be just
[2:58:41] Speaker 5: immediately critical and disrespectful to folks who have faith. So
[2:58:45] Speaker 5: I've been just seeing how you guys been engaging with
[2:58:47] Speaker 5: folks and.
[2:58:48] Speaker 12: I really do rate that. Yeah, Max, But yeah, you're
[2:58:51] Speaker 12: gonna break down something to me.
[2:58:53] Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. So in the you know, these type of
[2:58:58] Speaker 1: treaties are really kind in the ancient Near East and
[2:59:01] Speaker 1: is basically when like a larger foreign power makes an
[2:59:04] Speaker 1: agreement with a lesser power and so like for example,
[2:59:09] Speaker 1: it's kind of like what the mobs, the mobsters used
[2:59:11] Speaker 1: to do. The mobsters would like shake people down and
[2:59:14] Speaker 1: be like, listen, pay me a certain amount of money
[2:59:16] Speaker 1: and we'll protect you. But also if you don't, will
[2:59:18] Speaker 1: hurt you. And that's kind of like a vassal treaty. Right,
[2:59:23] Speaker 1: they become your vassal, not necessarily because they need you,
[2:59:26] Speaker 1: but because you do offer protection, but also they could
[2:59:30] Speaker 1: also hurt you. So it's like edging your bets. And
[2:59:34] Speaker 1: the book is right, yeah, And the Book of Deuteronomy
[2:59:38] Speaker 1: is formatted like a souseraine vassal treaty.
[2:59:41] Speaker 4: And this has been.
[2:59:44] Speaker 1: It's been a pretty widely observed phenomenon in the study
[2:59:47] Speaker 1: of the ancient New East. In fact, I think there's
[2:59:49] Speaker 1: this section about it hold On, I think in the
[3:00:02] Speaker 1: introduction to Deuteronomy in Eugene Carpenter's entry. I think he's
[3:00:11] Speaker 1: got some some snippets on it. Let's see if he
[3:00:15] Speaker 1: actually brought it up in his commentary.
[3:00:19] Speaker 5: He's a specific chapter that you you refer to our
[3:00:24] Speaker 5: just the entire book itself. You're saying, I.
[3:00:27] Speaker 1: Would say more towards like chapter twenty eight. Chapter twenty
[3:00:32] Speaker 1: eight starts like a very familiar list of blessings and
[3:00:36] Speaker 1: cursings which are pretty familiar to Sussarin treaties. In fact,
[3:00:42] Speaker 1: there's one there's.
[3:00:45] Speaker 4: Let me read it.
[3:00:46] Speaker 12: Yeah, yeah, no, I get where Okay, now I get
[3:00:49] Speaker 12: what you're.
[3:00:49] Speaker 1: Saying, right like you, if you break this treaty, here
[3:00:53] Speaker 1: are the bad things that will happen to you if
[3:00:55] Speaker 1: you don't break the treaty. You know, here are the
[3:00:58] Speaker 1: good things.
[3:00:59] Speaker 12: There's all the good things exactly.
[3:01:01] Speaker 1: Yeah, let me see if I've got it.
[3:01:05] Speaker 12: But it's interesting that's in a sense how our world
[3:01:08] Speaker 12: governments moved to this day.
[3:01:11] Speaker 1: You're not wrong.
[3:01:15] Speaker 4: Yeah, So the.
[3:01:16] Speaker 5: Christiandom is is kind of intertwined with secularism at this point.
[3:01:21] Speaker 5: I'm not saying that we're all Christian by just being,
[3:01:26] Speaker 5: but in a sense, when you look at how the
[3:01:29] Speaker 5: Bible evolves itself into every day line culture and the
[3:01:36] Speaker 5: Fiat system and everything that it preaches to still respect
[3:01:41] Speaker 5: the Roman Empire, there's kind of it kind of gives
[3:01:46] Speaker 5: credence for the Christians to believe in God because society
[3:01:51] Speaker 5: is kind of built by that same idealism, where even
[3:01:57] Speaker 5: if you believe in conspiracy theories, these are the same
[3:02:00] Speaker 5: books that they say, these elite are using to put
[3:02:04] Speaker 5: their codes in You guys were speaking earlier about Bible codes.
[3:02:07] Speaker 12: But regardless whether it was the original deity.
[3:02:12] Speaker 5: That coded it or was a bunch of scribes, if
[3:02:16] Speaker 5: it exists and people are living to it, there's an
[3:02:19] Speaker 5: idea that consciousness and manifestation of the mind will create
[3:02:23] Speaker 5: a Jesus reality of Jesus consciousness, even if we as
[3:02:27] Speaker 5: atheists don't want to believe in it. So to me,
[3:02:31] Speaker 5: like I'm looking at life because you know, it's my
[3:02:33] Speaker 5: first time doing this thing. I wake up every day
[3:02:35] Speaker 5: talking between these two eyes and I just try and
[3:02:38] Speaker 5: figure the shit out. And I'm not saying that, you know,
[3:02:42] Speaker 5: I'm throwing away the faith or that I'm completely through
[3:02:48] Speaker 5: the faith.
[3:02:49] Speaker 1: Well more kind of just is it possible that there
[3:02:51] Speaker 1: is a God or multiple gods? But it's just not
[3:02:54] Speaker 1: the Christian version.
[3:02:59] Speaker 5: I don't know if there's multiple I feel okay, Yeah,
[3:03:02] Speaker 5: maybe what is your what do you are you saying
[3:03:04] Speaker 5: God in like the the religious idea of God?
[3:03:08] Speaker 12: Or do you like what do you mean when you
[3:03:09] Speaker 12: say God?
[3:03:10] Speaker 1: Well, what I'm suggesting is like it seems like were
[3:03:13] Speaker 1: you raised in the Christian faith?
[3:03:16] Speaker 8: Yeah, I was.
[3:03:17] Speaker 12: Yeah, So that's why I'm saying I'm a right, I'm
[3:03:19] Speaker 12: a Rice Christian.
[3:03:20] Speaker 1: Right So if you know the term right, yeah, yeah,
[3:03:25] Speaker 1: Rice means raised in Christian What was he for?
[3:03:31] Speaker 5: Well, I just mean historically Rice Christians were populations who
[3:03:36] Speaker 5: were forced just like you're saying, either you, you know,
[3:03:41] Speaker 5: join the Christian dumb or you die and the benefits
[3:03:45] Speaker 5: is you you join the Christian dum and you you're
[3:03:48] Speaker 5: a part of you know, you're going to heaven and
[3:03:49] Speaker 5: all that stuff, or we killed you.
[3:03:52] Speaker 1: So spread by the sword. Yeah, yeah, for sure.
[3:03:55] Speaker 5: Yeah, So when you know that's the history of your
[3:03:58] Speaker 5: people becoming back, right, Like, I'm Jamaican background. Jamaica has
[3:04:03] Speaker 5: the most churches per capita landwise, right, so it's just
[3:04:07] Speaker 5: a very heavily evangelized place, right. So, but when you
[3:04:12] Speaker 5: research the antiquities of that, it's not like my culture
[3:04:16] Speaker 5: just came upon it and decided to become Christians for
[3:04:19] Speaker 5: that reason.
[3:04:20] Speaker 12: If that was the case, maybe you know, my arguments
[3:04:22] Speaker 12: would have to be different.
[3:04:24] Speaker 5: But for that case, I'm more so looking to science, right,
[3:04:29] Speaker 5: and science right now is that at a crux where
[3:04:32] Speaker 5: the conscious conversation can't be really explained by the physicists
[3:04:35] Speaker 5: in a mechanical way, like how you're saying with that
[3:04:38] Speaker 5: one experiment, that's why I feel the retort on that
[3:04:41] Speaker 5: is more about the brain and function, which is more
[3:04:44] Speaker 5: mechanical phenomenon more than explaining to consciousness.
[3:04:50] Speaker 1: Well, you know, I guess the next question I would
[3:04:52] Speaker 1: ask is, if we're still talking about consciousness, is is
[3:04:56] Speaker 1: there any good evidence that would lead us to conclude
[3:04:59] Speaker 1: that our conscient bousness can survive outside of our brain
[3:05:02] Speaker 1: Because we have done some tests, like we've we've used
[3:05:06] Speaker 1: deep brain stimulation and we've also used d m T
[3:05:10] Speaker 1: to trigger out of body experiences in a laboratory setting
[3:05:15] Speaker 1: to see if when somebody is having an out of
[3:05:18] Speaker 1: body experience, if they can validate it by like being
[3:05:22] Speaker 1: able to like turn around and see something that they
[3:05:24] Speaker 1: couldn't see because in their body they're actually looking in
[3:05:26] Speaker 1: this direction and they've never been able to do it yet,
[3:05:30] Speaker 1: even though they Yeah, I.
[3:05:31] Speaker 5: Know all the all the tests for consciousness have come inconclusive,
[3:05:36] Speaker 5: we're not. I don't think we even are at the
[3:05:39] Speaker 5: stage of understanding the depth of what we are needing
[3:05:43] Speaker 5: to measure.
[3:05:44] Speaker 12: I think that's I think it's still a philosophical.
[3:05:46] Speaker 5: I'll be honest and say I think it's still a
[3:05:48] Speaker 5: philosophical conversation more than a lab conversation because I think
[3:05:54] Speaker 5: what is happening in the quantum science world right now
[3:05:58] Speaker 5: is so new, and and the fact that we have
[3:06:02] Speaker 5: companies saying there's quantum computers, I don't know if that's
[3:06:04] Speaker 5: even true or just rhetoric. Right So it's so new,
[3:06:08] Speaker 5: this whole idea of and I've been doing a lot
[3:06:10] Speaker 5: of research on quantum computing, but I still don't see
[3:06:15] Speaker 5: how that relates to what the physicists have been speaking
[3:06:17] Speaker 5: out about in terms of waves and particles. So yeah,
[3:06:24] Speaker 5: like I said, this conversation is dope because I wanted
[3:06:28] Speaker 5: to more so see what your vibe was, and you're
[3:06:32] Speaker 5: really open to having a conversation. I don't really have
[3:06:35] Speaker 5: the proper probably have the proper retort today to necessarily
[3:06:42] Speaker 5: answer these questions, but I do think from this conversation
[3:06:46] Speaker 5: I will go back and do some more research. Next
[3:06:49] Speaker 5: time you're live and I'm here, I will come up
[3:06:51] Speaker 5: again and see if the build, if maybe I can
[3:06:56] Speaker 5: convince you that consciousness is something that is happening outside
[3:06:59] Speaker 5: of the body.
[3:07:00] Speaker 4: Mm hmm.
[3:07:03] Speaker 5: Not not compared to radios, but the idea that our
[3:07:07] Speaker 5: brains is not literally connected to anything, but we receive
[3:07:10] Speaker 5: unlimited thought in a way that can't be quantified in
[3:07:15] Speaker 5: terms of time. The idea of time passing in the mind,
[3:07:19] Speaker 5: or the time passing is it is a phenomenon that
[3:07:24] Speaker 5: still is. We're still trying to understand what time is
[3:07:27] Speaker 5: in that in that construct where maybe there's two versions
[3:07:31] Speaker 5: of time, and that to me is something that I
[3:07:34] Speaker 5: want to research more about because I'm really that's that's
[3:07:37] Speaker 5: a concept that was just introduced to me over the
[3:07:39] Speaker 5: last month and a bit, so I'm still understanding and
[3:07:43] Speaker 5: reading about that.
[3:07:44] Speaker 1: Well, listen, I appreciate you coming up and come back
[3:07:47] Speaker 1: any time. I'd love to talk more about these topics
[3:07:50] Speaker 1: with you.
[3:07:52] Speaker 5: I appreciate the room, appreciate the vibe, and I'm sorry
[3:07:56] Speaker 5: I wasn't as fiery as the last dude.
[3:08:00] Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, bless all right, keep researching and have
[3:08:03] Speaker 1: a good one, buddy. I will say, I remember being
[3:08:09] Speaker 1: in my deconstruction journey and really looking into like lots
[3:08:13] Speaker 1: of scientific theories that could validate the existence of a God.
[3:08:17] Speaker 1: Once I realized that the Biblical text couldn't and so like,
[3:08:22] Speaker 1: I really get it. I understand. You know, the guy's
[3:08:24] Speaker 1: on a journey, you know, I want I want him
[3:08:26] Speaker 1: to I want him to find what's true. I think
[3:08:29] Speaker 1: all of us want people to find what's true, you
[3:08:32] Speaker 1: know what I mean? So best of luck to him,
[3:08:35] Speaker 1: big Z, thank you for the super jest says, Why
[3:08:37] Speaker 1: has this become my favorite form of entertainment? Praise Doug
[3:08:40] Speaker 1: Haile chef justin what I listen, big Z? I don't know,
[3:08:44] Speaker 1: but you know, as long as we're alive, we're going
[3:08:46] Speaker 1: to try to do as much cooking as possible. Thank
[3:08:48] Speaker 1: you for being here, and acme says, my foreskin is
[3:08:53] Speaker 1: forsaken shit. That's a good listen mine too. This is
[3:08:57] Speaker 1: the craziest thing, you know. You talk to a lot
[3:08:59] Speaker 1: of Christians, and the minute you read the Old Testament
[3:09:03] Speaker 1: law to them, they'll be like, we don't follow the law,
[3:09:05] Speaker 1: we don't have to do any of that. That's all
[3:09:07] Speaker 1: gone away with. Well, how come like ninety nine percent
[3:09:09] Speaker 1: of Christians are circumcised? What are we doing? Why are
[3:09:14] Speaker 1: Christian parents still demanding that their children get circumcised? Paul
[3:09:17] Speaker 1: himself says, if you take on the mark of circumcision,
[3:09:21] Speaker 1: you are required to follow the whole of the law.
[3:09:23] Speaker 1: So Christian parents in the USA demanding that their children
[3:09:27] Speaker 1: get circumcised because they're Christians are they're quite literally doing
[3:09:31] Speaker 1: the thing that Paul told them not to.
[3:09:33] Speaker 3: It's crazy and doesn't say that if you're circumcised, like
[3:09:38] Speaker 3: Jesus is useless to you.
[3:09:40] Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, exactly nothing. Such a good point. I'm glad
[3:09:47] Speaker 1: you brought that up. Uh Noah, Lyon again, thank you
[3:09:51] Speaker 1: so much for the supertest says, did you know listen
[3:09:54] Speaker 1: with a lot of foreskins talk tonight, did you know
[3:09:56] Speaker 1: foreskins make really good skin grafts. Maybe God need them
[3:10:00] Speaker 1: for skin grafts after accidentally burning himself in hell. Shit,
[3:10:06] Speaker 1: that's such a good observation. That explains so okay. So
[3:10:10] Speaker 1: foreskins are like the you know, the exterior.
[3:10:14] Speaker 3: Form of.
[3:10:17] Speaker 1: Stem cells basically, and so God at some point ran
[3:10:22] Speaker 1: out of created powers and had to harvest humanity's foreskin
[3:10:28] Speaker 1: so that he could he can keep building humans. That's
[3:10:32] Speaker 1: what happened. That's that's I think we finally cracked the code.
[3:10:36] Speaker 1: In order for God to creep generating human beings, he
[3:10:40] Speaker 1: needed to have all the foreskins. So God has got
[3:10:44] Speaker 1: a collection of foreskins up in heaven. That's what he's
[3:10:47] Speaker 1: doing with all the foreskins. So basically, if if I'm
[3:10:50] Speaker 1: following this logic just right, humans are going to stop
[3:10:54] Speaker 1: to be created once God runs out of foreskins. So
[3:10:57] Speaker 1: all we have to do is stop circumcising people and
[3:11:00] Speaker 1: we can bring in the end times and then finally
[3:11:03] Speaker 1: we're at the end, we can get the rapture and
[3:11:04] Speaker 1: get all these Christians out of here. So you've heard
[3:11:07] Speaker 1: it here, it's official. Make sure no one gets circumcised.
[3:11:10] Speaker 1: We can finally get to the end and get these
[3:11:12] Speaker 1: Christians raptured out of here. Optimist rhyme, thank you so
[3:11:15] Speaker 1: much for the supertest, says God. Damn it. Sorry Jeff Doug,
[3:11:18] Speaker 1: forgive me. It's okay, Optimist. We knew who you meant.
[3:11:22] Speaker 1: We knew who you meant.
[3:11:23] Speaker 4: Don't worry.
[3:11:24] Speaker 1: And last one, thank you so much for the ten
[3:11:25] Speaker 1: that our Superjed Josie says, keep up the good work.
[3:11:29] Speaker 1: Justin you helped wake me up. Well, thank you so much.
[3:11:31] Speaker 1: I really appreciate that. And we're doing what we can.
[3:11:34] Speaker 1: We're trying to wake people up. We're trying to you know,
[3:11:39] Speaker 1: get people to be realistic with what the evidence is.
[3:11:44] Speaker 1: But Ray, welcome in.
[3:11:47] Speaker 6: CLU.
[3:11:48] Speaker 7: Yeah, Hi you doing?
[3:11:49] Speaker 4: Ray?
[3:11:51] Speaker 6: Oh good?
[3:11:51] Speaker 3: How are you good?
[3:11:53] Speaker 1: Thank you for asking?
[3:11:54] Speaker 4: Ray?
[3:11:54] Speaker 1: Or at least eighteen? And are you a believer?
[3:11:58] Speaker 4: Oh?
[3:11:58] Speaker 6: Yeah, I'm eighteen. I'm a Christian.
[3:12:02] Speaker 1: What would be the most convincing evidence or argument for
[3:12:06] Speaker 1: the Christian God being real?
[3:12:09] Speaker 8: Wait?
[3:12:10] Speaker 6: Okey, I don't know if I can convince you because
[3:12:13] Speaker 6: I'm kind of bad at debating.
[3:12:14] Speaker 1: But that's okay, it okay, just give it your best
[3:12:18] Speaker 1: go and we'll see what happens.
[3:12:21] Speaker 6: I mean for me, I mean it has to do
[3:12:25] Speaker 6: a lot with my personal experience, but that probably doesn't
[3:12:31] Speaker 6: mean much to other people. And I guess another thing
[3:12:36] Speaker 6: is I feel like people haven't been able to convince
[3:12:40] Speaker 6: me otherwise. Okay, So what's like? So what's like one?
[3:12:52] Speaker 1: We can work on that one.
[3:12:55] Speaker 6: Like, what's that one thing that like you have against
[3:12:59] Speaker 6: my faith?
[3:13:00] Speaker 4: Oh?
[3:13:00] Speaker 1: Perfect, I'm glad to ask. So let me ask you
[3:13:02] Speaker 1: a question. Do you believe that Jesus is Messiah because
[3:13:09] Speaker 1: he's fulfilled the Messianic prophecies or because he rose from
[3:13:12] Speaker 1: the dead?
[3:13:16] Speaker 8: Uh?
[3:13:18] Speaker 6: Wait, because he's fulfilled in Messianic prophecies or because he's
[3:13:23] Speaker 6: rose from the dead.
[3:13:24] Speaker 1: Yeah, which one of those two things makes him the
[3:13:26] Speaker 1: Jewish Messiah?
[3:13:30] Speaker 6: Isn't it like both?
[3:13:34] Speaker 1: Well, it can't be depending on your worldview, right, So
[3:13:37] Speaker 1: if you're a Jew, your worldview would be no, right
[3:13:40] Speaker 1: because raising from the dead is not a Messianic prophecy,
[3:13:44] Speaker 1: but fulfilling the Messianic prophecies would make you the Messiah
[3:13:48] Speaker 1: if you're Jewish. Now, Christians have to add in the
[3:13:52] Speaker 1: resurrection or else they don't. They're like, well, I mean,
[3:13:54] Speaker 1: obviously he had the resurrect or else it's a useless artifact.
[3:14:00] Speaker 6: But there's resurrections on part of the prophecies.
[3:14:04] Speaker 1: Nope.
[3:14:07] Speaker 6: Wait, so wait, why did we have to add it
[3:14:09] Speaker 6: in then?
[3:14:11] Speaker 1: Because it's the only explanation for the faith, right. So
[3:14:15] Speaker 1: that's why I started asking this question, is because if
[3:14:19] Speaker 1: you go to the prophecies of the Old Testament, there's
[3:14:22] Speaker 1: nothing actually about like anyone dying for your sins and
[3:14:26] Speaker 1: all that nonsense. Okay, I see, and resurrecting, dying and rising,
[3:14:33] Speaker 1: and I should have completed that sentence, right. So, but
[3:14:36] Speaker 1: we do have like very clear like examples too, of
[3:14:40] Speaker 1: like the text doing things that we wouldn't expect it
[3:14:42] Speaker 1: to do. And I know that sounds weird. Let me
[3:14:45] Speaker 1: explain a little bit better, because I don't want you
[3:14:46] Speaker 1: to be lost. Have you read the Book of Josea
[3:14:49] Speaker 1: at all?
[3:14:52] Speaker 6: I have, but I don't remember.
[3:14:55] Speaker 1: It's okay, we'll go over it.
[3:14:57] Speaker 4: Okay.
[3:14:57] Speaker 1: So Josea is writing at a time period and which
[3:15:00] Speaker 1: the Syrian army is like imminently about to invade, and
[3:15:05] Speaker 1: God is saying that, you know, he's getting ready to
[3:15:07] Speaker 1: punish the people of Israel in Judah, using the Assyrian
[3:15:11] Speaker 1: army because they've been so like wicked, you know what
[3:15:13] Speaker 1: I mean. And in laying down the rationale for the punishment,
[3:15:20] Speaker 1: we find some of that rationale in Hosea chapter eleven.
[3:15:24] Speaker 1: I'll put it on the screen. It says, when Israel
[3:15:29] Speaker 1: was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt
[3:15:31] Speaker 1: I called my son. The more that I called them,
[3:15:33] Speaker 1: the more that they went for me. And they kept
[3:15:35] Speaker 1: sacrificing to the bales and offering incense to the idols.
[3:15:39] Speaker 1: What moment in history does that sound like?
[3:15:46] Speaker 6: Probably wandering in the wilderness.
[3:15:49] Speaker 1: Nailed it, you got it. Yeah, this is talking about
[3:15:52] Speaker 1: when the Israelites left Egypt. They had the exodus, and
[3:15:55] Speaker 1: then they were wandering in the wilderness. And what they
[3:15:58] Speaker 1: do They were building calfs and they were, you know,
[3:16:01] Speaker 1: doing Idolagius practices. Okay, so this is just a historical
[3:16:06] Speaker 1: count of what happened. And the reason why this is important, though,
[3:16:10] Speaker 1: is because he's giving the historical count as a reason
[3:16:14] Speaker 1: to condemn the people. He says, they were they behaved wickedly, right,
[3:16:19] Speaker 1: and then it says, yet it was I who taught
[3:16:22] Speaker 1: Ephraim to walk and took them in my arms. They
[3:16:24] Speaker 1: did not know that it was I that healed them.
[3:16:26] Speaker 1: I led them with cords of human kindness, with bands
[3:16:29] Speaker 1: of love. I was to them like those who lift
[3:16:31] Speaker 1: infants to their cheeks, and bent down and fed them.
[3:16:35] Speaker 1: And then he says all that to say, they shall
[3:16:38] Speaker 1: return to the land of Egypt, and Assyria shall be
[3:16:41] Speaker 1: their king, because they have refused to return to me. Okay,
[3:16:45] Speaker 1: So in context here it seems pretty clear that versus
[3:16:49] Speaker 1: one to verses four are about the past. And then
[3:16:53] Speaker 1: the prophecy starts in verse five.
[3:16:56] Speaker 6: Right, Yes, here's what God is saying that because of
[3:17:04] Speaker 6: like Israel's disobedience from the wilderness, He's gonna give them
[3:17:09] Speaker 6: over to the Syrians.
[3:17:11] Speaker 1: Basically, yeah, now this is not like all that, like monumental,
[3:17:15] Speaker 1: except when you go to the New Testament. If you
[3:17:18] Speaker 1: go to Matthew chapter two, I think thirteen through seventeen
[3:17:24] Speaker 1: for now, we'll grab that should have the section we want.
[3:17:28] Speaker 1: It talks about how Joseph, Mary and Jesus had to
[3:17:32] Speaker 1: escape to Egypt. And it says because they didn't want
[3:17:35] Speaker 1: Jesus to get murdered, right, And it says Joseph got
[3:17:38] Speaker 1: up and took the child and his mother by night
[3:17:40] Speaker 1: and went to Egypt and remained there until the death
[3:17:42] Speaker 1: of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken
[3:17:46] Speaker 1: through the Lord. I'm sorry, by the Lord, through the
[3:17:48] Speaker 1: prophet out of Egypt, I have called my son. So
[3:17:51] Speaker 1: it's really interesting here Matthew takes that quotation from Hoseiah
[3:17:54] Speaker 1: and completely changes the meaning of it. He says, no,
[3:17:57] Speaker 1: it's actually a prophecy. Now, but like to me, this
[3:18:00] Speaker 1: is like dishonest coping.
[3:18:05] Speaker 6: Wait, this is Matthew, what chapter is it for? Verse fifteen?
[3:18:11] Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, chapter two.
[3:18:14] Speaker 6: Chapter two, verse fifteen, mm. And this was like a
[3:18:18] Speaker 6: reference to the Joseiah.
[3:18:22] Speaker 1: Yeah, this is this is a quotation from Hosea chapter eleven.
[3:18:31] Speaker 6: Okay, wait, so you're saying like like this, uh like
[3:18:42] Speaker 6: doesn't count as like a fulfillment of the other pastes
[3:18:47] Speaker 6: we just read.
[3:18:49] Speaker 1: Yeah, because the other passage wasn't even a prediction. It
[3:18:52] Speaker 1: was just something that happened in the past. And Matthew
[3:18:56] Speaker 1: reads that and say, hey, there's some words on a
[3:18:58] Speaker 1: page that I like. I'm just gonna rip them out
[3:19:00] Speaker 1: and say it's a prophecy. Now, that's not how prophecies work.
[3:19:07] Speaker 6: Oh okay, I feel like to respond to that, I
[3:19:13] Speaker 6: have to like google, I know, don't worry.
[3:19:17] Speaker 1: Listen, we're here three nights a week. You're welcome to
[3:19:21] Speaker 1: to google some talking points on it and come back.
[3:19:27] Speaker 6: Do you have something like like a more common talking point.
[3:19:32] Speaker 1: I've got a lot of good talking points. It kind
[3:19:34] Speaker 1: of depends on what topic you want to attack. I
[3:19:37] Speaker 1: talk about the prophecies a lot because I know that
[3:19:39] Speaker 1: Jesus didn't fulfill any prophecies. But I also talk about
[3:19:43] Speaker 1: some of the straight up like things that Jesus said
[3:19:47] Speaker 1: that just weren't true, because I think those can be
[3:19:50] Speaker 1: a little bit problematic as well. So, like in we
[3:19:54] Speaker 1: already pulled, I hate going over it again because we
[3:19:57] Speaker 1: already had it pulled up today. Let me grab one
[3:19:59] Speaker 1: that we haven't done yet today. But we'll start out
[3:20:04] Speaker 1: really easy. There's a really interesting quotation from John three
[3:20:08] Speaker 1: thirteen that reads as follows.
[3:20:14] Speaker 6: Wait, wait, wait, I just I just looked something up
[3:20:16] Speaker 6: for the thing in Matthew and then okay this is
[3:20:20] Speaker 6: from Google Ai.
[3:20:24] Speaker 2: Okay. It says that here.
[3:20:29] Speaker 6: The prophecy, by calling to Sadah Egypt as a child,
[3:20:32] Speaker 6: is essentially drawing a parallel between God's love for Israel
[3:20:38] Speaker 6: represented as a child in Josea, and God's love for
[3:20:40] Speaker 6: Jesus as his son.
[3:20:42] Speaker 1: But the child gets punished in Josea eleven. Did Jesus
[3:20:46] Speaker 1: get punished?
[3:20:50] Speaker 3: Wait?
[3:20:51] Speaker 6: Didn't he get punished?
[3:20:53] Speaker 1: I mean by humans? I mean theoretically you could say, yeah,
[3:20:57] Speaker 1: but the prophecy of jose eleven is about the destruction
[3:21:00] Speaker 1: of a nation, which it's not a terrible parallel. You're right,
[3:21:06] Speaker 1: But the question is is it a prophecy? Because the
[3:21:09] Speaker 1: New Testament calls it a prophecy.
[3:21:13] Speaker 6: I mean, I mean one way, it's like a prophecy.
[3:21:17] Speaker 6: Wait out of Egypt, I call my son. That was
[3:21:19] Speaker 6: like in the non prophecy part, right, yep. So I
[3:21:25] Speaker 6: don't think this is saying like, oh, like this is
[3:21:28] Speaker 6: a fulfillment of that sentence. This is just drawing the
[3:21:33] Speaker 6: parallel between like Jesus and Israel, right.
[3:21:37] Speaker 1: But the problem is that the text from Hoseiah has
[3:21:40] Speaker 1: like an actual meaning, right, And the spot that it
[3:21:44] Speaker 1: pulled from was in a prophecy. And Matthew said that
[3:21:48] Speaker 1: Jesus was taken into Egypt and then subsequently left Egypt
[3:21:52] Speaker 1: in order to fulfill the words of the prophet. Like,
[3:21:55] Speaker 1: you can't fulfill something if it's not a prophecy, can you? Okay,
[3:22:01] Speaker 1: how do you fulfill a non prophecy?
[3:22:03] Speaker 6: Yes, if it's like if you stay literally like that?
[3:22:09] Speaker 6: Uh wait, I thought he isn't he just throwing a
[3:22:13] Speaker 6: parallel here? But like when he says he fulfilled the prophecy,
[3:22:18] Speaker 6: he just it's just like a literary effect.
[3:22:22] Speaker 1: I mean, but that's like a meaningless just to say, look,
[3:22:25] Speaker 1: there's some words on a page over here that sounds
[3:22:27] Speaker 1: similar to something else. Like you wouldn't expect that kind
[3:22:31] Speaker 1: of evidence to fly for any other Messiah, would you?
[3:22:33] Speaker 1: Like if I said that there's some words in dudon
[3:22:37] Speaker 1: Me eighteen that remind me of Joseph Smith. Would you
[3:22:43] Speaker 1: accept that that was a prophecy about Joseph Smith.
[3:22:48] Speaker 6: Uh? Well, I don't believe in Joseph Smith, so that's
[3:22:52] Speaker 6: probably the main reason I wouldn't accept that.
[3:22:54] Speaker 1: So you're willing to accept bad hermineutics based on what
[3:22:57] Speaker 1: you already believe, not based on what the text says, right.
[3:23:05] Speaker 3: Uh see.
[3:23:07] Speaker 1: I don't mean to pick on you, but I bring
[3:23:09] Speaker 1: this up bull because if you're if you're willing to
[3:23:12] Speaker 1: accept like a bad framework for interpreting texts for one person,
[3:23:16] Speaker 1: you have to accept it for all people, or else
[3:23:18] Speaker 1: you're you're being you know, you're special pleading for one
[3:23:23] Speaker 1: thing and another.
[3:23:28] Speaker 6: I guess my main problem with the verse of Matthew
[3:23:32] Speaker 6: is the word fulfilled, because I feel like it sounds like, oh,
[3:23:37] Speaker 6: this is like a prophecy, and this thing that Joseph
[3:23:40] Speaker 6: did and like that happened to Jesus fulfills it. But
[3:23:45] Speaker 6: I think to go any deeper than that, I have
[3:23:47] Speaker 6: to like look into the original language, and I think
[3:23:51] Speaker 6: of gotten more.
[3:23:53] Speaker 1: Yeah, that's fine. I think this will hold true for
[3:23:57] Speaker 1: all the prophecies in the Gospels about Jesus. You'll find
[3:24:01] Speaker 1: that over and over again. Matthew and John say that
[3:24:04] Speaker 1: something was done in order to fulfill the words of
[3:24:08] Speaker 1: the prophet. But like, like to fulfill the words of
[3:24:13] Speaker 1: a prophet has a meaning, doesn't it. Yeah, what does
[3:24:18] Speaker 1: it mean to fulfill the words of a prophet?
[3:24:24] Speaker 4: Okay?
[3:24:24] Speaker 6: I mean technically, like he fulfilled the words of the
[3:24:28] Speaker 6: prophet because he came out of Egypt. But here are
[3:24:34] Speaker 6: the prophets like only talk like in the context of Hoseiah,
[3:24:38] Speaker 6: he's talking about like a long time ago with like
[3:24:42] Speaker 6: Israel and like when they came out of Egypt. But
[3:24:48] Speaker 6: like fulfill here probably just means that, like it just happened.
[3:24:57] Speaker 1: Yeah, in order to what right, what's the goal of fulfilling?
[3:25:05] Speaker 6: Like someone made a prophecy and then it happened in
[3:25:08] Speaker 6: the future.
[3:25:10] Speaker 1: Exactly, Yes, you fulfilled the predictions.
[3:25:14] Speaker 6: And like isn't that what happened here then?
[3:25:17] Speaker 1: Because there's no prediction.
[3:25:25] Speaker 6: I mean, I'm kind of happy with just the parallelism thing,
[3:25:31] Speaker 6: but I don't think I've met anything else to say
[3:25:34] Speaker 6: on that, so we could talk about the other.
[3:25:36] Speaker 1: Thing you were saying, fair enough. So my contention is
[3:25:42] Speaker 1: that there's no actual prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, not even
[3:25:45] Speaker 1: one of them, which is kind of a problem because
[3:25:47] Speaker 1: like the Old Testament does tell you that a messiah
[3:25:50] Speaker 1: is going to come, and then it tells you what
[3:25:52] Speaker 1: to expect, and if Jesus came and didn't fulfill any
[3:25:56] Speaker 1: of those things, then like why would I believe that
[3:26:00] Speaker 1: he's the Messiah?
[3:26:02] Speaker 6: Wait? What about like in Isaiah? I feel like those
[3:26:05] Speaker 6: are more easier to talk about.
[3:26:08] Speaker 1: Yeah, like Isaiah chapter seven. But the virgin birth.
[3:26:14] Speaker 6: Chah, sure, so Isaiah chapter seven, Okay, what's so? What's
[3:26:30] Speaker 6: like the thing? Like, what's wrong with the virgin birth part?
[3:26:33] Speaker 1: Oh? Easy? Awesome. So, in the context of Isaiah chapter seven,
[3:26:37] Speaker 1: the prophet is being sent to King a Has and
[3:26:40] Speaker 1: he's being sent to King a Has because his kingdom's
[3:26:42] Speaker 1: under attack by the Northern alliance between the Aramians and
[3:26:48] Speaker 1: also the Israelites in the north, because the kingdom split
[3:26:51] Speaker 1: Judah and the Northern Israelites are no longer together. Johnny,
[3:26:55] Speaker 1: thank you for the six sixty six over cash up.
[3:26:57] Speaker 1: I just saw that right now, big w Johnny Burrios,
[3:26:59] Speaker 1: I appreciate that. So the king is afraid that his
[3:27:04] Speaker 1: kingdom is going to fall, and God wants to send
[3:27:07] Speaker 1: him reassurance that the kingdom's not going to fall. And
[3:27:10] Speaker 1: the first message comes in verse three, and then it
[3:27:14] Speaker 1: concludes in verse nine. And the conclusion of the first
[3:27:17] Speaker 1: prophecy is, if you do not stand firm in your faith,
[3:27:21] Speaker 1: you will not stand at all.
[3:27:23] Speaker 4: Cool.
[3:27:24] Speaker 1: Now we get the verse ten, which is the important
[3:27:27] Speaker 1: part for this discussion. So Isaiah goes to King a
[3:27:31] Speaker 1: Has a second time to give him another message. And
[3:27:35] Speaker 1: it says again the Lord spoke to a Has, saying,
[3:27:38] Speaker 1: ask a sign of the Lord or God, and let
[3:27:39] Speaker 1: it be as deep as she old or as high
[3:27:41] Speaker 1: as heaven. But a Has said, I will not ask,
[3:27:44] Speaker 1: and I will not put the Lord to the test.
[3:27:46] Speaker 1: Then isaiahs said, here then, o house of David, is
[3:27:49] Speaker 1: it too little for you to weary mortals that you
[3:27:51] Speaker 1: weary my God? Also therefore the Lord himself will give
[3:27:54] Speaker 1: you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child
[3:27:58] Speaker 1: and shall bear a son, and shall name him Emmanuel.
[3:28:01] Speaker 1: He shall eat kurds and honey by the time he
[3:28:03] Speaker 1: knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.
[3:28:05] Speaker 1: For before the child knows how to refuse the evil
[3:28:09] Speaker 1: and choose the good, the land before whose two kings
[3:28:12] Speaker 1: you are in dread will be deserted. So the prophecy
[3:28:16] Speaker 1: is about a child that's actually already conceived, and before
[3:28:20] Speaker 1: that child is old enough to know right from wrong,
[3:28:23] Speaker 1: the two kingdoms that are attacking King AHAs are going
[3:28:26] Speaker 1: to be wiped out.
[3:28:31] Speaker 6: Wait, but before he knows how to refuse the evil
[3:28:35] Speaker 6: and choose the good, right.
[3:28:39] Speaker 1: Right, So the prophecies to the king, Wait, is is
[3:28:52] Speaker 1: it haws.
[3:28:53] Speaker 6: Like one of the He's like one of the bad
[3:28:56] Speaker 6: kings from the Book of Kings.
[3:28:57] Speaker 3: Right he was.
[3:28:59] Speaker 1: He wasn't great. No, he wasn't like a terrible king,
[3:29:03] Speaker 1: but he certainly wasn't a good one. He he made
[3:29:07] Speaker 1: some alliances that he shouldn't have made. And Curtis welcome in.
[3:29:10] Speaker 1: Thank you for the handhearts, buddy.
[3:29:15] Speaker 6: So okay, So your point here is because like Jesus
[3:29:21] Speaker 6: wasn't born before ah the two kings were.
[3:29:31] Speaker 2: Deserted.
[3:29:33] Speaker 1: No, what I'm saying is the prophecy is a prophecy
[3:29:36] Speaker 1: to King a Has, and it's about two other kings
[3:29:40] Speaker 1: that are attacking him. Right, says, before the child knows
[3:29:44] Speaker 1: how to refuse the evil and choose the good land
[3:29:47] Speaker 1: before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.
[3:29:50] Speaker 1: So the prophecy is about these two kings. Yeah, King
[3:29:56] Speaker 1: Pica and King Reason.
[3:30:01] Speaker 6: Okay, I guess that is kind of confusing.
[3:30:06] Speaker 1: It's not confusing, it's actually very clear. It's only confusing
[3:30:09] Speaker 1: when you see what the New Testament is trying to
[3:30:11] Speaker 1: do with it, because the New Testament thinks it's about
[3:30:14] Speaker 1: Jesus when it's not. Like when you read it in
[3:30:17] Speaker 1: the original context, it is very clear God's just saying, listen,
[3:30:20] Speaker 1: there's a woman who's already pregnant, she's about to give birth,
[3:30:23] Speaker 1: and before that child is old enough to know right
[3:30:25] Speaker 1: from wrong, the two kings that you're afraid of, they're
[3:30:27] Speaker 1: going to be wiped out. So the child's he's only
[3:30:31] Speaker 1: a timeline. He's not a Messiah.
[3:30:34] Speaker 6: Yeah, I guess. In Isaiah, like in the story, God
[3:30:37] Speaker 6: is like clearly not talking about but like doesn't just
[3:30:43] Speaker 6: also like fulfill like the parts where it says like
[3:30:45] Speaker 6: a house of David and like the virgin birth and
[3:30:48] Speaker 6: like Emmanuel.
[3:30:49] Speaker 1: Well there's no virgin birth in Isaiah. That's what I'm
[3:30:52] Speaker 1: saying it. The woman is referred to as ha Almah
[3:30:57] Speaker 1: in Hebrew, which means a young woman, and she's already conceived.
[3:31:01] Speaker 1: The adjective tied to it is Hurrah, which just means pregnant.
[3:31:05] Speaker 1: She's already pregnant.
[3:31:11] Speaker 6: Wait, so the virgins not referring to Mary.
[3:31:16] Speaker 1: Well, that's what I'm saying. There's no virgin in Isaiah
[3:31:18] Speaker 1: seven fourteen, So in the Hebrew text it just says
[3:31:22] Speaker 1: that she's a young woman. Now there's a Greek edition
[3:31:25] Speaker 1: of it that uses the word parthenos, which a lot
[3:31:28] Speaker 1: of times does mean virgin, which is why Matthew screwed
[3:31:31] Speaker 1: it up. Matthew didn't know how to read Hebrew. He
[3:31:34] Speaker 1: was reading a Greek translation of it, and in the
[3:31:36] Speaker 1: Greek translation he saw the word parthenos and just assumed
[3:31:39] Speaker 1: that it meant in a literal virgin. But even in
[3:31:43] Speaker 1: the Greek septuagen we've got instances where a parthenos is
[3:31:46] Speaker 1: not a virgin. And at the time that Isaiah would
[3:31:49] Speaker 1: have been translated into Greek, we've got lots of examples
[3:31:52] Speaker 1: in literature of Parthenos not referring to little virgins. Matthew
[3:31:56] Speaker 1: just wasn't aware of it.
[3:31:59] Speaker 6: Oh, okay, I think with prophecies, I'm just too stunned
[3:32:04] Speaker 6: to speak.
[3:32:06] Speaker 1: It's jarring the first time you go through it, I
[3:32:09] Speaker 1: get it. Let me let me read one more passage
[3:32:12] Speaker 1: with you. I don't want to beat you up because
[3:32:13] Speaker 1: you've been very good and I know this is like
[3:32:17] Speaker 1: you're seeing a lot of new things all at once.
[3:32:21] Speaker 1: So we can move off of the prophecy discussion. And
[3:32:24] Speaker 1: but let me ask you a question. Would you expect that,
[3:32:27] Speaker 1: like the God of the Old Testament would give laws
[3:32:31] Speaker 1: that were like good, like being that he's all.
[3:32:34] Speaker 6: Just uh.
[3:32:39] Speaker 1: Yeah, cool, okay. Would you expect that the God of
[3:32:43] Speaker 1: the Old Testament would endorse blood vengeance? Do you know
[3:32:48] Speaker 1: what blood vengeance is?
[3:32:52] Speaker 6: I mean, I don't know what your exact definition, but
[3:32:55] Speaker 6: it sounds like violence or like death a little bit.
[3:32:58] Speaker 4: Yeah.
[3:32:58] Speaker 1: So blood vengeance is this idea where like, if somebody
[3:33:03] Speaker 1: kills a member in my family, I get to kill
[3:33:05] Speaker 1: a member in their family. That's called blood vengeance.
[3:33:10] Speaker 6: Yeah, I think be part of the Old Testament law,
[3:33:14] Speaker 6: but I'm not I'm wait sure, yeah it is.
[3:33:17] Speaker 1: It shows up right after the flood, and then we
[3:33:21] Speaker 1: learn that God's not actually playing because he an exit
[3:33:24] Speaker 1: and Second Samuel twenty one, so there's really funny. Yeah,
[3:33:29] Speaker 1: Second Samuel twenty one, there's a really fun episode there,
[3:33:34] Speaker 1: says I like, just when the passage in like a church,
[3:33:39] Speaker 1: it's a it's a fun passage. Go ahead, go ahead, right, okay,
[3:33:45] Speaker 1: So we'll start out easy, says there was famine in
[3:33:48] Speaker 1: the days of David for three years. Year after year,
[3:33:51] Speaker 1: David inquired of the Lord, and the Lord said there
[3:33:53] Speaker 1: is blood guilt on Saul and on his house because
[3:33:57] Speaker 1: he put to give you knights to death, which is
[3:33:59] Speaker 1: according to Joshua chapter nine, they were actually supposed to
[3:34:02] Speaker 1: protect the Gibbei knights, not kill him and Saul. Saul
[3:34:05] Speaker 1: didn't get the memos, so I was like, I'm going
[3:34:06] Speaker 1: to kill some of them anyways.
[3:34:07] Speaker 4: Right.
[3:34:09] Speaker 1: So God is like, listen, Saul did something very bad,
[3:34:12] Speaker 1: so he sends a famine on the land. Now he's
[3:34:15] Speaker 1: making everybody suffer for Saul's crime even though they didn't
[3:34:19] Speaker 1: do it. And David has to inquire for three years
[3:34:23] Speaker 1: straight before God actually gives them an answer. When God
[3:34:26] Speaker 1: answers them, it's really interesting. God just says, hey, listen,
[3:34:29] Speaker 1: there's blood guilt on Saul. So how do we fix
[3:34:33] Speaker 1: the blood guilt situation? Right? Well, there's some dialogue between
[3:34:37] Speaker 1: King David and the Gibbe knights, and the solution that
[3:34:40] Speaker 1: they come up with starts in chapter six. It says,
[3:34:44] Speaker 1: let seven of his sons be handed over to us,
[3:34:47] Speaker 1: and we will impale them before the Lord at Gibeon
[3:34:51] Speaker 1: on the mountain of the Lord. And the king said,
[3:34:54] Speaker 1: I will hand them over. So they hand over seven
[3:34:56] Speaker 1: members of Saul's household. They get executed, and they get
[3:35:01] Speaker 1: hung up impaled, and then it says in verse fourteen,
[3:35:06] Speaker 1: after they're dead, right, says they did all that the
[3:35:09] Speaker 1: king commanded. And after that, God heeded the supplication for
[3:35:13] Speaker 1: the land, meaning God sent a famine on the land,
[3:35:17] Speaker 1: made everybody suffer. And then once blood vengeance was enacted
[3:35:21] Speaker 1: and seven random members of Saul's household were impaled, God
[3:35:25] Speaker 1: was like, Okay, finally I'll let the kids have food.
[3:35:31] Speaker 6: Right, Okay, I guess like one like common theme is
[3:35:38] Speaker 6: that like in the Book of Samuel, that I took
[3:35:43] Speaker 6: away as like God's sovereignty, which just means that, Okay,
[3:35:49] Speaker 6: I don't know what explainedly means. But so when he says,
[3:35:54] Speaker 6: like puts the famine in the land, and like says,
[3:35:58] Speaker 6: there's blood guilt on saw and on his house. So
[3:36:02] Speaker 6: he's punishing. So he's punishing the people who are like
[3:36:08] Speaker 6: suffering from the famine.
[3:36:11] Speaker 1: Yeah, famine makes people suffer, right, Yeah, okay, and it's indiscriminate, right.
[3:36:21] Speaker 6: Right, But I guess technically speaking, like no one is
[3:36:30] Speaker 6: innocent because like we don't know like what the Gibeonites
[3:36:36] Speaker 6: did or like how like why God has also punished them.
[3:36:41] Speaker 8: But uh.
[3:36:46] Speaker 1: Right, But if like God can just just randomly harm
[3:36:48] Speaker 1: people because nobody is innocent, then that means his system
[3:36:51] Speaker 1: of justice is arbitrary.
[3:36:56] Speaker 6: Well I don't, I wouldn't say it's like randomly harmed.
[3:37:02] Speaker 6: But wait, so, like the main problem here you're saying
[3:37:10] Speaker 6: is like that God shouldn't have punished the Gibing Knights.
[3:37:14] Speaker 1: No, I don't think God punished the Gibbi knights. The
[3:37:17] Speaker 1: Gibbi Knights were the ones that King Saul was executing,
[3:37:21] Speaker 1: and God punished the Israelites.
[3:37:24] Speaker 6: Right, Yeah, but aren't the Israelites like pretty disobedient like
[3:37:31] Speaker 6: in general?
[3:37:32] Speaker 1: Yeah, But so again, like all human beings are disobedient,
[3:37:36] Speaker 1: Like there's not a single human being that's not disobedient.
[3:37:39] Speaker 1: So if you're just saying, well, it's okay for them
[3:37:42] Speaker 1: to be punished because they're not perfect, Well, then God's
[3:37:45] Speaker 1: system of justice is arbitrary because nobody's perfect. If we
[3:37:49] Speaker 1: deserve famine for being imperfect, then everybody should be under
[3:37:52] Speaker 1: famine all the time.
[3:37:56] Speaker 8: Right that.
[3:37:58] Speaker 6: I mean because like the point of the New Testament
[3:38:01] Speaker 6: is like like the wages of sin, like the wages
[3:38:04] Speaker 6: of being imperfect is like are bad? Sure?
[3:38:08] Speaker 1: Who sets those wages?
[3:38:11] Speaker 6: Oh God did?
[3:38:12] Speaker 1: Are they just? Or are they arbitrary?
[3:38:20] Speaker 6: I mean they're just because like God said them.
[3:38:24] Speaker 1: If God was unjust, could you know it?
[3:38:30] Speaker 6: Uh? If God is unjust, could I know it? Probably not? Wait? Unjust?
[3:38:44] Speaker 1: Yeah, Like so this is kind of why I bring
[3:38:48] Speaker 1: up that question because I'm gonna like bring up some
[3:38:51] Speaker 1: horrific stuff from the Bible and you're just gonna say, well,
[3:38:54] Speaker 1: it's just because God did it, and that's cool. So
[3:38:57] Speaker 1: like you're now assuming that God is just. But that's
[3:39:03] Speaker 1: not like you have no reason to assume it. You
[3:39:05] Speaker 1: just assume it because it's part of your doctrine. Like
[3:39:08] Speaker 1: in real life, if there was a God and that
[3:39:10] Speaker 1: God was evil and wanted to hurt people, could you
[3:39:13] Speaker 1: know that that God was evil?
[3:39:24] Speaker 6: But God's not evil?
[3:39:27] Speaker 1: Is hypothetical though, if there was a God and the
[3:39:29] Speaker 1: God was evil. Do you have the capability of knowing
[3:39:34] Speaker 1: a no, right, because in your world view, you actually
[3:39:38] Speaker 1: don't know what good and bad is. You just you
[3:39:41] Speaker 1: presuppose that your God is the definition of good, which
[3:39:44] Speaker 1: means you don't you don't know what good is.
[3:39:49] Speaker 6: Wait, because if I define like good like God is good,
[3:39:56] Speaker 6: because wouldn't that just what I know good is good?
[3:39:58] Speaker 7: As is right?
[3:40:00] Speaker 1: But what you know is good is not what God does.
[3:40:03] Speaker 1: Like God says you can own slaves. God says that
[3:40:06] Speaker 1: if you rape a woman, all you have to do
[3:40:08] Speaker 1: is pay the bride price. God says that if women
[3:40:11] Speaker 1: don't bleed on their wedding night that you can execute them.
[3:40:16] Speaker 1: So like God also has ten of David's wives brutally
[3:40:20] Speaker 1: graped for a sin that he committed. Like I know
[3:40:25] Speaker 1: in your brain these are all bad things, but you're
[3:40:28] Speaker 1: about to say that when God does them, they're good
[3:40:30] Speaker 1: things because God can't do bad things, which means you actually.
[3:40:36] Speaker 2: Don't know what good is.
[3:40:38] Speaker 6: Well, I don't think those are good things.
[3:40:40] Speaker 1: I think so in some God did bad thing.
[3:40:45] Speaker 6: I think like, okay, I forget like what everything in
[3:40:50] Speaker 6: your wist?
[3:40:51] Speaker 1: Sorry, sorry I didn't I didn't mean to give you
[3:40:53] Speaker 1: a whole list. Yeah, we'll start out. We'll start at
[3:40:56] Speaker 1: easy and second Samuel, God has ten of David's wives
[3:41:01] Speaker 1: graped for his sin.
[3:41:04] Speaker 6: That's not good, right, Wait, I kind of remember that. Wait,
[3:41:12] Speaker 6: which chapter do you remember?
[3:41:14] Speaker 1: Chapter twelve is when the prophecy is given and it's
[3:41:17] Speaker 1: fulfilled in chapter sixteen?
[3:41:21] Speaker 6: Was this with Absolom? Or was this another time you.
[3:41:25] Speaker 1: Got it with Abslom?
[3:41:26] Speaker 3: Yep?
[3:41:27] Speaker 1: So God says, because of David's sin, he's going to
[3:41:30] Speaker 1: raise up trouble within David's household, and he's going to
[3:41:33] Speaker 1: have his wives taken before his very eyes, and they're
[3:41:36] Speaker 1: going to be slept with in broad daylight.
[3:41:42] Speaker 6: Okay, So let me here.
[3:41:44] Speaker 13: God is punishing David for his sin, right, and who's
[3:41:50] Speaker 13: taking the punishment David and his uh concubines exactly.
[3:41:59] Speaker 1: Yeah, but they didn't commit to send David did.
[3:42:04] Speaker 3: Yeah.
[3:42:05] Speaker 6: But isn't David also getting punished, because like that's like
[3:42:10] Speaker 6: a big humiliation for him.
[3:42:12] Speaker 1: Did David get raped? That'd be the right punishment, is
[3:42:17] Speaker 1: if somebody took David and slept with him in broad daylight,
[3:42:20] Speaker 1: against against his will.
[3:42:23] Speaker 6: I mean, I feel like there's a lot of ways
[3:42:25] Speaker 6: to punish David.
[3:42:27] Speaker 1: Is there ever a case in which a woman should
[3:42:29] Speaker 1: be raped for the crimes of her husband?
[3:42:33] Speaker 6: Okay, I probably wouldn't see to like allow that.
[3:42:38] Speaker 1: Right, So you instinctively know that this is bad, but
[3:42:42] Speaker 1: you're trying to find ways that somehow it's not bad
[3:42:46] Speaker 1: when God does it. This is this is the cognitive
[3:42:52] Speaker 1: dissonance that people talk about.
[3:42:57] Speaker 6: Because isn't this also partly Absalom's fault? Like sure, because
[3:43:05] Speaker 6: he's like the person who like started started this or
[3:43:09] Speaker 6: like cause this.
[3:43:10] Speaker 1: Yeah, and God, but God says he's doing it. God
[3:43:13] Speaker 1: says in verse eleven, I will raise up trouble against
[3:43:17] Speaker 1: you from within your own house, and I will take
[3:43:20] Speaker 1: your wives before your eyes. So God's the one causing
[3:43:23] Speaker 1: to happen. If God didn't cause it to happen, it
[3:43:24] Speaker 1: wouldn't have.
[3:43:28] Speaker 6: I mean, okay, I'm going to try to explain this.
[3:43:32] Speaker 6: I feel like in the like in the Bible, there's
[3:43:35] Speaker 6: like always like there's a distinction between because like technically speaking,
[3:43:41] Speaker 6: since God like created the world and he like knows
[3:43:44] Speaker 6: exactly what's gonna happen, like you can say like everything
[3:43:48] Speaker 6: like that's happened on Earth is like God had that happen, right.
[3:43:53] Speaker 1: So did God say He's gonna punish David or no.
[3:43:58] Speaker 6: Yeah, he did say that he's gonna punish David.
[3:44:01] Speaker 1: Okay, so who caused the punishment to happen?
[3:44:08] Speaker 6: Who caused them? Because wouldn't that be David then because
[3:44:14] Speaker 6: he's like he chose to sin and then nope, I'll
[3:44:19] Speaker 6: also may partly be Absalom's fault and like his brother
[3:44:23] Speaker 6: who like started this whole thing.
[3:44:25] Speaker 1: Nope, it would be God's fault. God's the one that
[3:44:27] Speaker 1: caused it to happen. God says I will do this thing,
[3:44:30] Speaker 1: meaning David sinned, and God said, because of your sin,
[3:44:34] Speaker 1: I'm gonna cause something to happen. So David sin is
[3:44:38] Speaker 1: irrelevant to what happened to the women because God is
[3:44:42] Speaker 1: the one deciding the consequences. And I'll give you a
[3:44:45] Speaker 1: good example. So for example, in modern times, like when
[3:44:49] Speaker 1: somebody is in an abusive relationship, uh, and a guy
[3:44:52] Speaker 1: like beats up on his wife and he's like, you
[3:44:54] Speaker 1: made me do it. You shouldn't have yelled at me. Okay, Well,
[3:44:57] Speaker 1: the fact that your wife yelled at you is one thing,
[3:45:00] Speaker 1: but you don't have to beat up on her because
[3:45:01] Speaker 1: she y knowed that you. That's another thing. They're unrelated.
[3:45:04] Speaker 1: So the fact that David's sin is actually not related.
[3:45:07] Speaker 1: Like God didn't have to punish David in this particular
[3:45:09] Speaker 1: manner or the ten women.
[3:45:12] Speaker 6: But I feel like this is like blaming God for
[3:45:15] Speaker 6: like human sin.
[3:45:17] Speaker 1: God says he's causing it to happen.
[3:45:21] Speaker 6: Yeah, but he like says he's causing it to happen.
[3:45:24] Speaker 6: But like at the end of the day, like like
[3:45:27] Speaker 6: these people are like making these decisions, right, like Absolom.
[3:45:31] Speaker 1: That's not in the text. God is the one causing
[3:45:34] Speaker 1: it to happen. He's raising up the trouble. So God
[3:45:37] Speaker 1: influenced it, just like the when the Israelites left Egypt.
[3:45:43] Speaker 1: God predisposed the Egyptians towards the Israelites so that they
[3:45:48] Speaker 1: would give them like the gold and the silver and
[3:45:51] Speaker 1: whatnot as they were leaving.
[3:45:56] Speaker 6: But like God's.
[3:45:59] Speaker 1: God is like stepping on people's free will all the time.
[3:46:02] Speaker 6: In the Bible, it's like on binhand, like from our perspective,
[3:46:10] Speaker 6: like it's us making these decisions, but like in the
[3:46:13] Speaker 6: perspective like the story, and like like from God's perspective
[3:46:17] Speaker 6: like this, like he's like punishing them for their sin.
[3:46:19] Speaker 1: Let me ask you a question. If David never sinned,
[3:46:21] Speaker 1: if he never slept with Bathsheba, would this still have
[3:46:24] Speaker 1: happened to his ten wives?
[3:46:27] Speaker 4: Uh?
[3:46:28] Speaker 6: I mean we wouldn't know, right, Well, I mean.
[3:46:31] Speaker 1: According to according to the text, why is it happening.
[3:46:37] Speaker 6: According to the text, it's because he's slept with Sheba.
[3:46:41] Speaker 1: That's right. Okay, So the thing is happening because he
[3:46:44] Speaker 1: slept with Bathsheba. Right, So if he never slept with Basheba,
[3:46:47] Speaker 1: we could conclude that he wouldn't get punished for sleeping
[3:46:50] Speaker 1: with Bathsheba.
[3:46:51] Speaker 6: Right, But that would that would just be like speculation, right,
[3:46:56] Speaker 6: because we don't know if no, the.
[3:46:58] Speaker 1: Text the text, so it says because you have done
[3:47:03] Speaker 1: this thing, God is going to raise up trouble within
[3:47:05] Speaker 1: his own house.
[3:47:06] Speaker 6: Right, Yeah, but that wouldn't imply that because you don't
[3:47:11] Speaker 6: do this thing, then this wouldn't happen.
[3:47:14] Speaker 3: Just to be clear, what you're entailing there is that
[3:47:17] Speaker 3: God would do this punishment for no reason.
[3:47:20] Speaker 6: Right, I'm just you know what I'm saying is that Well,
[3:47:24] Speaker 6: I'm just answering the original question, right, Like, would this
[3:47:29] Speaker 6: happen if like David didn't sleep at Beshiva.
[3:47:36] Speaker 1: Right, because the events that are transpiring are a punishment.
[3:47:41] Speaker 7: God.
[3:47:42] Speaker 1: God is punishing David and the wives for what David did,
[3:47:46] Speaker 1: meaning if he didn't do the thing, the punishment wouldn't
[3:47:49] Speaker 1: have been enacted.
[3:47:53] Speaker 6: But that doesn't like logically follow though, because you're saying, like,
[3:47:58] Speaker 6: if A implies B, that doesn't imply that if not
[3:48:02] Speaker 6: A implies not.
[3:48:03] Speaker 1: B, it's not an implication at all. God said I
[3:48:07] Speaker 1: am causing this to happen because you did a thing.
[3:48:11] Speaker 6: So it is.
[3:48:13] Speaker 3: Just the logical form. There is a little reversed. We're
[3:48:17] Speaker 3: saying if A implies B, meaning if you sleep with Beshi,
[3:48:21] Speaker 3: but you get punished. Now the not B, that's just
[3:48:25] Speaker 3: modus tolens would imply not A.
[3:48:29] Speaker 6: Wait, so you're saying if God, okay, if David like
[3:48:36] Speaker 6: uh I killed Beshiba's husband and Chi committ adult toy,
[3:48:42] Speaker 6: then this whole thing would happen. And then we're saying
[3:48:48] Speaker 6: that if this name didn't happen, and I mean's got
[3:48:50] Speaker 6: David didn't sing?
[3:48:54] Speaker 8: Correct?
[3:48:56] Speaker 7: Wait, m.
[3:49:01] Speaker 6: Listen, what's like what are you saying?
[3:49:04] Speaker 3: Then well there would be no reason for the punishment, right.
[3:49:12] Speaker 7: Yeah, But.
[3:49:16] Speaker 4: Like so Ray, I want to.
[3:49:20] Speaker 1: Ray, I don't. I don't want to be hard on you.
[3:49:23] Speaker 1: I'm really trying to to work with you here. But
[3:49:26] Speaker 1: I want you to listen back. This is gonna be reserved,
[3:49:29] Speaker 1: It's gonna be recorded on YouTube forever. I want you
[3:49:32] Speaker 1: to look at this conversation a day or two, a
[3:49:35] Speaker 1: week from now, and look at some of the pretzeling
[3:49:41] Speaker 1: that you're you're doing right now. You're you're basically saying
[3:49:44] Speaker 1: that the text isn't actually a punishment, that God didn't
[3:49:48] Speaker 1: actually do it, that it was actually Absalom and not
[3:49:52] Speaker 1: God's doing. But the text literally states that God is
[3:49:55] Speaker 1: the one causing it to happen.
[3:49:59] Speaker 6: Wait, okay, I think why can't both be true? Though,
[3:50:02] Speaker 6: Like this is a punishment from God, right, it's also
[3:50:06] Speaker 6: caused by Absalom, but.
[3:50:08] Speaker 1: It doesn't matter. God is the one that influenced to
[3:50:11] Speaker 1: Abslom to do it. God is the one that caused
[3:50:14] Speaker 1: it to happen. Meaning if God didn't cause it to happen,
[3:50:17] Speaker 1: then it wouldn't have happened. And if it would have
[3:50:20] Speaker 1: happened anyways, like if it would have happened independent of
[3:50:23] Speaker 1: God's intervention, then that means God isn't doing the thing
[3:50:27] Speaker 1: that he said he did.
[3:50:30] Speaker 6: What do you mean god like influence? Are you saying
[3:50:33] Speaker 6: like God forced Abslom too.
[3:50:35] Speaker 1: I'm saying, I go on this whole God influenced it. Yeah,
[3:50:38] Speaker 1: that's why he says, I will raise up trouble against you.
[3:50:41] Speaker 1: God is causing the trouble to be raised up, he says,
[3:50:44] Speaker 1: within your own house, and I will take your wives.
[3:50:46] Speaker 1: I will take your wives. God is doing it before
[3:50:50] Speaker 1: your eyes and give them to your neighbor. He shall
[3:50:52] Speaker 1: lie with your wives in broad daylight. Why because he's
[3:50:56] Speaker 1: saying this is happening because of your sin. You did
[3:51:00] Speaker 1: it in secret, but I will do this thing before
[3:51:02] Speaker 1: all Israel in broad daylight. So what's happened to David
[3:51:06] Speaker 1: is a result of what David did, not a result
[3:51:09] Speaker 1: of like Abslom existing.
[3:51:15] Speaker 6: Yeah, so David is getting punished by because of what
[3:51:21] Speaker 6: he did. And then like Absalom is also like doing
[3:51:28] Speaker 6: things that aren't like doing like also.
[3:51:31] Speaker 1: I'm aware because God is causing it to happen. We
[3:51:37] Speaker 1: all know Abslom is the one, like at the helm,
[3:51:40] Speaker 1: actually making the turns. He's the one in enforcing what
[3:51:44] Speaker 1: God wants. Well, the text says that God is the
[3:51:47] Speaker 1: thing causing.
[3:51:48] Speaker 6: It to happen, but Absalom willn't be.
[3:51:54] Speaker 1: Oh, God influenced him to do the thing. If he
[3:52:03] Speaker 1: would have done it independent of God's influencing, then that
[3:52:06] Speaker 1: means God is lying because God is saying I'm doing it.
[3:52:11] Speaker 1: So at some point you have to conclude that God's
[3:52:14] Speaker 1: words mean what they mean. Was God causing it to
[3:52:19] Speaker 1: happen or not?
[3:52:24] Speaker 6: I think God is saying that like he's punishing David
[3:52:29] Speaker 6: by like allowing this to happen.
[3:52:31] Speaker 1: Right, okay, so what do you say He's allowing it
[3:52:35] Speaker 1: or causing it? Is irrelevant. God is saying it's happening
[3:52:40] Speaker 1: because I'm causing it to happen. Yes, he said I
[3:52:45] Speaker 1: will do this thing. I'm doing the thing. That's just
[3:52:49] Speaker 1: how words work.
[3:52:54] Speaker 6: But oh, I don't know if I can.
[3:52:58] Speaker 1: Well, right, let me give you a really good example,
[3:53:00] Speaker 1: everlast thank you for the galaxy by the way, big
[3:53:02] Speaker 1: w everlasting gobstopper. If I said, listen, I'm going to
[3:53:07] Speaker 1: execute Bob, and then I go out and I pay
[3:53:11] Speaker 1: Charlie to execute Bob, am I at fault.
[3:53:18] Speaker 6: You're going to excute Bob and then you Yes.
[3:53:21] Speaker 1: Okay, exactly because I'm the one that I was participating.
[3:53:25] Speaker 1: I instigated it, and if I hadn't paid Charlie to
[3:53:28] Speaker 1: execute Bob, it wouldn't have happened. That's what's happening here.
[3:53:32] Speaker 1: You're trying to blame Charlie when God was the one
[3:53:35] Speaker 1: who paid Charlie. God was the one that's causing it
[3:53:37] Speaker 1: to happen.
[3:53:41] Speaker 6: I feel like it's different here because it's like.
[3:53:44] Speaker 1: God says, I'm causing it to happen. See, this is
[3:53:49] Speaker 1: this is the crazy part of the conversation, right. I know,
[3:53:51] Speaker 1: deep down inside you see the problem with this passage.
[3:53:55] Speaker 1: And we're all here, hope. There's just like a thousand
[3:53:58] Speaker 1: people here. There's a hun seven hundred on TikTok, almost
[3:54:03] Speaker 1: nine hundred on YouTube, and we're rooting for you. We're
[3:54:06] Speaker 1: all here rooting for you to get to the point
[3:54:08] Speaker 1: where you're able to be honest with what the tech says.
[3:54:13] Speaker 6: Wait, can I just try to explain just one one
[3:54:15] Speaker 6: last time? Okay, So technically, like everything that happens on earth,
[3:54:23] Speaker 6: like God caused to happen.
[3:54:26] Speaker 1: Oh so, then God's even more of a monster because
[3:54:29] Speaker 1: that means God sent everyone to hell. He calls it
[3:54:32] Speaker 1: to happen.
[3:54:37] Speaker 6: Well, I wouldn't say God is a monster.
[3:54:40] Speaker 1: Well, if he's killing people sending them to the hell
[3:54:43] Speaker 1: fire for things that he predestined them to do, then yeah, just.
[3:54:53] Speaker 3: To get clear, did you say they What you're saying
[3:54:57] Speaker 3: is that God caused everything to happen on earth.
[3:55:00] Speaker 6: Because since he like created the earth and he knows
[3:55:04] Speaker 6: like exactly what's going to happen to everyone, like since
[3:55:07] Speaker 6: the beginning, Well, from that perspective, like everything that happens
[3:55:12] Speaker 6: on earth, like God.
[3:55:15] Speaker 3: Because did he cause David to sleep with death Sheba?
[3:55:21] Speaker 6: Because but that's like the problem here because he found it. Yeah,
[3:55:24] Speaker 6: he did no for like but like that isn't like
[3:55:29] Speaker 6: a productive thing like for us to like consider when
[3:55:32] Speaker 6: we're like conducting like our own lives, right, because we.
[3:55:36] Speaker 1: Disagree with you in your worldview, there's no free will.
[3:55:40] Speaker 1: God is in charge of everything. He caused everything to be,
[3:55:43] Speaker 1: which means the fact that he's punishing people for the
[3:55:46] Speaker 1: things that he causes weird.
[3:55:50] Speaker 6: I think I think free will is like kind of
[3:55:53] Speaker 6: misleading because like, like again, like I said, since God
[3:55:58] Speaker 6: knows exactly what's going to happen, we don't have like
[3:56:01] Speaker 6: from God's perspective, we don't have any free will, but
[3:56:04] Speaker 6: like from our perspective, we have free will because if God, Yeah,
[3:56:11] Speaker 6: but so we can do about like what God like
[3:56:16] Speaker 6: for you ordained, so like for us, the application is
[3:56:20] Speaker 6: to like live a like obaidient life, like live a
[3:56:24] Speaker 6: godly or like a holy life.
[3:56:28] Speaker 3: So you're you're saying that what David did with Bathsheba
[3:56:31] Speaker 3: was a bad thing and that's why he got punished.
[3:56:33] Speaker 3: Is that correct?
[3:56:35] Speaker 8: Yeah?
[3:56:35] Speaker 6: But what from was.
[3:56:38] Speaker 3: Real quick just was what Absalom did? Was that a
[3:56:41] Speaker 3: bad thing?
[3:56:42] Speaker 2: Yeah?
[3:56:44] Speaker 3: Does God know that that was a bad thing?
[3:56:48] Speaker 6: Uh?
[3:56:49] Speaker 7: Yeah?
[3:56:50] Speaker 3: Where was his punishment?
[3:56:53] Speaker 6: Didn't Absolom like get heavily like he was? Wait, I
[3:56:59] Speaker 6: think someone's stab.
[3:57:00] Speaker 1: He died, Yeah, his hair got contentry and he died
[3:57:05] Speaker 1: with the enemy. But I think this also is missing
[3:57:14] Speaker 1: the plot, which is that the women were the ones
[3:57:17] Speaker 1: that got raped.
[3:57:22] Speaker 6: Okay, looky, I don't have a response for the women
[3:57:24] Speaker 6: because that does sound because there's no youngjust.
[3:57:30] Speaker 1: I know there's no response for it.
[3:57:31] Speaker 5: I know.
[3:57:34] Speaker 6: Well, I feel like if we asked like a Bible scholar,
[3:57:38] Speaker 6: they could be able to respond better than me.
[3:57:41] Speaker 1: I don't think they do. I know all the responses
[3:57:43] Speaker 1: from the Bible scholars because I went to school with them.
[3:57:46] Speaker 1: They were my teachers, like when I was in school.
[3:57:51] Speaker 6: Response for like this particular passage in the second stem
[3:57:55] Speaker 6: they ignore.
[3:57:55] Speaker 1: If you go to most commentaries on the Old Testament,
[3:57:59] Speaker 1: they just ignore these difficult passages and hopes that nobody
[3:58:02] Speaker 1: else sees them.
[3:58:05] Speaker 6: Wait a seconds, andel, okay, okay, mm hmmm, yeah.
[3:58:40] Speaker 1: The commentary in my Bible says, uh, in its current context,
[3:58:45] Speaker 1: this in the following chapter reflects a I mean, that's
[3:58:50] Speaker 1: that's thirteen. There we go David's punishment. Uh, let's see,
[3:58:54] Speaker 1: there is some textual support here blah blah blah blah
[3:58:56] Speaker 1: for help and doughters and the sword David sin is transferred,
[3:59:02] Speaker 1: not put away, to his newborn son who dies because
[3:59:05] Speaker 1: of it. So uh, there's actually not a note on this.
[3:59:10] Speaker 1: It talks about all the stuff in this chapter and
[3:59:13] Speaker 1: completely ignores the fact that the women are getting get punished.
[3:59:16] Speaker 1: That's in my study Bible because the people doing these
[3:59:20] Speaker 1: commentaries aren't really interested in addressing the difficult stuff. Now,
[3:59:23] Speaker 1: I'm sure you're going to find an apologetics website that
[3:59:26] Speaker 1: talks about it, but.
[3:59:28] Speaker 3: I'm I'm on our string sin to a newborn as
[3:59:31] Speaker 3: crazy work.
[3:59:32] Speaker 1: I know, right.
[3:59:34] Speaker 6: The people here are saying it seems like what we're
[3:59:39] Speaker 6: seeing here is that David sin her multiple people as
[3:59:42] Speaker 6: sin tends to do right.
[3:59:44] Speaker 1: But then that's not a natural consequence of his sin.
[3:59:48] Speaker 1: What happened to the wives were a punishment for David sin.
[3:59:51] Speaker 1: God is the one that caused it.
[3:59:57] Speaker 6: I think like God, quote unquote caught. Is that as
[4:00:01] Speaker 6: far as like the fact that he created earth and
[4:00:04] Speaker 6: caused everything.
[4:00:06] Speaker 1: Well, then you're back at the same argument that we're
[4:00:08] Speaker 1: talking about before, which is that God shouldn't be punishing
[4:00:13] Speaker 1: every anybody for anything if God was in the cause
[4:00:16] Speaker 1: it to happen.
[4:00:20] Speaker 7: Wait, why.
[4:00:24] Speaker 1: If God caused David to sleep with Bathsheba, then why
[4:00:27] Speaker 1: is he punishing and David if he caused it.
[4:00:32] Speaker 6: I feel like we're using the word cause, like very lightly.
[4:00:36] Speaker 1: I feel like, no, do you I mean the word
[4:00:41] Speaker 1: cause isn't like a difficult word. It's the it's the
[4:00:45] Speaker 1: thing that causes another thing that like, it's it's the effect. Sorry,
[4:00:50] Speaker 1: let me find a better word for this. The cause
[4:00:53] Speaker 1: is something that is preceding the effect that the effect
[4:00:58] Speaker 1: would have happened.
[4:00:59] Speaker 3: Otherwise, if you're saying like God caused everything by creating
[4:01:05] Speaker 3: the universe, like he made a huge Rube Goldberg machine
[4:01:08] Speaker 3: and walked away. That's not the sense in which God
[4:01:12] Speaker 3: caused the grape of the women, Like he's making a
[4:01:15] Speaker 3: direct claim, like, hey, I did I'm doing this directly.
[4:01:22] Speaker 6: Okay, But what is what is like I'm doing this directly.
[4:01:27] Speaker 1: Means he's causing that God? This is this is the
[4:01:31] Speaker 1: problem with your position. You keep wanting to remove blame
[4:01:35] Speaker 1: from God for what happened to the women, But God
[4:01:38] Speaker 1: himself says I'm going to do it. He says, I'm
[4:01:43] Speaker 1: doing it God, God blames himself. So at some point
[4:01:48] Speaker 1: you have to be honest with what the words on
[4:01:50] Speaker 1: the page are saying. Yeah, is God lying when he
[4:01:59] Speaker 1: says I'm going to cause this thing to happen?
[4:02:02] Speaker 6: No, I agree with that part. Like he says that
[4:02:06] Speaker 6: he's going to like like he literally stays, I will
[4:02:09] Speaker 6: I cause.
[4:02:10] Speaker 2: This to happen.
[4:02:13] Speaker 1: So did God cause it to happen or not?
[4:02:17] Speaker 6: Like he's like he caused it to happen because David's sin.
[4:02:22] Speaker 1: Right, did God cause it to happen or not?
[4:02:27] Speaker 7: Yeah?
[4:02:28] Speaker 1: Okay, So then God is the one that caused the
[4:02:30] Speaker 1: women to be raped. It was a punishment. That's how
[4:02:33] Speaker 1: this works. And I just checked the Oxford Bible commentary
[4:02:37] Speaker 1: and they ignored the rape of the women as well.
[4:02:41] Speaker 6: Well. The point is, like, David is the one that
[4:02:43] Speaker 6: caused this to happen.
[4:02:45] Speaker 1: No, David didn't. David didn't cause the women to be raped.
[4:02:49] Speaker 1: God did.
[4:02:51] Speaker 6: Wait, David did because he's the one who's sins, So God.
[4:02:54] Speaker 1: David sins. David didn't choose the punishment.
[4:02:57] Speaker 6: God did, but the punishment was a result of his sin,
[4:03:03] Speaker 6: right right?
[4:03:03] Speaker 1: But who decided what the result of the sin would be? H?
[4:03:09] Speaker 6: God did?
[4:03:09] Speaker 1: That means God's responsible for what happened.
[4:03:15] Speaker 6: Okay, I guess that's probably disagree with them.
[4:03:18] Speaker 8: No, let me ask you this.
[4:03:19] Speaker 1: That's not where we disagree. If my son goes to
[4:03:21] Speaker 1: school and he punches another kid at school, it might
[4:03:25] Speaker 1: be true that he punched somebody at school, but that
[4:03:28] Speaker 1: doesn't mean I get to set him on fire when
[4:03:30] Speaker 1: he gets home. I'm still a bad dad if I
[4:03:33] Speaker 1: set my son on fire. Regardless if my son does
[4:03:35] Speaker 1: something bad, God is still a terrible God. If he
[4:03:39] Speaker 1: has people raped because somebody else did something.
[4:03:41] Speaker 3: Bad, you're also a bad dad. If like, instead of
[4:03:46] Speaker 3: punishing your son, you punish his brother, right, Like, think
[4:03:52] Speaker 3: about this, ray, could God have just given David a
[4:03:56] Speaker 3: direct punishment that didn't involve raping women?
[4:04:03] Speaker 6: Well, let me let me read this other guy's interpretation.
[4:04:07] Speaker 1: So, okay, what's the other guys?
[4:04:10] Speaker 6: THO? I don't know. It's just some random dude. Okay,
[4:04:15] Speaker 6: his years of names not shown?
[4:04:18] Speaker 1: Oh in the comics.
[4:04:20] Speaker 6: Yeah, okay, I'm just like reading a post. Okay, their
[4:04:27] Speaker 6: king is on the run, disgrace. They've been left behind
[4:04:30] Speaker 6: to manage the house. So this is referring to chapter sixteen.
[4:04:35] Speaker 1: And yeah, I bet your ten bucks he's about to
[4:04:37] Speaker 1: say that it was voluntary and not rape. Is he
[4:04:40] Speaker 1: about to do a rape apologetics?
[4:04:43] Speaker 6: And they said they're pretty upset that David abandoned them
[4:04:47] Speaker 6: to be killed by Absolom, and then Absolom and concubines
[4:04:52] Speaker 6: them to himself. So Abslom takes David's concubines.
[4:04:57] Speaker 1: Why did all this happen?
[4:04:59] Speaker 6: And and then instead of being murdered, they managed to
[4:05:03] Speaker 6: get their former job back under new management.
[4:05:07] Speaker 2: That happens.
[4:05:12] Speaker 3: It is like, that's a labor of lucifer right there.
[4:05:16] Speaker 3: If I've ever seen one.
[4:05:18] Speaker 6: Because I mean hear what happened was they went from
[4:05:22] Speaker 6: being concubines to David to being concubines to Absolom.
[4:05:26] Speaker 1: Right, no, they weren't. And in chapter twenty the women
[4:05:32] Speaker 1: are are back under David's authority and they are being
[4:05:37] Speaker 1: put away because David can no longer sleep with them
[4:05:41] Speaker 1: because they're they've been defiled. According to Deuteronomy twenty four,
[4:05:49] Speaker 1: if they voluntarily slept with Absolom, they would have been murdered.
[4:05:53] Speaker 1: The penalty for adultery is murder. Oh so there were.
[4:06:06] Speaker 6: That's like a detail I didn't think about.
[4:06:11] Speaker 1: Hmmm, listen, I know this is a difficult passage. I
[4:06:14] Speaker 1: know this is probably your first time thinking about this
[4:06:17] Speaker 1: thing in depth. And I know right now that like
[4:06:19] Speaker 1: you're you're desperately like fighting to not admit that God
[4:06:24] Speaker 1: did something bad. But I really hope that you think
[4:06:27] Speaker 1: about this over the next few days and ask yourself
[4:06:31] Speaker 1: why you're so unwilling to be honest with the text
[4:06:34] Speaker 1: just to preserve your dogma. Like if you read this
[4:06:41] Speaker 1: in the Qoran, would you be bending over backwards to
[4:06:43] Speaker 1: find a way that it wasn't so bad, or would
[4:06:45] Speaker 1: you just say that's horseshit.
[4:06:48] Speaker 6: Oh, I'm not sure. I feel like I don't. I
[4:06:53] Speaker 6: wouldn't accept things in the Koran for like other reasons.
[4:06:56] Speaker 1: But right what I'm saying is you're giving a special
[4:06:59] Speaker 1: pass to this text because you believe in this religion,
[4:07:03] Speaker 1: but you wouldn't give a pass to any other Holy book.
[4:07:05] Speaker 1: Like in second five in the Book of Mormon, says
[4:07:09] Speaker 1: that God made people's skin dark as a punishment so
[4:07:13] Speaker 1: that they would no longer be white and delightsome, and
[4:07:16] Speaker 1: they wouldn't be enticing to his people. If you read
[4:07:19] Speaker 1: that in the Bible, you'd be finding a reason to
[4:07:22] Speaker 1: justify it. But the fact that it's in the Book
[4:07:24] Speaker 1: of Mormon, you can just say, well, that's horseshit.
[4:07:27] Speaker 6: Right, Wait, that does sound pretty bad.
[4:07:33] Speaker 1: It sounds just as bad as the text we're reading now, right.
[4:07:38] Speaker 1: So the fact matter is when it's in another Holy book,
[4:07:42] Speaker 1: you're very capable of saying, well, that's horrible, But when
[4:07:47] Speaker 1: it's in the Bible, you're going to bend over backwards
[4:07:49] Speaker 1: to justify it. You're not being intellectually honest with all
[4:07:53] Speaker 1: the books. You're giving one book special treatment.
[4:07:57] Speaker 6: Okay, I guess one more small point about like the
[4:08:00] Speaker 6: concubines that these people are bringing up. Uh he said that. Okay, actually,
[4:08:10] Speaker 6: never mind, this is probably okay, this doesn't get me canceled.
[4:08:13] Speaker 6: I'm not going to refeat this guy.
[4:08:15] Speaker 1: Don't listen, don't reading randos on the Internet's not not
[4:08:20] Speaker 1: a great path anyways.
[4:08:23] Speaker 3: Yeah, let's not do the misogyny during Women's History Month?
[4:08:27] Speaker 6: Right, Okay, but I feel like, wait, is it Women's
[4:08:33] Speaker 6: History Month?
[4:08:34] Speaker 1: Holy shit?
[4:08:36] Speaker 3: I didn't.
[4:08:37] Speaker 1: How come no one told me listen, I'm going to
[4:08:39] Speaker 1: be doing I'm going to be doing feminist talking points
[4:08:43] Speaker 1: all month now, thank you for letting.
[4:08:45] Speaker 3: Me know, got you, fam.
[4:08:50] Speaker 6: Okay, Yeah, do you have like any like quick points
[4:08:52] Speaker 6: you could talk about in a new Testament? Because I
[4:08:54] Speaker 6: feel like I could probably explain those better.
[4:08:58] Speaker 1: Sure what kind of thing testament?
[4:09:02] Speaker 3: I am going to transfigure myself into a fumpkin?
[4:09:07] Speaker 1: That's right, Jeff. I'm going to bed after this, guess too.
[4:09:09] Speaker 1: I'm getting tired.
[4:09:11] Speaker 3: I'll tell with you later.
[4:09:13] Speaker 1: Justin thank you so much for Jeff. Great, have a
[4:09:17] Speaker 1: great night.
[4:09:18] Speaker 4: Guys.
[4:09:18] Speaker 1: Make sure you're following Jeff if you're not already following Jeff.
[4:09:22] Speaker 1: All right, so we talk about this passage a lot
[4:09:25] Speaker 1: because it's one of my favorite passages from the New Testament,
[4:09:28] Speaker 1: and I think it kind of clearly demonstrates the problem
[4:09:33] Speaker 1: with Jesus. In Matthew sixteen, Jesus talks about his second
[4:09:39] Speaker 1: coming and he says, let me grab this is a
[4:09:43] Speaker 1: more exact wording. He says, the son of Man will
[4:09:48] Speaker 1: come with the glory of his angels. I'm sorry, but
[4:09:52] Speaker 1: in the glory of his Father, with his angels, and
[4:09:54] Speaker 1: then he will reward each according to his works. Assuredly.
[4:09:58] Speaker 1: I say to you, there are some state here who
[4:10:01] Speaker 1: shall not taste death before they see the Son of
[4:10:03] Speaker 1: Man coming in his kingdom. So Jesus basically just predicting
[4:10:07] Speaker 1: that his second coming is going to happen before all
[4:10:12] Speaker 1: of these people standing there are dead.
[4:10:17] Speaker 6: Truly, I say, there is some sending who don't taste
[4:10:19] Speaker 6: that until they see the sun men coming in his kingdom.
[4:10:24] Speaker 1: Okay, And this is described pretty clearly in Matthew twenty four.
[4:10:30] Speaker 1: Matthew twenty five. He says, when the Son of Man
[4:10:33] Speaker 1: comes in his glory with all the angels. Well, if
[4:10:37] Speaker 1: you go to Matthew twenty five you can see what
[4:10:42] Speaker 1: that means. So in Matthew twenty five down in thirty one,
[4:10:47] Speaker 1: he says, when the Son of Man comes in his
[4:10:49] Speaker 1: glory and all the holy angels with him, same thing
[4:10:51] Speaker 1: he said before. He will sit on the throne of
[4:10:54] Speaker 1: his glory, and all the nations will be gathered before him,
[4:10:57] Speaker 1: and he will separate them one from another as a
[4:10:59] Speaker 1: shepherd separates I'm sorry, divides his sheep from the goat.
[4:11:02] Speaker 1: So that's the second coming, that's the judgment.
[4:11:07] Speaker 6: Uh huh so and then mm hmm. So the epy
[4:11:12] Speaker 6: here is because he said that there's some standing here
[4:11:16] Speaker 6: who went on to his step until they see this
[4:11:18] Speaker 6: on the mankh like that part.
[4:11:21] Speaker 4: M hm.
[4:11:22] Speaker 1: He actually does this on three different occasions too. This
[4:11:24] Speaker 1: is not an isolated.
[4:11:25] Speaker 6: Incident, Okay, okay, low key. Yeah, it's a tough one.
[4:11:43] Speaker 6: A long ex.
[4:11:49] Speaker 9: Man.
[4:11:53] Speaker 1: We covered a lot of ground today, Ray, I don't think.
[4:12:00] Speaker 6: Okay, it's like a whole article about this specific I
[4:12:05] Speaker 6: know passage and like that's the quote, but I already
[4:12:08] Speaker 6: want to read this.
[4:12:10] Speaker 1: I already sew all the bad apologetics for it. E' freadom.
[4:12:14] Speaker 6: Okay, what's like, what's like the apologetic for that like
[4:12:18] Speaker 6: thought verse that.
[4:12:19] Speaker 1: You know, there's like three different apologetics. The first apologetic
[4:12:23] Speaker 1: is that it's not referring to his second coming, but
[4:12:25] Speaker 1: it clearly is, because every time Jesus talks about his
[4:12:28] Speaker 1: second coming, it's exactly as described here, identical to what's
[4:12:32] Speaker 1: described here actually, so we know it's about the second coming.
[4:12:35] Speaker 1: Some people will say, well, it's referring to the second death,
[4:12:39] Speaker 1: not the physical death, but that can't be true because
[4:12:41] Speaker 1: in Revelation twenty one, the second death doesn't come until
[4:12:44] Speaker 1: after the second Coming, so chronologically it doesn't work out.
[4:12:48] Speaker 1: Some people will say, well, you know, as it turned out,
[4:12:51] Speaker 1: John is still alive. Yeah, listen, if you think the
[4:12:53] Speaker 1: apostle John is still alive, you got a lot of problems.
[4:12:56] Speaker 1: But also, the word some doesn't mean one. He said, surely,
[4:12:59] Speaker 1: I say to you, there are some standing here who
[4:13:01] Speaker 1: will not take death, meaning there has to be more
[4:13:03] Speaker 1: than one of them that is still alive when Jesus
[4:13:06] Speaker 1: comes back. So those are the usual talking points. There's
[4:13:11] Speaker 1: one other talking point that says that it's referring to
[4:13:14] Speaker 1: the transfiguration, but none of this happened at the transfiguration.
[4:13:19] Speaker 1: Jesus didn't come in the glory of his father with
[4:13:21] Speaker 1: all of his angels, and you know, punish everybody for
[4:13:24] Speaker 1: their works, or reward them according to their works.
[4:13:29] Speaker 6: Okay, I'm just going to read this part says in
[4:13:32] Speaker 6: order to come to me to understand the saying, we
[4:13:35] Speaker 6: must again be reminded that when Jesus speaks of the
[4:13:38] Speaker 6: coming of the Son of Man, he's purposely, purposefully alluding
[4:13:42] Speaker 6: to Daniel seventh thirteen through fourteen.
[4:13:44] Speaker 1: Yep, I agree.
[4:13:46] Speaker 6: And then we must recall that the coming of the
[4:13:48] Speaker 6: Son of Man and Daniel seven is set within the
[4:13:51] Speaker 6: judgment seen before the throne of God. Yes, unlike this
[4:13:54] Speaker 6: when Matthew ten twenty three, the saying in sixteen twenty
[4:13:58] Speaker 6: eight is found in the media, it context the words
[4:14:02] Speaker 6: regarding judgment. So the point that Jesus when he says
[4:14:05] Speaker 6: that there are some sending here who will not die
[4:14:08] Speaker 6: before they see the Us on the man coming in
[4:14:10] Speaker 6: this kingdom, is that there are some to whom he's
[4:14:13] Speaker 6: speaking who will not die before the prophecy of.
[4:14:17] Speaker 1: Of dating nailed it. This receiver, Yep, we're in violent agreement.
[4:14:32] Speaker 8: Uh.
[4:14:35] Speaker 6: Wait, is this article supporting me or against me?
[4:14:42] Speaker 1: Is agree with what I said?
[4:14:46] Speaker 3: Wait?
[4:14:47] Speaker 6: Okay, here's the next paragraph. Okay, never mind? Uh I
[4:14:53] Speaker 6: wish they were like shorter.
[4:15:04] Speaker 3: I get it.
[4:15:04] Speaker 1: Well, listen, Ray, it's it's getting late, and I don't
[4:15:10] Speaker 1: know if you might want to take some time and
[4:15:13] Speaker 1: read some sources on this and come back. I'll be
[4:15:16] Speaker 1: live again on Wednesday and Friday and Sunday, you know,
[4:15:21] Speaker 1: roughly the same time, around six o'clock. Come back anytime
[4:15:24] Speaker 1: you want to. I'd love to go over some of
[4:15:26] Speaker 1: the apologetics that you learn for these passages, and we
[4:15:30] Speaker 1: can talk about the apologetic responses. I'll let you know
[4:15:33] Speaker 1: ahead of time. I already know what they are. I
[4:15:35] Speaker 1: already know what they are, and I already have responses
[4:15:36] Speaker 1: to all of them. But I would love to continue
[4:15:40] Speaker 1: this conversation.
[4:15:42] Speaker 6: Oh all right, all right, all right, thanks for letting
[4:15:44] Speaker 6: me come up. Sure thing, come back, but we'll see
[4:15:48] Speaker 6: if I can find you again.
[4:15:51] Speaker 1: That's right, all right, have a good one, yeah, chat,
[4:15:55] Speaker 1: You're right. He was a nice kid. I was so
[4:15:57] Speaker 1: painful to watch him go through that level of cognitive
[4:16:00] Speaker 1: dissonance because I I don't want him to do that.
[4:16:03] Speaker 1: I want him to be able to be honest with
[4:16:06] Speaker 1: what the text says, rather than try to turn himself
[4:16:11] Speaker 1: into pretzels. But it is what it is little penguin,
[4:16:15] Speaker 1: thank you so much for the super chat. Big w says,
[4:16:17] Speaker 1: referencing other gods would, in Exous twenty two suggest that
[4:16:21] Speaker 1: there are other gods just by saying no other gods
[4:16:24] Speaker 1: before me. Yes, that that is the case, And I've
[4:16:27] Speaker 1: got one even better for you. If you go to
[4:16:29] Speaker 1: Exis chapter twelve, he tells you there are other gods.
[4:16:34] Speaker 1: He says, he's going to judge the gods of Egypt. Right,
[4:16:38] Speaker 1: give me a second, find it. She should be right
[4:16:41] Speaker 1: about here. There we go, Yeah, twelve twelve. So I
[4:16:48] Speaker 1: will pass through. I will pass through the land of
[4:16:52] Speaker 1: Egypt on that night, and I will strike all the
[4:16:54] Speaker 1: first born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast,
[4:16:58] Speaker 1: against and against all the gods of Egypt. I will
[4:17:02] Speaker 1: execute judgment. So the Old Testament is more henotheistic than monotheistic.
[4:17:09] Speaker 1: But you're right, you nailed it. Not putting any other
[4:17:12] Speaker 1: gods before me implies that there are other gods to
[4:17:14] Speaker 1: put before him, and Evan thank you for the supertest Is.
[4:17:18] Speaker 1: Apparently God is beyond our understanding in cor in corporeal
[4:17:23] Speaker 1: ether reel. But his gender, I'm sorry, has gender, and
[4:17:27] Speaker 1: he's male. Religion might be man made, but no foreskins.
[4:17:30] Speaker 1: Damn it. So I did a background I haven't ran
[4:17:35] Speaker 1: it yet, basically saying that God is as trans so
[4:17:39] Speaker 1: we can specifically top talk about this topic, which is
[4:17:43] Speaker 1: the Bible in Christianity is hell bent on making sure
[4:17:46] Speaker 1: that God is a man. But it also Christians also
[4:17:54] Speaker 1: think that he's immaterial. So you can't have a gender
[4:17:59] Speaker 1: and be immaterial unless you want to rethink what you
[4:18:02] Speaker 1: think gender is. I'm a shame. Thank you for the
[4:18:05] Speaker 1: five dollars, super thanks. I really appreciate that. And Jmi again,
[4:18:09] Speaker 1: thank you so much for the ten hour. Super Chest
[4:18:10] Speaker 1: says you're going to party like a banger rager and
[4:18:14] Speaker 1: you have to choose one typical character to take with you.
[4:18:17] Speaker 1: Who do you go with?
[4:18:18] Speaker 4: And why?
[4:18:19] Speaker 1: Okay, give me a second to think on that, because
[4:18:20] Speaker 1: that's a really good question. If I've got to go
[4:18:23] Speaker 1: to a party and I get to pick one typical
[4:18:26] Speaker 1: character to go with me, m m mmmmm, there's a
[4:18:32] Speaker 1: lot of fun people in the Bible that I could
[4:18:34] Speaker 1: take with me. I'm thinking, I'm thinking maybe.
[4:18:41] Speaker 2: I'm gonna go with j L.
[4:18:44] Speaker 1: J L might be the biggest badass in the Bible.
[4:18:47] Speaker 1: Just the fact that she's like willing to lure in
[4:18:51] Speaker 1: like the enemy into her tent in the middle of
[4:18:54] Speaker 1: an army or a middle of a battle with an
[4:18:57] Speaker 1: invading army, and then like, oh, you know, we'll wait
[4:19:01] Speaker 1: for him to fall asleep and stab them in the
[4:19:03] Speaker 1: head and brutally murder them. She's some kind of badass
[4:19:07] Speaker 1: for sure. So maybe I would take jail. We'll see.
[4:19:12] Speaker 1: That's a tough question. There's so many other options that
[4:19:14] Speaker 1: I think would be good too. Thank you for the question.
[4:19:18] Speaker 1: All right, Small Johnson again says, will God's wrath be
[4:19:23] Speaker 1: fiery foreskins falling from heaven? Could you imagine like that
[4:19:32] Speaker 1: that talking Lama's cartoon just foreskins on fire falling from heaven?
[4:19:39] Speaker 1: Lama just saying, car Oh boy, yeah, I can. I
[4:19:49] Speaker 1: can envision it if you. If you guys don't know
[4:19:51] Speaker 1: Lamas with Hats, make sure you look it up. It's
[4:19:53] Speaker 1: a wonderful nostalgic series. At this point, Lama's with Hats
[4:19:59] Speaker 1: is one of my favorites, though, Space Lords. Thank you
[4:20:01] Speaker 1: for the super chat, says in response to the free
[4:20:04] Speaker 1: will defense. If God doesn't intervene to stop evil because
[4:20:07] Speaker 1: he wants to allow free will Why do we intervene?
[4:20:10] Speaker 1: Do we know better than God? Such a good point
[4:20:13] Speaker 1: and I don't bring it up often enough, but you're right.
[4:20:16] Speaker 1: If God, if God, if God isn't intervening in evil,
[4:20:24] Speaker 1: then why would we expect that we should intervene in
[4:20:28] Speaker 1: the evil. It's a really good question, and I think
[4:20:31] Speaker 1: it kind of shows the problem with the thought process.
[4:20:35] Speaker 1: Jmr again, thank you so much. I really appreciate the
[4:20:38] Speaker 1: super chat. Buddy says, thank you Almighty Doug for blessing
[4:20:41] Speaker 1: us with your holy compassion and late night cuddles. Big
[4:20:45] Speaker 1: w He says, please forgive these Christians for worshiping Paul
[4:20:48] Speaker 1: and forgetting the previous seven hundred and fourteen pages. PS
[4:20:52] Speaker 1: love you chat.
[4:20:55] Speaker 8: We do.
[4:20:55] Speaker 1: We're so overdue. We really need to. We need to
[4:21:00] Speaker 1: do a topic on you're not a real Christian, you're
[4:21:04] Speaker 1: a Paul Paul follower or something of that nature. I
[4:21:07] Speaker 1: think that would be pretty good because most Christians don't
[4:21:10] Speaker 1: realize that Paul and Jesus disagree. Evan says Appslom should
[4:21:13] Speaker 1: have been looked at the Oh my God, he should
[4:21:17] Speaker 1: have been looking at the trees. You're one hundred percent right.
[4:21:23] Speaker 1: I didn't click our look at the trees counter. I
[4:21:25] Speaker 1: need to click it, but I don't think I have
[4:21:26] Speaker 1: it on this stream. ZM, thank you so much for
[4:21:30] Speaker 1: the Supertit says, I've learned a lot from you. Well,
[4:21:32] Speaker 1: I really appreciate that. I'm going to try to keep
[4:21:34] Speaker 1: learning more so I can we can all grow together.
[4:21:38] Speaker 1: And watching the Nation says do you you know Gutley
[4:21:41] Speaker 1: or Goot von Slut. I don't, but I feel like
[4:21:47] Speaker 1: this is a joke that I'm unaware of, and now
[4:21:49] Speaker 1: I want to know what goot von sloot means. If
[4:21:52] Speaker 1: I google this, am I going to get taken down?
[4:21:54] Speaker 1: Do you guys know what this means? You guys know
[4:21:57] Speaker 1: I'm a boomer. There's lots of stuff I don't know.
[4:22:00] Speaker 1: I'm afraid to google this. Vootfon slute sounds terrible. It's
[4:22:10] Speaker 1: not googleble either. I don't know what it means, but
[4:22:12] Speaker 1: it sounds dirty. I want to start using that for
[4:22:15] Speaker 1: dirty names. Goovan Slut and walking Bones. Thank you so
[4:22:18] Speaker 1: much for the supertest. I just want to chat to
[4:22:20] Speaker 1: imagine making scale armor out of foreskins. At the end
[4:22:24] Speaker 1: of the night, God's got so many foreskins, guys, think
[4:22:30] Speaker 1: of all the things you can do with a foreskin
[4:22:34] Speaker 1: if you're God and you've got an infinite amount of foreskins,
[4:22:37] Speaker 1: Which brings me to Noah again. Thank you for the supertest,
[4:22:41] Speaker 1: says Rumpel stilt skin spun straw into gold. Maybe God
[4:22:45] Speaker 1: wants the wrinkled foreskins to turn water into golden showers. Oh, oh, God,
[4:22:52] Speaker 1: we went from foreskins to golden showers. I did not
[4:22:57] Speaker 1: I did not know that it would take this turn
[4:23:00] Speaker 1: the conversation and starting to take the piss out of me,
[4:23:03] Speaker 1: as they say, pun intended. This is a wild turn
[4:23:07] Speaker 1: of situation here at this point. So I want to
[4:23:11] Speaker 1: God did invent the rain in all showers, and obviously
[4:23:16] Speaker 1: foreskins as well, So I have to conclude that, yeah,
[4:23:22] Speaker 1: he certainly could send down a rain of foreskins. He
[4:23:26] Speaker 1: did send things from the heavens to the earth during
[4:23:30] Speaker 1: the during the episode of Sodom and Gomorrah. Who's to say,
[4:23:35] Speaker 1: Who's to say that foreskins weren't weren't part of the showers?
[4:23:39] Speaker 1: I mean, think about this, God, God wanted Abraham to
[4:23:44] Speaker 1: snip the tip and when when he rained down fire
[4:23:48] Speaker 1: from heaven, what better of a reminder to remind Abraham
[4:23:52] Speaker 1: not to be wicked like the Sodomites than to include
[4:23:55] Speaker 1: a barrage of foreskins with the destruction of Sodom perfect sentpse.
[4:24:01] Speaker 1: I don't see a problem with this logic. And last one,
[4:24:04] Speaker 1: thank you JMR so much for the super chit, he says,
[4:24:06] Speaker 1: bro I'm eating I hope you're not eating tips right now.
[4:24:10] Speaker 1: We could make that a new cereal, though. I feel
[4:24:14] Speaker 1: like something about tips could definitely be a name of
[4:24:17] Speaker 1: a new cereal. What would we call it? But what
[4:24:21] Speaker 1: would you call it? Breakfast cereal? About foreskins? That's the
[4:24:25] Speaker 1: question of the week. It's crazy, this conversation has gone
[4:24:29] Speaker 1: so far off the rails. Just tips, Oh my god.
[4:24:36] Speaker 14: Oh all right, okay, guys, skin thins, Holy shit, skin thins,
[4:24:48] Speaker 14: skin thins.
[4:24:49] Speaker 1: I listen. That's the flaky tips. Oh my god. What
[4:24:57] Speaker 1: frosted tips. Frosted tips. This is wild, This is wild.
[4:25:02] Speaker 1: These are these These are some of the best names
[4:25:06] Speaker 1: I've heard of. Sugar tips. Oh yeah, definitely, definitely sugar tips.
[4:25:11] Speaker 1: Oh my gosh. Okay, okay, you got a lot of
[4:25:14] Speaker 1: good ones here. They're they're on sale by them now
[4:25:17] Speaker 1: before they're gone. And last, super jest everlasting gop shopper,
[4:25:21] Speaker 1: thank you so much, says I find it so hilarious.
[4:25:23] Speaker 1: The Catholic Church has debates about what happened to the
[4:25:27] Speaker 1: Jesus foreskin after his ascension. Someone actually claimed that the
[4:25:31] Speaker 1: Holy foreskin came or became the rings of Saturday. Here.
[4:25:34] Speaker 1: I'm sent right, I dontally forgot about that, Tippios. We've
[4:25:41] Speaker 1: got more cereals coming in. These are amazing suggestions. Tippio's
[4:25:45] Speaker 1: crispy tips. Oh, flaming foreskins. That'd be like the like
[4:25:50] Speaker 1: the uh what are they like the pig rhinds, like
[4:25:54] Speaker 1: the flaming pig rynds. Flaming foreskins.
[4:25:57] Speaker 2: Uh.
[4:25:58] Speaker 1: You can also compare the probably look a like Chitlin's
[4:26:00] Speaker 1: if you've ever ever seen that rumpel foreskins. Frosted foreskins. Yeah,
[4:26:05] Speaker 1: like these cinnamon tip crunt that's it. You won, Johnson.
[4:26:13] Speaker 1: Jason Johnson just won cinnamon tip crunch. That's the best.
[4:26:17] Speaker 1: I don't know if you that could be topped. Cinnamon
[4:26:21] Speaker 1: tip crunch is off the chain. I'm gonna buy some
[4:26:25] Speaker 1: cinnamon tip crunch for sure. It's wild alrighty, I got
[4:26:31] Speaker 1: I gotta get oh, I gotta go, guys, stop sending
[4:26:35] Speaker 1: me supper. James Chubbyos, fucking Chubbyos is wild. I listen,
[4:26:44] Speaker 1: I will definitely pour a bowl of Chubbyo's. Oh my god,
[4:26:54] Speaker 1: is wild, guys, is wild? Tip loops. I'll go with
[4:26:57] Speaker 1: some tip loops and j Mri kidd, I really appreciate
[4:27:00] Speaker 1: all the supertest. Jmbri says, just add condensed milk. That's so,
[4:27:06] Speaker 1: that's so bad condensed. I see what you're saying there,
[4:27:11] Speaker 1: but I can't say the words. I'm going to get
[4:27:12] Speaker 1: my live stream band. But yeah, uh condensed milks and
[4:27:19] Speaker 1: snipped tips. Yeah, definitely definitely. All right, guys, listen, who's
[4:27:25] Speaker 1: live right now that we can go raid? Is anyone
[4:27:26] Speaker 1: live right now?
[4:27:29] Speaker 6: Let me see who's live.
[4:27:34] Speaker 1: Someone's gotta be live that we can go raid? All right?
[4:27:42] Speaker 4: Man?
[4:27:42] Speaker 1: I hate this website. The TikTok like website is the worst.
[4:27:48] Speaker 1: You can you can never get to where you're going,
[4:27:50] Speaker 1: and every time you log in the menus different. I
[4:27:52] Speaker 1: just want to see who's live. TikTok, show me who's live? Okay,
[4:27:56] Speaker 1: there you go. We got some people that are live
[4:27:58] Speaker 1: right now?
[4:28:00] Speaker 9: Uh?
[4:28:03] Speaker 1: Interesting? Interesting? Not a ton of people live right now actually,
[4:28:08] Speaker 1: which is interesting. Tiny Smalls is live. Oh snap, okay,
[4:28:13] Speaker 1: Tiny Smalls is live. Definitely. Let's go say a hi
[4:28:18] Speaker 1: to Tiny Smalls. If you haven't known Tiny Smalls, Tiny
[4:28:20] Speaker 1: Smalls does a lot of religious debates and he's on
[4:28:24] Speaker 1: the philosophical side of things. Let me put him on
[4:28:26] Speaker 1: the screen for everyone if you're not familiar with my
[4:28:29] Speaker 1: friend Tiny Smalls. He used to go by Tiny's beard
[4:28:32] Speaker 1: at one point because his account got banned like everybody else.
[4:28:36] Speaker 1: But this is the account to follow, guys right here,
[4:28:39] Speaker 1: Tiny Smalls, I see forty six people in the live stream.
[4:28:43] Speaker 1: We got to get that thing open. He's having a
[4:28:44] Speaker 1: good discussion right now in the live stream, saying I
[4:28:47] Speaker 1: don't know what a god is, and I don't think
[4:28:50] Speaker 1: you know too. Such a great title. All right, we
[4:28:55] Speaker 1: got forty nine people in the room. Let's bump this
[4:28:57] Speaker 1: thing up. Let's get this thing at least up over
[4:28:59] Speaker 1: seventy five. I want to see one hundred people in
[4:29:01] Speaker 1: this room. We've got like, how many people are watching
[4:29:03] Speaker 1: this on TikTok right now. We've got almost five hundred
[4:29:07] Speaker 1: people on TikTok, got eight hundred something people on YouTube.
[4:29:11] Speaker 1: Let's band together let's support our creators in the community.
[4:29:15] Speaker 1: Go find tiny Smalls. The handle is tiny Underscore Science
[4:29:21] Speaker 1: goes by Tiny Smalls. We're at seventy five. Can we
[4:29:24] Speaker 1: get to one hundred? Can we get to one hundred?
[4:29:26] Speaker 1: Seventy seven? Let's bump it up, guys. Let's everyone run
[4:29:29] Speaker 1: over and say we got a deconstruction zone raid coming
[4:29:33] Speaker 1: into the Tiny Small space. Let's go. Let's get this
[4:29:36] Speaker 1: thing over one hundred. I'll be joining you in just
[4:29:39] Speaker 1: a minute. In fact, I'll be playing the Tiny Smalls
[4:29:41] Speaker 1: live as I'm getting ready to lay my head down
[4:29:45] Speaker 1: and sleep for the night. We're at ninety three, guys,
[4:29:48] Speaker 1: we're so close ninety five. We only need five more. Please,
[4:29:50] Speaker 1: let's get over there. Ninety nine and we're at it.
[4:29:53] Speaker 1: We're at it, come on, just get it. Let's go
[4:29:55] Speaker 1: one hundred and two. All right, guys, I'll see you
[4:29:56] Speaker 1: over there in just a minute. Thank you so much
[4:29:58] Speaker 1: for all the likes, the shares, and the comments and
[4:30:02] Speaker 1: the gifts and all the subscriptions and all the super chats.
[4:30:06] Speaker 1: I really appreciate that. And we'll see you again in
[4:30:09] Speaker 1: a couple of nights.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.